Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run

Human Events Online ^ | Jan 31, 2006 | Allan H. Ryskind

[Stultis]

Ok, now that we agree that there was a conspiracy in the most benign sense (working in harmony to achieve a common goal)

You mean now that YOU agree, this being a definite change in tone from "[g3k] was conspired against and banned". Unless you still believe the "goal" was aimed prejudicially at particular freepers (as to opposed to any freeper engaging in gratuitous and excessive flammage).

Would you like to venture a guess as too how many were involved? Other than those already stimpulated

You mean by name? I don't know any of the moderator's names, and wouldn't reveal them if I did. Involved were Jim and some number of his moderators. Pretty much everyone regularly involved in the crevo threads knew that the Mods were giving their threads increased scrutiny. THEY PUBLICLY SAID SO. Which is why I continue to put "conspiracy" in quotes.

[Hoplite]

Hell and death!

That one had my name^* on it!

Nonetheless, I offer you my contrafribblarites on your fortuitous acquisition.

^*Inasmuch as '1000' in binary = 8, & 'H' is the 8th letter in the alphabet, and anybody who's ever read "Contact" knows that our alien overlords are sending us a message with this significant prime.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"No, it is a fact, not a philosophy."

You have the right to your opinions, beliefs, and convictions. No doubt many people share them. That alone does not make them fact.

Here's a decent definition of "philosophy"

http://www.answers.com/philosophy&r=67

I don't see any point in debating the semantics -- especially if you refuse to acknowledge the ordinary dictionary meaning of words. If you don't want to call your belief system a philosophy, that's fine with me -- call it whatever you want -- call it a "fizzlebang" if it makes you feel better.

"Every intelligent action follows an OODA loop."

Certainly this could be one protocol for conducting science. It is similar to other protocols. Your notion that: "Consciousness and intelligent thought consists of an arbitrary size finite series of these loops." corresponds nicely to Occam's Razor. Certainly, in the real world of business, government, the military, etc. you reach a point where it's better to take action than continue to spin your wheels.

"It must be universally applicable to any intelligent being. For that to happen. The observables must actually be observable AND not be a function of, and depend on the observer."

Not that long ago, I would have been in total agreement. However, Kuhn, amongst others, makes a case that what you observe is influenced by what you expect to see.

(Me)"Where did it come from?"

(You)"Rational thought."

And around we go again.

"Else, if it can't be seen after looking for it, it's impossible to logically attach any value to it. For all practical purposes, outside of fiction, it doesn't exist."

Has dark matter been seen? Does it exist?

What's happening on the other side of a dark hole? Does any information ever get out of a dark hole? If we can't see what's on the other side of a dark hole, does the other side exist?

We couldn't see the dark side of the moon until the advent of space travel. Would you have been questioning it's existence? Almost no one believed in bacteria, until the microscope was developed. Many tested theories have been discarded or modified as the instrumentation for making observations improved. How many other things might be revealed to us when we have developed the capacity for making the observations?

[Stultis]

"THEY PUBLICLY SAID SO."

"THEY" being the moderators. IOW the moderators posted messages on the crevo threads alerting participants that attention was being paid to these threads and that the moderators were determined to resolve the problem with flame wars.

Which again is why g3k's behavior was so bizarre and over the top. The admin bent over backward warning him and trying to AVOID banning him. The moderators had already banned the main troublemakers, led by a poster named "ALS", who (seemed to be) working in a little cabal that did not include g3K. But gore3000 (behaved as if he) was determined to get banned.

[Fester Chugabrew]

fizzlebang placemarker

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

In my post # 1,003 (phew!) I said:

"You have the right to your opinions, beliefs, and convictions. No doubt many people share them. That alone does not make them fact."

Please let me acknowledge that the above applies equally to me.

[darbymcgill]

Which is why I continue to put "conspiracy" in quotes.

That's fine.. Can we agree on a different term to describe the act more appropriately?

this being a definite change in tone from "[g3k] was conspired against and banned".

The tone was inferred by you. I simply defined my use of the term, as I inferred that you perceived my use of it in a negative light... My intended tone has remained intact..

You mean by name?

