Censorship at Telic Thoughts

| 75 Comments

On Telic Thoughts, the administrators seem to have chosen to not only block me from further contributions but they have also deleted my contributions.

Fascinating how ID proponents complain about censorship but apparantly do not shy away from censoring their opponents.

Teach the controversy seems to be a one sided call to action it seems.

PS: I notice that they have been moved to the memory hole although most of them were on-topic. I wonder what the explanation is…

In an earlier email the moderator(s) gave me the following suggestions

You should attempt to keep your posts focused, and try to address the points that others lay before you.

The moderator also objected to me pointing out that Dembski accepts false positives in the design inference.

75 Comments

I also posted on Telic Thoughts, in at least one of the same threads as you PvM. So far, they haven’t deleted my posts. Should I be worred that they don’t find me threatening enough to censor?

Why have they done this? Am I correct in suspecting an ego fight? In my view you have to be an absolute trolling moron to get a ban!

I didn’t realise until I looked again that all of your posts were deleted. Bugger! Did you do something naughty? I also noted that a post from “pimothy” was deleted. Oh Well!

What’s funny is my responses to you are still there. Heh heh. I must be talkin to myself!

As you may have noticed from Krauze’s and Sal’s response, my comments are pften too uncomfortable for discussion.

They not only moved my postings but banned my username PvM. When I posted using Pimothy (my alias) it was also quickly banned. Now I get “Error: Wrong username.”

Fascinating how ID is so easily threatened by the controversy of their own creation.

As PvM didn’t link to my post (not by the time I’m writing this, anyway), let me just briefly explain that we banned him because of his extensive history of using multiple accounts (a.k.a. “sock puppets”).

PvM’s post also contains two pieces of misinformation. First of all, his comments weren’t deleted, but simply moved to a section of the blog called “The Memory Hole”. Anyone wondering if it was the potency of PvM’s criticism that got him banned are welcome to visit the site and see for themselves.

Second of all, no one is censoring PvM. The fact that he’s able to announce his banning here on PT, where it’ll be read by way more people than if he’d kept commenting on our puny blog, is enough to reject this claim. PvM is free to set up his soapbox wherever he wants; at Telic Thoughts, we simply reserve the right to keep him off our soapbox.

Krauze,

I notice you’ve moved PvM’s responses to me into the memory hole and my original comments are still there. I wouldn’t consider my posts strictly on topic!

Sounds a “wee” bit dodge to me..

Update.

Sorry Krauze. I think I understand your position having now read your post link above.

Krauze:

“Anyone wondering if it was the potency of PvM’s criticism that got him banned are welcome to visit the site and see for themselves.”

I would, except that by moving them out of context you’ve made it almost impossible to see what his comments are replying to. Saying his comments were “simply moved” doesn’t really cut it when by moving them you took them completely out of context.

Krauze Wrote:

As PvM didn’t link to my post (not by the time I’m writing this, anyway), let me just briefly explain that we banned him because of his extensive history of using multiple accounts (a.k.a. “sock puppets”).

Nice rewriting of history. I used only one account on Telic namely PvM. When that account stopped working I tried my other account which worked for a short period of time. To suggest that my postings were moved and my username banned for using ‘sock puppets’ is plain false.

Krauze Wrote:

Second of all, no one is censoring PvM. The fact that he’s able to announce his banning here on PT, where it’ll be read by way more people than if he’d kept commenting on our puny blog, is enough to reject this claim. PvM is free to set up his soapbox wherever he wants; at Telic Thoughts, we simply reserve the right to keep him off our soapbox.

So why the sock puppet claim when in reality it is Telic Thought’s discomfort that caused them to ban me and move my postings to the memory hole.

Nice spinning Krauze…

Krauze,

Separate but equal, huh? I’m sure, deep in your own mind (where fear, pride, and envy are given the robes of angels) you are being “terrible fair.” And that smug, twisted “fairness” is everything I have reason to pity and yet struggle against.

