• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design"

T'ai Chi said:
Please, actually discuss the article.
Click to expand...
This is like asking us to please breathe, or eat, or use our keyboards. It's already been done. At this point, T'ai Chi, there can be no doubt that you are trolling.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Please, actually discuss the article.
Click to expand...
The article is trash. This has been demonstrated by the many faults that have been found in it; and by the fact that the person who commended it to our attention has not even attempted to rebutt any of the proffered criticisms.

Does anyone have anything to add to that, or are we done here?
 
Dr Adequate said:
The article is trash. This has been demonstrated by the many faults that have been found in it; and by the fact that the person who commended it to our attention has not even attempted to rebutt any of the proffered criticisms.

Does anyone have anything to add to that, or are we done here?
Click to expand...

I think that sums things up nicely.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Please, again, focus on the argument, not the person.
Click to expand...
No.

Here's why.

1. I and others have already focused on the argument. So that's been done.

2. You have chosen to pretend that this has not been done, despite the fact that everyone can see otherwise. This behavior is called "trolling" -- habitually making posts which contribute nothing to the board and are only designed to be frustrating to others or disrupt genuine discussion.

Since you refuse to address the article cited in your own OP, there is nothing left to do but point out your behavior in the hopes that the admins will take action.
 
Let's get this to 5,000 views.

I'll check back in then and see if people are discussing the actual article with relevant rebuttals.
 
T'ai Chi said:
I'll check back in then and see if people are discussing the actual article with relevant rebuttals.
Click to expand...
Why do you consider the rebuttals already posted (and which you have failed to discuss) to not be relevant? You stated that one of them "failed to address important points". What points would those be?

Remember, an unsupported assertion that they are not relevant, or not good criticisms, is not an argument. Neither is a claim that they failed to address important points if you're not able to state what those points actually are.
 
Last edited:
T'ai Chi said:
Let's get this to 5,000 views.

I'll check back in then and see if people are discussing the actual article with relevant rebuttals.
Click to expand...

Why you are the only supporter of the artical, and there have been sufficient rebuttals for the rest of us.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Let's get this to 5,000 views.
Click to expand...

Wow. If that's not evidence of pure attention-hog trolling, I don't know what is. Obviously, it's all about the view-count for this guy.

Why is he allowed to stay?
 
That is my guess for when people will contribute something of substance and focus on the actual article with relevant strong rebuttals.
 
Here ya go Tai Chi: The article states X. People in this thread have stated that X is a load of bollocks. Tai Chi then says no one has refuted X. How is calling something a load of bollocks not dealing with the major point?

It is up to the author of the article to write something which is not a load of bollocks, if he wants to be taken seriously.

Likewise with your posts. If you were to actually, you know, say something, people might be able to engage you in debate. Unfortunately debate is not what you seek. I wonder what it is you want?




I know!::bunpan HOORAY!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom