Goodbye, little man (was: anti-IDist asks who is DNAunion?)

From: Huxter4441@aol.com
Date: Tue Oct 24 2000 - 09:27:37 EDT

  • Next message: Bertvan@aol.com: "petty bickering academics"

    In a message dated 10/23/00 5:36:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
    DNAunion@aol.com writes:

    << >> DNAunion: An anti-IDist e-mailed a question to me *privately*. When I
     tried to repsond directly to that one person, *privately*, I could not
     because he or she had "killfiled" or otherwise blocked me. Therefore, since
     I assume the person really did want an answer, I will post my reply publicly
     - so that he or she can read it from the Calvin archives - but will refrain
     from revealing his/her actual identity.
     
     ======================
    >>>Huxter: Actually, I de-killfiled you,
     ======================
     
     DNAunion: Nope, not when I tried to reply to your question: I received an
     error message stating that the recipient had blocked e-mails from me. Why
     would you ask me questions that appear to inquisitive, and not rhetorical,
     and then prevent me from answering?

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yup. Maybe the timing was off, but I did indeed de-killfile you. Of course,
    I shortly thereafter re-killfiled you, for obvious reasons.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     
     ====================
    >>>Huxter: … hoping you would not do something like this - make a spectacle
     in an attempt to sound important.
     ====================
     
     DNAunion: Where did I try to make myself sound important? Was it the part
     where I said I don't expect others to accept my word at face value?
     
     I formulated my reply directly to you and tried to send it - your block
     prevented that. Assuming you actually were asking me these questions and
     were wanting a response, I changed things like "yours" to "theirs" and such,
     but otherwise posted it "as is", publicly, with no name associated with the
     questioner.
     
     If there are two possible means of communicating with you - privately and
     publicly - and you block the private way, and then I respond to a question
     you asked me the only other way, why would you accuse me of wrong doing?
     Keep in mind that I did not specify you by name even once in my post.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    Don't be foolish. You are as transparent as Dembski's Design Inference. You
    are not quite as clever as you think.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

     
     ====================
    >>>Huxter: I have already 'revealed' my identity.
     ====================
     
     DNAunion: I know. But the ironic thing is that it is YOU who identified
     yourself here as the person who asked me the questions, not me. Anyone
    could
     have been curious enough to ask who I was and what my publications were - it
     didn't have to be you. Richard could have asked, or FMAJ, or Chris Cogan,
    or
     SeJones, or Susan, etc… The identity of the questioner was unknown until
    YOU
     replied publicly acknowledging that it was you.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++
    Your point?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

     
     ====================
    >>>Huxter: I find it most informative that you are wont not to do the
    same.
     ====================
     
     DNAunion: How long did you protect your anonymity? Must I reveal my name
     the same day you do?

    ++++++++++++++++++++
    Of course not. But then, it was you that posted my citations and asked me if
    I was this or that. If I were you, I wouldn't reveal my identity anyway.
    What is that Abe Lincoln saying?
    ++++++++++++++++++++
     
    >>>DNAunion: [anti-IDist who blocked me] Who are you and what are your
     publications?
     
     =======================
     Huxter: This of course was in response to DNAunions silly 'attempt' to find
     out if I was someone on another message board. Notice that he did not paste
     that part.
     ======================
     
     DNAunion: I notice that you still don't deny being Pantrog (twice now I
    have
     asked, and twice you have given no response). All you did here was try to
     deflect my question by making me look like a bad guy, because I made a
    "silly
     'attempt'" to find out if you were Pantrog. Let's combine your non-answer
     here with your other reply to me on this (Huxter: "I'll take that to mean
    you
     have none...."). So lack of an answer is, according to Huxter, an answer in
     itself. By his own criteria, since Huxter did not provide me/us with an
     answer to my question, we should be able to conclude that he is Pantrog (at
     least, if we are allowed to apply the same logic as he did).

    +++++++++++++++++++++
    You're a regular Sherlock Holmes! Yup, I was Pantrog and Pangloss at ARN.
    And you were the same malevolent, arrogant, insulting loud mouth there as you
    have been here and at Metacrock's. You should notice, however, that unlike
    you, I did not 1) post under more than one name at one time and 2) I never
    refered to a post by another and heaped accolades on it, as you did
    repeatedly at Metacrock's. Furthermore, the reason I used the Pantrog name
    at ARN was because I had been banned as Pangloss for asking the thin-skinned
    moderator why he was so biased in his moderation policy. Paul Nelson allowed
    me to come back, but because of the software they were using, I had to
    register under a different name. I believe that I explained that at ARN more
    than once.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     
     Next issue. It was YOU Huxter who did not include that part first, in your
     one-line post to me, to which I was replying. Put the blame for this
     "omission" where it belongs, Huxter. Besides, had I gone out of the way to
     look up that material from a different e-mail and included it, that would
     have tied YOU *directly* to the [anti-IDist who blocked me]. I did all I
     could to avoid your being directly related to that person (again, Richard
     Wein or anyone else on this board might have read my other post to you and
     decided to ask who I was or what my publications were. Others couldn't have
     known who the "mystery anti-IDist" actually was until you revealed it
     yourself).