Krauze even moved the trackback. How silly…

# The Panda’s Thumb Says: September 4th, 2005 at 4:23 pm

Censorship at Telic Thoughts

On Telic Thoughts, the administrators seem to have chosen to not only block me from further contributions but they have also deleted my contributions. Fascinating how ID proponents complain about censorship but apparantly do not shy away from censorin…

Trackback by The Panda’s Thumb — September 4, 2005 @ 4:23 pm

Nice rewriting of history. I used only one account on Telic namely PvM. When that account stopped working I tried my other account which worked for a short period of time. To suggest that my postings were moved and my username banned for using ‘sock puppets’ is plain false.

Would you have ever expected any less from them. I was banned for showing Mike up as the whining hypocrite he is .. always carrying on about stereotypes, when he’s the worst offender in the lot.

Wildlifer, I had noticed the same irony. But Mike is easily annoyed when people point out to him his flawed logic.

Second of all, no one is censoring PvM. The fact that he’s able to announce his banning here on PT, where it’ll be read by way more people than if he’d kept commenting on our puny blog, is enough to reject this claim. PvM is free to set up his soapbox wherever he wants; at Telic Thoughts, we simply reserve the right to keep him off our soapbox.

Odd, that’s exactly how I feel about keeping nutters like you out of science classrooms.

I’ve documented this sort of nonsense before–it’s becoming an epidemic on ID sites, it seems. If you’re going to ban someone, you owe them (and your readers) a public explanation, not an Orwellian erase-job.

Teach the controversy! Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy! *** Censored ***

Would you have ever expected any less from them. I was banned for showing Mike up as the whining hypocrite he is .. always carrying on about stereotypes, when he’s the worst offender in the lot.

Yeah, I just left out of boredom really. Like most ID advocates, when you ask them for merits that would make ID useful as a science, such as testable hypotheses they either ignore you completely (like Mikegene does), whine about a darwinian orthodoxy (as Krauze does) or alternatively ‘delete’ oops I mean ‘move’ your posts so everything becomes completely out of context.

Also, let’s correct something Krauze said above:

PvM is free to set up his soapbox wherever he wants; at Telic Thoughts, we simply reserve the right to keep him off our whinge box.

Which is all they do. I’ve still yet to see them post any significant, testable evidence for ID on there let alone how to actually test for a designer. Just like everyone else in the ID movement, full of bluster but with no science behind them.

Pretty funny. Let’s see ID is banned from the media, scientific publications etc. etc. One evo gets banned and suddenly it’s whaaaa! I’ve been banned.

Pretty funny. Let’s see ID is banned from the media,

Been doing pretty well, well up until now that is when the media has begun to utterly dissect the fact ID has absolutely no content. You lot were going to get exposed eventually and unfortunately it’s just all snowballed into one big mess.

I can’t wait for Dembski to announce the next evolutionary waterloo next. If I had a shot for every waterloo, I could get very very drunk.

scientific publications etc. etc.

Although many ID advocates make this whinge continually, the fact is they fail to get published because they fail to do real science. It’s done at lab benches and usually involes actual work with an actual hypothesis (shock horror!). When ID advocates bother doing real science they can get published. Unfortunately, general conjecture and hand waving doesn’t get published in journals I’m afraid.

One evo gets banned and suddenly it’s whaaaa! I’ve been banned.

And yet here you are still, like many of the other creationists like Sally and so forth, that are still permitted to post here even though you add absolutely nothing of value to the conversation.

Funny that.

PvM,

I’m not part of the administration of Telic Thoughts, I had nothing to do with you getting banned or having your posts moved to the memory hole. I neither lobbied for or against your banning.

My feeling is that IDists aren’t that eager to hear from you. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, bro, but that’s the way it is. However, we IDists are more than happy to refer people in your fan club to this site where they can get a steady flow of your oracles.

Further, if you don’t want me to participate here on your threads, just say so, and you know I’ll respect your request. I hope you will afford others that same courtesy.

take care, Sal

Let’s see ID is banned from the media, scientific publications etc. etc.

“I’M BEING CENSORED !!!!!”, he publicly shouted loudly, to everyone worldwide.

Further, if you don’t want me to participate here on your threads, just say so, and you know I’ll respect your request.

Are you kidding, Sal? You are the best weapon we have to show how utterly vapid ID really is.

Did you plan on answering my simple questions any time soon? Or are you just going to keep running from them?

