Monday, December 17, 2007

They Also Edit Comments on Uncommon Descent - Then You're Banned!

 
One of the more despicable practices of bloggers is to edit the words of people who comment on their blog. I already took notice of this practice on "Dr." Sharon's Blog.

Now the same thing is happening on Uncommon Descent. I posted a message there saying "Some of the more intelligent IDiots (I realize that's an oxymoron) ..."

When the comment finally appeared it said, "Some of the more intelligent ID proponents ..."

Would it surprise you to learn that this comment from "gpuccio" didn't get edited?
Larry Moran has clearly shown the intellectual and moral level od darwinist arguments: failure to answer any pertinent question, and readyness to grossly insult any adversary, are really their only weapons. While their moral failures can always be pardoned (after all, man is not a perfect being), their intellectual stupidity and arrogance are much more difficult to excuse.
No? I didn't think you be surprised. Why is it that creationists are so willing to dish it out but so cowardly when they're on the receiving end?

Anyway, they won't have to worry about it from now on since Patrick has just posted the following message.
Since you guys apparently want to debate Larry Moran in this thread–are you guys masochists? ;) –I temporarily let his comments through but edited them for insults and such (the ones that were not entirely insults). Otherwise, Larry is banned as usual.
This will surely be followed by dozens of comments attacking me and what I said in the edited comments that were allowed to appear. I won't be able to respond to them no matter how IDiotic they are. Isn't that strange?


13 comments :

  1. Not strange. After all, if idiots were corrigible they wouldn't stay idiots. Anyway, who cares about ID? The attention it gets from blogs such as this one is all it has going for it. You're worried ID might win some kind of political victory but even if it does, and I think the opportunity for that has passed, it will be temporary, because America is principally about money not God, and money craves results not word magic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Did you really expect anything different?

    They're a rag-tag bunch of philosophers, mathemticians, computer programmers, engineers, lawyers, journalists and some hangers-on, all convinced that they understand biology better than the vast majority of professional biologists.

    The only way they can maintain that pretense is to sit in their little bunker on Uncommon Descent chattering amongst themselves and relying on thugerators like DaveScot to screen out anything that might threaten their delusions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Larry, Larry... Why do you continually waste your time and energy on that intellectual dung heap? I hope none of it rubs off. As Nietzsche once said, if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

    They're a rag-tag bunch of philosophers, mathemticians, computer programmers, engineers, lawyers, journalists and some hangers-on

    Even that would be somewhat respectable, but as per Hitchens, religion poisons everything. So they're just a bunch of bible-thumping IDiots. Any useful skills they may have accumulated in their lives have been distorted to the point of uselessness by religious foolishness.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I suggest you argue with them when they visit you over here; don't waste your time at places like uncommon descent.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Craving a little opposition, or honing the skills of debate...

    But how to prevail in an argument where the opponents have defined themselves as winners?

    The last man standing is not always the winner. ID proponents don't realize that the moment they win, they lose.

    ReplyDelete
  6. anonymous asks,

    Larry, Larry... Why do you continually waste your time and energy on that intellectual dung heap?

    There are two reasons.

    1. Some of the people over there are genuinely ignorant about biology and their opinion might change if they only saw the other side being defended.

    2. This is a serious social issue (especially in the USA). Ignoring it isn't going to make it go away. We need to keep hammering on the idea that the IDiots are, well, IDiots. Leaving them in possession of the battlefield isn't a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Larry, surprising you didn't know how stupid IDiots like Bill Dembski and his clutch of clowns can get. The guy is actually a squealing insecure lightweight and chooses to bolt every time there is trouble. Even now you can see neither Billy nor his clowns is going to make an appearance here.

    ReplyDelete
  8. oldcola says,

    Larry, surprising you didn't know how stupid IDiots like Bill Dembski and his clutch of clowns can get.

    You're kidding, right? I've been dealing with the IDiots for more than twenty years. Nothing surprises me any more.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Larry said:
    1. Some of the people over there are genuinely ignorant about biology and their opinion might change if they only saw the other side being defended.

    Well, is this why darwinists won't allow a diferent viewpoint being defend in public schools? Is it because they know, once people evaluate ID and darwinism failry, Uncle Charlie is kicked out of the tree?

    Larry adds:
    2. This is a serious social issue (especially in the USA). Ignoring it isn't going to make it go away. We need to keep hammering on the idea that the IDiots are, well, IDiots. Leaving them in possession of the battlefield isn't a good idea.

    The problem, of course, si that the legal battlefield is totally dominated by darwinian totalists. I don't think that a few blogs attacking uncle charlie will harm such a robust theory like the darwinian one. Would it? *s*

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mats asks,

    Well, is this why darwinists won't allow a diferent viewpoint being defend in public schools? Is it because they know, once people evaluate ID and darwinism failry, Uncle Charlie is kicked out of the tree?

    Not at all. I'm all in favor of presenting crazy ideas like Intelligent Design Creationism in school and letting students judge for themselves whether it merits any consideration.

    Both of my children were exposed to creationism in their biology class and it was very educational for them. They were amazed to discover that there are some people out there who reject the main discoveries of science in favor of superstition.

    I think every student should learn about the "evidence" for a worldwide deluge in 2500 BC and how the Earth and all its creatures were created all of a sudden in 6000 BC.

    Once they've learned to dismiss the most outlandish claims of the Young Earth Creationists they will be well placed to recognize the flaws in Intelligent Design Creationism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mats asks,

    The problem, of course, si that the legal battlefield is totally dominated by darwinian totalists. I don't think that a few blogs attacking uncle charlie will harm such a robust theory like the darwinian one. Would it?

    No, they have no significant effect in my country. I think the creationist blogs are amusing and pitiful at the same time.

    By the way, is it the fear of truth that gives rise to censorship on the creationist blogs? They seem to be so afraid of hearing the other side that they censor the comments of scientists then ban people who raise too many troubling questions.

    Is this your version of "teach the controversy"?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Larry,

    By the way, is it the fear of truth that gives rise to censorship on the creationist blogs?

    These guys wouldn't know truth if it bit them in the wazoo. Look at the IDiots on DI and UcD remaining absolutely silent on the laugh-a-minute and guffaw-a-while absurdity of a museum in N. Kentucky. Billy, Mike, Philly, Rob, Casey, and the imbecilically smug Bruce Chapman, won't be caught ever making fun of Ken Ham's clown act, even if they know it is total IDiocy. Even Mike Gene the dissembling TelicThinker is all quiet. These guys know that Classic Creationism is the real game in town and these cheap tux Creos (try Classic Coke and New Coke) are outsiders. That's why you will find Mike Behe contradicting himself at every turn, scared to offend the Classic Creos. So he accepts common descent when it suits him and is all fire and brimstone before the big creo audiences. Paul Nelson and Steve Meyer both ignoramuses in general and particular don't even mask try to mask their Creationism.

    ReplyDelete