    ++++++++++++++++
    Give me a break....
    ++++++++++++++++
     
    >>>DNAunion: Just as others here and elsewhere wish to protect their
     identity, so do I, so I will not explictly reveal who I am, nor will I do
     anything that would identify who I am indirectly. All I will say is that my
     two areas of study in college were biology and computer information systems.
     
     I believe my
      full qualifications are irrelevant as long as I can back up my statements
     with valid scientific material.
     
     ========================
    >>Huxter: True, to an extent. But I've yet to really see any from you.
     'Peabrain' and the like hardly qualify. I will conclude that you began as a
     biology major, then became an engineer of some sort. I've seen this sort of
     vague 'biosketch' before and that it was happened then. Of course, I expect
     a snotty 'rebuttal' saying that I don't what I'm talking about and so on...
     ========================
     
     DNAunion: I don't need to be snotty, but you are wrong. CIS came first,
     then biology; not the other way around.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Well, I stand corrected...
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

     
     ========================
    >>>Huxter: Then again, I am re-kill-filing the anonymous DNAunion after
     this.
     ========================
     
     DNAunion: No biggy. I won't lose any sleep over this.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Me neither. In fact, I will rest easier not having to delete multiple junk
    emails from trash-talking anonymous intenet pseudo-experts.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     
     ========================
    >>>Huxter: I wonder if Steve Jones will try to 'shame' DNAunion into
     'revealing' his true identity, as he tried to do with me? Nahhh - they are
     fellow anti-'Darwinists'....
     ========================
     
     DNAunion: It is immaterial who does the asking, the answer will still be
    the
     same.
     
    >>>DNAunion: Does it really matter if I "flip hamburgers at McDonalds" if I
     can present *mainstream* material that shows that enantiomeric cross
     inhibition is a real issue for the purely-natural origin of life on Earth?
     
     ===================
    >>>Huxter: Wow. I'm sure the lurkers are impressed with your accumen.
    What
     non-insulting material you have posted seems to be at most selective and
     biased interpretation.
     ===================
     
     DNAunion: Care to back that up?

    ++++++++++++++++++++
    No, I do not care to. I have deleted all of your old messages anyway. They
    were irrelevant.
    +++++++++++++++++++
     
     ===================
    >>Huxter: However, since you tend to harp on the origin of life and not
     evolution per se, I really have nothing to say to you.
     ===================
     
     DNAunion: No biggy. I won't lose any sleep over this.

    +++++++++++++++++++
    Nor I. And neither will anyone else who will doubtless never see any of your
    amazing scientific insights in print anywhere.
    +++++++++++++++++++
     
    >>DNAunion: I don't expect people to necessarily accept my word for
     something (which is one reason I typically quote a lot), as I don't accept
     their own if it does not "jive" with what information I have been exposed
    to.
      It is the ability or inability to back up one's position that makes or
     breaks the argument, not their identity. (Of course, there are also times
     when inference, and not fact, enter the picture, in which case those on both
     sides are free to come to their own conclusions). >>
     
     =======================
    >>Huxter: I knew there was a reason I had blocked 'DNAunion'. How silly of
     me to have forgotten. Bye bye.
     =======================
     
     DNAunion: Why leave us hanging? Why not explain how that last paragraph of
     mine so utterly infuriates you that you must block me again?

    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    Infuriates? Not quite. I think you give yourself way too much credit. It
    is just the 'layman's lament' that annoys me. Randy Wysong used the same
    spiel in his book, but I'm sure you know all about him.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++
     
     
     Finally, let us ask what secrets did I let out by posting Huxter's question
     publicly? First, it was not I who identified the questioner - Huxter did
     that himself. Second, so what? Even then, what did we reveal about Huxter
     that should be kept secret? That he asked me a single-sentence question,
     "Who are you and what are your publications?"? My goodness, now that we all
     know (because of Huxter) that it was he that asked this question, will
    anyone
     be able to read his material the same again!?!?!?!? (tons of sarcasm
     intended). There is nothing secretive, revealing, or negative in his post,
     and no reason it must have not been posted publicly - keeping in mind that I
     did not reveal the identity of the questioner anyway. And again, even if I
     had, what real difference would it have made? How would anyone have felt
     differently about Huxter because of the simple question he asked?

    +++++++++++++++++++
    More nonsense. Again, you put way too much importance in your little
    writings. You may think that you have 'hit a nerve' or sometihng, but you're
    just annoying.
    I think that I have finally learned what I should have months ago. You are
    like a little yippy dog. Constantly yipping and yapping, running around
    under the feet of the folks that are trying to walk about doing their
    everyday business, growling and carrying on at the sight of every dust ball,
    every gnat on the sidewalk, hoping one of the big people will look down and
    pat your head, maybe give you a cookie.

    Bye for the final time.

    And has anyone else noticed that 'Nucacids' doesn't post anymore?
     
    >>



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 24 2000 - 09:27:58 EDT