Fedmahn Kassad

I almost sent a PM to nobody and told him to go F himself. The funny thing was that what I posted is completely true. I guess that was more than they could deal with.

One thing this episode has done is give me lots of material. I am considering writing an article for Talk Origins or NAiG rebutting ReMine's claims that his article was suppressed. If you notice in that ARN thread, a student at Wisconsin published a statement by Dr. Crow directly refuting ReMine's claims. Despite being prodded, ReMine never addressed those claims. ReMine claimed that he has broken new ground by defining Haldane's Dilemma in terms of reproductive excess. Crow pointed out that he and Nei both formulated the problem in these terms in the early 70's. Walter never had a response for that. I also have some direct responses from George Williams, Crow, and Ewens on this matter that I would like to archive somewhere. So I may take all of this information and put together an article so there is a place for people to link to whenever Walter starts whining about censorship.

FK

Fedmahn Kassad

They apparently forgot to lock my account, so I did get in one more post in response to a dishonest and nitpicking post by Mung. They probably won't leave it up, so I will reproduce it here:

Testing My Suspension

It looks like I can actually respond, so I will do so for a final time. I respond because lies are not something that should be tolerated, and Mung has done far too much lying and nitpicking. That’s why I attempted to put him on ignore.

Tell me then what the cost was in the example of the nylon bacterium. Please show your work, or retract your claim.

One of Mung’s famous nitpicks. Could you actually not figure out that I meant “it�? when referring to the first bacterium? Does it modify the argument in any way if we replace “they�? with “it�?? The difference in “they�? and “it�? is 20 minutes to get from 1 organism to 2. Your trivial objections are becoming more and more pathetic.

Lie. My argument is that there can’t be shown to be a dilemma in the case of human evolution. I have already pointed out that if you want to argue that this is a “dilemma�? in that it is an unresolved problem, then that’s fine by me. I pointed this out previously, so your comments above show that you aren’t above dishonesty to try making your point, especially if you think I can’t respond.

Yet you completely ignored the fact that they can hitchhike whenever a beneficial one is undergoing fixation. As is typical of your style, you pick out a piece and try to refute it, ignoring the parts you can’t address.

My dear Mung, I do hate to break this to you, but Walter’s “response�? occurred before Dr. Crow’s comments were posted. Dr. Crow pointed out that he had already defined the problem in terms of reproductive excess (which is Walter’s grand claim of propriety), and even referenced where he did it. Since then, Walter has been completely silent on the matter. Get it? For the record?

That’s it folks. My last post at ARN, made only to combat a dishonest, misleading, and nitpicking post by Mung.

C-ya. I will probably document pieces of this exchange and publish it, contrasting Walter’s claims of suppression with correspondence from Ewens, Crow, etc. Walter will then know when and where he has seen me before.

Texas

pangloss

I've also archived the thread to document any censorship.

wildlifer

What? You expected honesty, equality and fair play? Surely not. :rolling:

Clutch

A lot of true things count as too hostile to say without expecting a negative response. For what it's worth, I've found the tone of the posts you reproduced here to be pretty aggressive in places -- even over the top sometimes, as when throwing around the charge of lying when the evidence does not support it (over plain old foolishness or incompetence, for instance).

Anyhow, I'm not denying that some of these people provoke, or even deserve, harsh words for their tactics, or for their evident pride in their ignorance. I do think, however, that you haven't much cause to complain that your banning is incomprehensible, or that you've been banned merely on account of presenting arguments of surpassing power. True or not, things like "Maybe you do not understand what the words "hypocritical" or “hypocrite�? mean? Look them up. ... you show your true colors by condoning such behavior" are likely to cause trouble on a tightly-moderated forum whatever its ideological biases. It does not seem disputable that you've been held to a higher standard than the local IDologists; nor that you seem to have courted this outcome.

My $.02. In the interests of not giving a free ride to those who espouse views with which I agree.

RBH

Speaking of moderation, I think this thread has about run its course here. Off to ~~E~~.

RBH
E/C Moderator

Fedmahn Kassad

I did not say my banning is incomprehensible. They have some justification this time. But the first time I was banned just because of my user name. That was incomprehensible. The second time:

That was not the post they suspended me for. They suspended me for the one in which I pointed out that Walter was posting anonymously even as he complained about it. I pointed out this hypocrisy, for which they suspended me.

But I am not interested in being held to a higher standard. So, I force them to make choices to show their bias, which they did. Hurts their credibility in the long run.

FK

pangloss

Of course, all one has to do is read what he was responding to see that his posts were hardly over the top.

Clutch

Of course, I said no such general thing about "his posts".

I identified what I meant by "over the top": for instance, an accusation of lying where mere carelessness or incomprehension would suffice to explain the misrepresentation.

pangloss

And that is what I was referring to. Read Dung's posts, I don't think one can conclude that the guy is engaged in anything but lying. I mean, can someone relaly be THAT dense?

I don't think so.