Sal, I think your post was well meany and I applaud it, but;

1) Do you feel there is censorship in Telic Thoughts? 2) Should / Can the ID movement engage in a dialogue with the scientific community? 3) What are the ramifications for theism if / when ID gets debunked?

fond regards, Rich

Sal, I think your post was well meant and I applaud it, but;

1) Do you feel there is censorship in Telic Thoughts? 2) Should / Can the ID movement engage in a dialogue with the scientific community? 3) What are the ramifications for theism if / when ID gets debunked?

fond regards, Rich

aCT Wrote:

Pretty funny. Let’s see ID is banned from the media, scientific publications etc. etc. One evo gets banned and suddenly it’s whaaaa! I’ve been banned.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of ID proponents who on the one hand complain about ‘censorship’ but are quite willing to apply it. Of course ID is not really banned, it is just unable to present much ID relevant research. Not surprising since ID is scientifically vacuous.

Sal Wrote:

My feeling is that IDists aren’t that eager to hear from you. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, bro, but that’s the way it is.

And yet on Telic Logic, Krauze described how one should deal with ID but when people follow his advide, they get banned.

In general, liberal and science sites permit free expression, while conservative and ID sites do not. That’s just a fact.

Even the few conservative sites which permit comments will ban you for minor things, such as when Bainbridge banned me for suggesting that Katrina-relief donations should not go to the catholic parishes in the area, as he was suggesting, but instead, to the Red Cross, on the basis that the Red Cross won’t use the money to cover up an international molestation ring. While that comment might have been ‘offensive’, it was only because it referenced an offensive set of real events.

Posted by Joseph O’Donnell on September 4, 2005 07:24 PM (e) (s)

I can’t wait for Dembski to announce the next evolutionary waterloo next. If I had a shot for every waterloo, I could get very very drunk.

Yeah, we’ve been in a state of perpetual waterloo for years now. Information Theory, Physics, and Biology have been thoroughly dismantled and rebuilt on new goldly foundations. The only people who didn’t notice this were 1 The Information Theorists 2 The Biologists 3 The Physicists 4 Most everyone else.

by the way, if it’s drunk you’re looking for, $7.70 will get you three 40’s from the Crown station at Kent and Western, as it did for me 30 mins ago.

Salvador Wrote:

My feeling is that IDists aren’t that eager to hear from you.

Of course they aren’t–the truth would be too embarassing for them. They prefer to pretend that their blatherings have intellectual and scientific merit despite evidence to the contrary.

Remember, Krauze, science is what scientists do. Telic Thoughts continues to illustrate for us just how ID scientists do ID science, especially by helping us see the parallels with other illustrious ID science sites, such as uncommondescent.com and idthefuture.com.

Krauze illustrates that TT thrives off of Wedge-Centrism. So, I don’t understand, PvM, why you continue to wish to help ID scientists do their brand of science?

Krause wrote:

As PvM didn’t link to my post (not by the time I’m writing this, anyway), let me just briefly explain that we banned him because of his extensive history of using multiple accounts (a.k.a. “sock puppets”). PvM’s post also contains two pieces of misinformation. First of all, his comments weren’t deleted, but simply moved to a section of the blog called “The Memory Hole”. Anyone wondering if it was the potency of PvM’s criticism that got him banned are welcome to visit the site and see for themselves. Second of all, no one is censoring PvM. The fact that he’s able to announce his banning here on PT, where it’ll be read by way more people than if he’d kept commenting on our puny blog, is enough to reject this claim. PvM is free to set up his soapbox wherever he wants; at Telic Thoughts, we simply reserve the right to keep him off our soapbox.

I am reminded of Charles Durning when I hear pieces of balderdash like the above:

“I love a little sidestep.”

Logical idiocy like the above panders only to pleasing those that is censors from. Censorship doesn’t complete inability to speak, but only acts of silencing like removal of the host of ALL posts by a person. Now, I am SURE the admins peered through each post and determined them each to be “offtopic” as a justification for removing his nick, user access, and then replacing all his posts with empty space, while retaining any post that responded or copied it. This isn’t censorship, indeed, it’s an excision. But like all medical procedures of this nature, it only removes a response, not the source, of the doubt, the rejection of ID’s fallacy, and exposes the fear of death of the patient, a movement including the above quoted individual.

