Re: Kicked off of Uncommon Descent

On Jul 17, 8:43 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 17, 8:55 am, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 16, 6:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 16, 12:14 pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I was just on Uncommon design, the weblog of Demski and other ID
people, ( Site:http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-do-design-dete...),
arguing about the Darwin-Nazi connection.

Then, suddenly, all of my posts disappeared! No explanation was given.
I never used any profanity, or any other kind of questionable
language. I simply backed up my claims with Wikipedia links, and made
sure that I addressed every issue raised. Oh, well...

I guess it's too much to expect from Creationists to actually allow a
dissenting view.

This is exactly what happened to me at both Pandas Thumb and Uncommon
Descent.

What were the exact circumstances and reasons given for your bans,
Ray?

That's the point----none were given----like Psycho Dave said. Suddenly
my posts disappeared and I was unable to post or my posts did not
show. When a banning that is illegitimate is going to occur it is not
announced or addressed. The victim is shut out with no recourse and,
of course, no one misses him.

Pardon me if I find your claim dubious, but you have been shown to be
a liar on several previous occasions. You also tend to creatively
interpret your bannings from various discussion forums-- you get
angry, you throw a temper tantrum or three, you get yourself banned,
and then you claim it happened because those big bad atheists couldn't
refute your invulnerable logic. I personally suspect you deliberately
try to get banned when you find you're getting your ass kicked-- it
allows you to slink away feeling justified. Remember when you started
spamming the same post to t.o over and over again?

At any rate, I've emailed the Panda's Thumb to see what they have to
say about the ban.

It doesn't matter what anyone says: Psycho Dave was banned because he
could not be refuted.

That's common practice for Uncommon Dissent, but not for the Panda's
Thumb.

The same with me.

I don't buy it. A reasonably bright ten-year-old could refute you,
Ray; your statements are often demonstrably counterfactual and
logically inconsistent to boot.

As long as we engaged in no
profanity or spamming or invective we were banned because we were
pissing people off who could not refute. If our posts were nonsense
then a smart person would leave them be and not answer and allow the
nonsense and silence to speak for them self.

To the contrary, Ray, refuting nonsense is the whole point of the
Panda's Thumb, as well as talk.origins. Antiscience bafflegab must be
opposed, or it will triumph by default.

I suspect your ban from UD happened pretty much the same way as your
ban from Conservapedia: You displayed kookery so outrageous that even
other creationists considered you a liability.

I see no insult in being banned by Fundamentalists, that is, persons
who accept a young Earth and microevolution at Indy 500 tempo. That
is, persons who accept microevolution like all Atheist evolutionists.

Your ideological division with other creationists is just one more
reason they consider you a liability. You rip holes in the Big Tent.

By the way: I was asked to come back at Conservapedia by
Administration. I have refused. I was initially asked to write the
Charles Darwin bio article by Andy and Admin Conservative. When Andy
changed his mind at the urging of a closet Atheist Admin is his ranks
I wrote a stinging piece of criticism and then was banned.

Correction: You posted a frothing rant and then you were banned. I
read the entire exchange, Ray. I have to say I was impressed, though;
it's no small achievement to be so kooky that even Andy Schlafly
thought you an embarrassment.

Still, I wouldn't take that too personally. Andy has little patience
for people who fail to massage his ego on a regular basis.

I am not a
conservative. I am a middle to left leaning independent who rejects
the death penalty, supports abortion (except final trimester) and I
was glad to see a corrupt Republican Party lose control of Congress in
2006. I support Barack Obama for President.

Good. It's nice to see you're not unreasonable on every topic.

As to the Panda's Thumb, I've never seen them ban anybody merely for
disagreeing; they have their own little squad of regular trolls. Did
your ban perhaps reference one of your little explosions of
scatological invective? Or several of them?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No one can produce one scrap of evidence justifying my ban at Pandas
Thumb----none.

We shall see how they respond to my email.

I believe that I was banned by the caprice of one power
mad person of whom I forgot their name. My banning at UD is because I
infuriated Dave Scot and dared to point out his militant anti-
Protestantism Atheism.

This part I can believe.

William Dembski could care less about any given
individual on the Internet----even a supporter----shame on him. I
would never again participate in his (or any) forum that is structured
on a superior-inferior format.

What, you mean a moderated group like talk.origins?

The best format is here at T.O. where
everyone knows and finds their place. The few real nuts who post here
are few and far between because no one answers.

On the contrary, the real nuts get lots of responses. Nearly every
post from Pagano, Nando, or yourself starts a monster thread with
dozens of replies. People do it because they're fans of science, and
don't want to let your anti-science screed stand without challenge.
And the creationist posters get pasted again and again; their
ignorance is exposed, their dishonesty is brought to light, and the
scientific vacuity of the creationist position is demonstrated again
and again.

This is the way it
should be----no censorship: the price of freedom is association with
kooks, meaning those who abuse their freedom. Censorship is when
legitimate persons get banned by persons in charge who abuse their
power by ajudicating a personal grudge, derived from the discussions,
under the appearance of official duty.

If you can cite evidence that the Panda's Thumb banned you without an
extremely good reason, I'll happily join you in protest. Heck, I'll
ask them to unban you. (They'd probably do it if *you* asked for it
politely.) But you've demonstrated many times that you're a self-
aggrandizing liar with a persecution complex; I don't buy your version
of the story, not for one second.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kicked off of Uncommon Descent
    ... I never used any profanity, or any other kind of questionable ... and then you claim it happened because those big bad atheists couldn't ... Panda's Thumb, as well as talk.origins. ... other creationists considered you a liability. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Kicked off of Uncommon Descent
    ... and then you claim it happened because those big bad atheists couldn't ... To the contrary, Ray, refuting nonsense is the whole point of the ... Your ideological division with other creationists is just one more ... Charles Darwin bio article by Andy and Admin Conservative. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: ID Debate in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
    ... group, the true origins website, the Panda's Thumb and the Index to ... it's hard to believe that they are closet creationists. ... the anti-ID guys really know their stuff if ...
    (talk.origins)