"Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design"

[Darat]

Moved some posts to AAH, to all participants that had posts moved remember a handy guideline is "argue the argument not the arguer".

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Garrette]

Fair enough, Darat.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That requires there to be an arguement expressed.

 

[scotth]

I just completed a very painful task of reading this entire thread in one shot.
When you read this thread this way, a pattern just leaps out at you. A pattern in tai chi's behavior. In my opinion, it is very clear tai chi will not address any rebuttal of his posted article. It is clear he has no intention to.

 

[delphi_ote]

Moved some posts to AAH, to all participants that had posts moved remember a handy guideline is "argue the argument not the arguer".

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

What do we do if there's no argument?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Please "argue the argument not the arguer".

 

[Hellbound]

Please "argue the argument not the arguer".

THe argument from your link has been argued.

You've not put forth any argument at all.

Besides, I thought we were talking about pie?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Please "argue the argument not the arguer".

Please present an agruement.

 

[blutoski]

No good critique so far. Keep trying.

T'ai Chi: you've occasionally asked some interesting questions, but this post inspired me to put you on my ignore list. I feel you're just posting to create an emotional response and essentially trolling.

'bye.

 

[blutoski]

T'ai Chi: you've occasionally asked some interesting questions, but this post inspired me to put you on my ignore list. I feel you're just posting to create an emotional response and essentially trolling.

'bye.

Forgot to add:

latest xkcd

 

[Mojo]

Please "argue the argument not the arguer".

Please present an argument. Calling an article "interesting" is not an argument. Dismissing a critique of the article because it "fails to address important points" without saying what those "important points" are is not an argument. Dismissing criticisms by saying that there have been "no rebuttals yet" or "no good critique so far" is not an argument. These are all unsupported assertions.

If you are to present an argument, you need to say why the article is interesting. You need to say what the "important points" that were not addressed by earlier critiques actually were. You need to say why the critiques supplied were not good critiques. Supply something to support your assertions.

 

[Hawk one]

Where is that one strong point in the article I asked for, complete with an explanation in your own words why it's a strong point?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Where is evidence you've read and understood the strong points in the article?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Where is evidence you've read and understood the strong points in the article?

Where is the evidence that you did?

 

[T'ai Chi]

I asked first.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

Okay, T'ai Chi, since you insist upon replying in chronological order: answer post #172, then Hawk one will answer #173, then you can answer #174.

 

[Mojo]

Where is evidence you've read and understood the strong points in the article?

Which points would those be?

 

[delphi_ote]

Where is evidence you've read and understood the strong points in the article?

AHA! Trick question. There aren't any!

 

[Piggy]

Where is evidence you've read and understood the strong points in the article?

Post 97, 98, 99, 100, and 101.

Now, can we please address the article?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Post 97, 98, 99, 100, and 101.

Now, can we please address the article?

I came across this T'ai Chi quote while looking for something else:

I wish one could place their non-admin-related posts on ignore. It would cut down on a lot of forum clutter, since they genearlly feel obligated to respond to everything.

It seems to say it all.

Steven

IGNORE ME!!!