Since it IS his blog, though, he can do what he wants, but his actions are transparent; the removal only serves as much as locking up a reporter for knowing something the administration didn’t like her knowing.…

I am 100% evolution, but Krauze sure sounds more reasonable and fairminded than the people replying to him here. Maybe just a matter of style, but I’m swayed by it. Think I’ll check out his blog.

One more mote on the aside… The wetlands and bayous south of NO act as a natural breakwater for massive natural storms. This wetland has been receding by about 50 acres a year. It is projected that by 2050, New Orleans will have no wetland protection and will sit directly on the sea. This is a direct result of the human interference along the river. The river used to meander and flood along the floodplain especially in flood conditions. Flood waters bring silt that maintains the wetlands and the breakwater buffer for NO, but the containment of the river required to facilitate human commerce has caused the wetlands to recede. This may sound like environmentalism, but it is simply fact. The wetlands need to be restored in part to protect NO and commerce needs to be more responsible with fragile environments. This is a good lesson for other communities to learn vicariously, but I doubt the significance will be recognized.

I am simply a James Taylor not the James Taylor. And BTW, it’s an old, lame and tired joke.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 15, column 75, byte 1177 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

steve Wrote:

Theology was used to justify the destruction, you mean.

From a press release from RepentAmerica.com titled HURRICANE KATRINA DESTROYS NEW ORLEANS DAYS BEFORE “SOUTHERN DECADENCE” 8/31/05

RepentAmerican.com Wrote:

PHILADELPHIA - Just days before “Southern Decadence”, an annual homosexual celebration attracting tens of thousands of people to the French Quarters section of New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina destroys the city.

“Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city,” stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. “From ‘Girls Gone Wild’ to ‘Southern Decadence,’ New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. From the devastation may a city full of righteousness emerge,” he continued.

New Orleans was also known for its Mardi Gras parties where thousands of drunken men would revel in the streets to exchange plastic jewelry for drunken women to expose their breasts and to engage in other sex acts. This annual event sparked the creation of the “Girls Gone Wild” video series. Furthermore, Louisiana had a total of ten abortion clinics with half of them operating in New Orleans, where countless numbers of children were murdered at the hands of abortionists. Additionally, New Orleans has always been known as one of the “Murder Capitals of the World” with a rate ten times the national average.

“We must help and pray for those ravaged by this disaster, but let us not forget that the citizens of New Orleans tolerated and welcomed the wickedness in their city for so long,” Marcavage said. “May this act of God cause us all to think about what we tolerate in our city limits, and bring us trembling before the throne of Almighty God,” Marcavage concluded.

Yes.

If the above is NOT a parody, it IS another fine example of the extremely poor markmanship of the Xian “God” has been displayed in the possible thousands of deaths and complete destruction of large portions of the ultra-maroon red Xian state of Mississippi. The Xian God sure has trouble seperating those nasty goats (who likey escaped the wrath descibed as delivered unto them) from the God-fearing (and for good reason, given the evidence of His mercy) sheep.

remember.… this is the same “God” that intelligently designed the ovipositors of the female ichneumon wasps.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 3, column 103, byte 200 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Paul Gross evaluated Symptoms of crankhood

He quotes from The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. 5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. 6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

Seems to me, many of these indicators match ID quite accurately.

All these seem to apply to ID except #6. The Wedgies are pretty good at colluding. I doubt that Meyers produced the “teach the controversy” replacement for the original ID scam and got it instituted by the DI by himself. Even the weirdest others apply to ID. I think that Salvador is still trying to defend Dembski’s new law of thermodynamics over at ISCID, at least, that thread is about the only one still active.

I admit that I haven’t read any posts to that thread in months, so Sal may have retracted.;-)

Guys like Mike Gene may claim the first 6 (at least, that they are independent of the other ID scam artists), but I don’t think Mike has put forward any new laws of nature, so the last two don’t apply to all IDers. The first 5 are damning enough.

All these seem to apply to ID except #6. The Wedgies are pretty good at colluding.

