In a message dated 18/11/00 13:49:59 GMT Standard Time, rwein@lineone.net
writes:
Richard Wein:
Those such as Bertvan and Stephen Jones who've implied that creationists/ID
proponents are more polite than evolutionists might like to take note of the
latest Metaviews article, number 098 (http://www.meta-list.org), in which
that nice Dr Dembski refers to Wesley Elsberry and me as "obnoxious" and
"Internet stalkers".
Paul Robson:
Well, firstly I thought the poster (not RW) was patronising cheerleading.
Whilst I would openly admit to getting stroppy sometimes, it is absolute
bollocks to say that Bertvan, DNAUnion, Steve et al are "more polite"
than most of the posters on here.
I can't think what these three might have in common that would want
the original poster to cheer them on.
What actually is politeness anyway ? I think this is (i) moralising and
(ii) simplistic. What I have seen happen on many a list with the
religious debater is that they keep as sheen of politeness, but the
questioning goes something like this below. I actually find this
kind of non answer much more insulting than being called a
self important git (probably because I would admit to being
a self important git sometimes).
=============================================
Question:
Theist, what is 2+2 ?
Theist:
I'm glad you asked me that. Notwithstanding the implicit closed
mindedness, I feel that the question does have an a priori implication
of the inerrancy of numbers. Therefore, I feel that this allows me to
support my claim by such methods.
Question:
Well, what is 2+2 ?
Theist:
I answered your question in my previous post. However, I feel that
your statement is an implicit accusation of error ?
Question:
Can you tell me what 2+2 is ?
Theist:
I answered that in 27 previous posts.
Question:
Well what the ***** is 2+2 you ***** ? Answer the question ?
Theist:
Well, I answered your question. You obviously can't win the
argument any other way.
=============================================
It's a blocking tactic. And it is very effective. If you ignore the
question repeatedly eventually the questioner will get fed up
and go away, or cross. If you refuse to answer questions
(what is happening in reality. If the converstaion went
"What is 2+2 ?" A:"New York Airport" it isn't an answer)
eventually the questions will stop. All you need is patience
and an ability to miss the plank of wood in your own eye.
All you have to do is to ignore all the points made, or
"respond" to them without actually answering any questions,
indefinitely, and repeatedly restate your original arguments.
Just cut out any bits you don't like.
This allows the theist (they usually are theists !) to claim
"victory", and also to pontificate about his moral superiority,
or for someone else to do it (assuming it isn't a sock
puppet)
Paul Robson
Examples:
For an extreme example of this, track the posts of Don
Keyes in alt.bible.errancy in the last year. Can anyone
troll this much ?
The debaters often claim advanced knowledge of sciences etc. but
seem quite staggeringly unable to respond to a simple point, but
just make more and more assertions which aren't necessarily
even consistent with their first ones.
Steve Jones posts like this ; he also has a little additional trick
of posting reams of other peoples quotes so he doesn't have
to defend much of his posting. He has ignored virtually all the
whole responses to Daniel's 70 weeks, restated many of the
"arguments" (why didn't anyone say ? no-one cared !) without
even acknowledging counter arguments, and posted another
enormous quote which actually points out the flaws in his
first argument and states some of his assertions were wrong
(I presume he didn't read it).
DNAUnion for example claims that there exists here, frequently :-
"those who rely SOLELY on vague appeals to open-system
thermodynamics to explain the ordering and organizing of simple
organics into a functioning cell" (my emphasis) "
which is, of course, absolute drivel. No-one has ever claimed
this (though versions of this is often claimed to be an evolutionist
argument by creationists).
when asked for an example of this, he first claimed that he didn't
have the time, then turned out a response from me (standard
response to 2nd law claim) and Chris Cogan (creation of replicators).
Neither of these (i) refer to functioning cells (ii) appeal to OST
solely, but this didn't stop him categorising them as such.
Called on this, he claimed they were a "form" of the above argument,
(which they aren't either), quoting 2 completely different arguments
in support. He has not responded since.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 18 2000 - 11:21:03 EST