Sure why not? whattajoke has already admitted his involvement and claimed the scalp. (if he wasn't kidding, I can't tell). By acclimation the mods can't and don't read every post. Someone wanted some action taken or they wouldn't have mashed abuse or sent the mods freepmail. I'm just wondering if anyone will own up to it. If, as everyone proclaims g3k got what he deserved, why don't those who helped purify the forum step up to the podium? It is possible that they have, but I missed the posts.

[longshadow]

Shall we examine the dictionary definition of "conspiracy"?

con·spir·a·cy Pronunciation (kn-spîr-s) n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design

[emphasis added for the benefit of the delusionally paranoid]

Notice in every instance, the definitions of "conspiracy" contain an element of criminality, subversion, or sinister intent. Mother Theresa did NOT "CONSPIRE" to feed the poor and help the needy. The police did NOT "CONSPIRE" to investigate the criminals. No one "CONSPIRED" against g3k; he hoist himself on his own petard.

The continued use of the word "Conspiracy" by this raving nutter, in the face of an utter and complete lack of evidence that any pernicious plan or sinister cooperative venture was afoot, by either the Evos or the MODS, belies a delusional paranoia of immense magnitude.

[darbymcgill]

the moderators were determined to resolve the problem with flame wars.

I am not disputing your version of the facts whatsoever... or arguing for or against the results...

The key item missing from your post is how the mods became involved in the first place. And we've been told already that they don't read every post.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Thanks for this succinct history. We tend to focus on Darwin when talking about evolution -- but, he wasn't the only one interested in the origin of species. Darwin identified the mechanism for evolution as natural selection -- and others proposed different mechanisms.

[darbymcgill]

Keep trying....

Main Entry: con·spire
Pronunciation: k&n-'spIr
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·spired; con·spir·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French conspirer,
from Latin conspirare to be in harmony, conspire, from com- + spirare to breathe
transitive senses : PLOT, CONTRIVE
intransitive senses

1 a: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or
wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement b : SCHEME

2: to act in harmony toward a common end

But you are showing initiative...

[darbymcgill]

Are you afraid to address me personally or were you just hoping I wouldn't notice...

Overtly bad manners....

[PatrickHenry]

The continued use of the word "Conspiracy" by this raving nutter, in the face of an utter and complete lack of evidence that any pernicious plan or sinister cooperative venture was afoot, by either the Evos or the MODS, belies a delusional paranoia of immense magnitude.

For those who may be suspicious, the official position of Darwin Central is that we were not involved.

[Dimensio]

Then maybe you can tell me which of these conflicting statements is true?

Perhaps you could explain how the statements conflict or how either amounts to "conspiracy"?

[darbymcgill]

For those who may be suspicious, the official position of Darwin Central is that we were not involved.

Isn't this odd how this has evolved?

We have some set of events that occurred, most of which are not in dispute, yet the origin/genesis of the process appears unknown but not unknowable.

And check out how the debate has progressed from a statement of the facts, to redefining words, to name calling, to straw men and ultimately psychoanalysis via freep forum to discredit. Just so one side can claim victory. And still the known facts are not in dispute. The parallels are uncanny.

[PatrickHenry]

That one had my name on it!

We know. But our control of the internet made it possible to insert my post ahead of yours. Nothing personal. It's the way the Grand Master wanted it.

[Thatcherite]

Tinfoil hat ravings placemarker

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!!

[PatrickHenry]

[darbymcgill]

Perhaps you could explain how the statements conflict or how either amounts to "conspiracy"?

Ok...

statement 1: Each abuse report and its corresponding post stands on its own. If you think we're gonna hash through hundreds of posts to see "who started it" you're nuts.

statement 2: The mods started a thread to see who was causing the flame wars, and it turned out to be the creationists. emphasis added

The mods didn't start a thread out of thin air to find the flamers because they don't read hundreds of posts to know there are flame wars going on... if they did, they wouldn't need to start a new thread to trap them, they would already know who the bad guys were.... someone enjoined the mods to help relieve the EVO/CREVO threads of some abusers...

These aren't my opinions, but the facts as you guys have posted them... We may differ in our opinions as to how to define the event, but I can't see as how the facts have been disputed...