They only collude with each other and after the fact though. Each of the potty ideas was developed in isolation - hence the way they contradict each other when one looks into the details. Also they “work” in isolation from any genuine science, scientists or scientific peer review.

PvM, one of the more interesting, and really sad, things about the collapse of the Polanyi Center at Baylor under Dembski’s watch was that President Sloan had gone to bat to save Dembski’s tail. It was then that Dembski put out the press release scoriating Sloan.

Remember the story of the scorpion and the frog?

I’m not sure the “collusion” of IDers counts as working with others. The Polanyi Center affair rather clearly demonstrates that, when it was time to join the team, Dembski didn’t. I think most of the “colleagues” at DI tend to be loners in their fields. There is no core of biological expertise, for example. The philosophers don’t collaborate with each other. The creative writer is stuck by himself. No one collaborates with Behe from DI.

Other than those “opinion pieces” put out by the Swift Boat Veterans for Public Relations that feature by-lines of two or more of the DI fellows, is there really any evidence of any serious collaboration?

According to Alexa, PT’s rank is below 100,000 while for Telic Thoughts it is well above 4 millions. However incomplete Alexa’s data may be, it is obvious that TT is a site with an insignificant traffic, while PT is one of the most widely read ones. By maintaining the extensive discussion of TT’s cencorship here on PT, all what TT’s critics achieved was providing TT with a free ad. It must have increased the traffic on PT manyfold. Perhaps the censorship by TT’s guys was just a device to invoke critique on PT and thus enhance TT’s exposure?

TT’s behavior, contemptible as it is, deserves no discussion - let them dream their dreams in the obscurity they deserve.

Sorry, correcting a typo on my preceding comment: According to Alexa, PT’s rank is below 100,000 while for Telic Thoughts it is well above 4 millions. However incomplete Alexa’s data may be, it is obvious that TT is a site with an insignificant traffic, while PT is one of the most widely read ones. By maintaining the extensive discussion of TT’s cencorship here on PT, all what TT’s critics achieved was providing TT with a free ad. It must have increased the traffic on TT manyfold. Perhaps the censorship by TT’s guys was just a device to invoke critique on PT and thus enhance TT’s exposure?

TT’s behavior, contemptible as it is, deserves no discussion - let them dream their dreams in the obscurity they deserve.

I’m not sure the “collusion” of IDers counts as working with others. The Polanyi Center affair rather clearly demonstrates that, when it was time to join the team, Dembski didn’t. I think most of the “colleagues” at DI tend to be loners in their fields. There is no core of biological expertise, for example. The philosophers don’t collaborate with each other. The creative writer is stuck by himself. No one collaborates with Behe from DI.

That is mostly, I think, because the ID luminaries all have collossal egos. They not only each want “darwinism” to die, but THEY EACH WANT TO BE THE ONE TO KILL IT.

They’d step over each other’s corpses for that honor.

I agree that they are independent, but who wouldn’t be that would perpetrate scams like they do? Would you want to associate with guys like that? They do collude for the simple fact that they all seemed to agree that Wells’ bogus scientific creationist obfuscationist bull pucky was the way to go. It turned out to be the only “science” that they could come up with and it turned out to be the same junk that the scientific creationist were spouting off about 20 years ago. There had to be collusion to do this because they spent their formative years trying to deny any connection to scientific creationists, but they ended up using the same old tactics. They just couldn’t mention ID or creationism with a straight face so it seems pointless. Did lightning strike all of them and make them revert to creationist arguments without being able to mention creationism? They all had to agree to just use ID as a smoke screen to make it look like the replacement scam was legit. You just have to look at the Wedge document and look at the Ohio lesson plan and ask yourself how does this further the Wedgie goals? It only can if they depend on the dishonesty of incompetence of teachers and administrators to mess up and teach what they know can’t be taught honestly.

But dishonesty or incompetence aside, how does soembody teach something that doesn’t say anything beyond a one paragraph blurb describing their “notion”?

Oh well.

Henry

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on September 4, 2005 3:17 PM.

Captain Caveman Defends Evolution was the previous entry in this blog.

“Pastafarianism” gains prominence and support in intelligent-design drive is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter