What the H - Holmes is back!

Ah, but this wasn't a poorly executed attempt at aesthetics I was apologizing for, it was a poorly executed attempt at manual dexterity.That's an old-age challenge.Heheheh.Glad to see you're still here. Your powerful brevity is the dot I'd like to hit on the target.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Because you're not as dishonest, and while it's hard to get you to admit when you're wrong, there are at least some things you're not willing to do in advance of an argument.You may be wrong but at least you're not nearly as pernicious about it. Does it make it a little more incomprehensible if I tell you that my respect for someone isn't based so much on what they know or if they agree with me, as much as how they act? Sure, I was able to find something about that I collected a few years ago. EvC Forum: An Inconvenient TruthI appreciate it, but if people have cause to take issue with my behavior, I'd rather than they were open about their concerns rather than simply allow me to blunder along in a way that was an obstacle to more interesting debate.Indeed I've long begged people to do just that; I rarely have takers. Either I've managed to completely cow everybody into submission, or this rumored silent majority that finds me so insufferable simply doesn't exist.Of course, there are nonetheless a few members that will consider this false humility, but since nothing I could say could convince them otherwise, that's not really something that concerns me. A lot less signal, a lot more noise. Holmes became obsessed with winning arguments to the point where he abandoned all efforts to actually inform.He's got reason to have a really unique perspective on things. I wouldn't presume to offer up his biography, and doubtless I'd get it all wrong, but that stuff was always a lot more interesting than the sophistry and misrepresentation his posting efforts seemed to devolve into.

While you're at it, could you also try to tone down your philosophical writing style (aka philosophical lalaland) just a little bit?I know that you're a philosopher. But you have to realize that most of us are (or at least I am) not so philosophically... lalaland-like. Sorry to put it that way, but I really can't think of any other way to describe it. So far since you came back, you have been doing fine in expressing yourself in a coherent and linear fashion. But in the past before you left, sometime when you really got into a conversation you really made it very difficult for us to see what you wanted to say. I have no doubt that they were still coherent, but they were certainly not linear.Most of us here are biologists, physicists, mathematicians, etc. I don't know what it is with philosophers, but you guys tend to write like you're the only one that will ever read what you have to say. Other people are reading your stuff, too. It's like you guys were taught to model after 19th century German philosophers...Personally, in the past I had always been reluctant to converse with you directly. You could call it fear, fear of having to spend too much time decrypting what you have to say. In fact, I don't know how crashfrog could have the patience to read all the stuff you have to say. Not only are they long, they are downright cryptic.Personally, I'd recommend reading out loud what you just wrote. If you can imagine yourself talking out loud to a person facing you and not have him give you a weird look, you're fine. This isn't philosophy 500. This is an online debate forum.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

The silent majority has spoken on occassion. We do find you insufferable at times. And we've told you as much.I personally find you bombastic and overbearing, and sometimes too arrogant.Not sure if the silent are a majority, of course, but there are those who can't stand you at times.

I like bombast.I'll try to work on the other stuff, though brevity demands that I not crowd a post with "by your leave" this and "I'm sure you're a great guy, but" that, which might give the impression of arrogance, I don't know.

Yes, and I'm glad to hear that my recent posts have been better. To be honest, while I sometimes think you need to increase your endurance to reading and understanding complex pieces, I take your comments to heart as completely valid about my writing style.Welllll... I wish you wouldn't compare me to 19th century German Philosophers... except maybe Nietszche. Have you seen 18th century non-German philosophers? Could it be like them?Personally though, I'd blame it on Lovecraft. I read his stuff way too much as a kid.Heheheh. I will continue to try and improve my style along the lines you suggest.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Unlike Faith, I was neither asked nor forced to leave because of bad behavior. I left because of a personal crisis, and have been gone for a year.My return was hesitant because time is very precious to me now, and this place is somewhat addictive. I have changed as a person, and am trying to change my communication style (even for non-EvC areas of my life). I'm cognizant that some people had issues with my posts in the past and am trying to be extra careful going forward.This may not guarantee that my posts will suddenly meet everyone's approval. I may still have people that don't like me or my writing. That could very well be you.However, I asked for a clean slate, and have treated everyone I might have had issues with civilly on that same idea. If I am to be judged it should be my current writings and not tied to anything in the past. If you want to "keep a record" start the clock from when I returned and present it to me with a concise discussion of what needs to be improved.I'm not going to be drawn into personal arguments anymore, which I'm sure will meet with everyone's approval. But that does make it annoying when a person repeats personal charges made in the past, after I just got done asking to let it go.A lot could be said from my side as well. But I can only imagine it was painful enough for everyone else back then to witness our wrangling... so why resurrect it? Especially at this juncture?Can we please agree to let go of past disputes, for the sake of civility and perhaps better times in the future?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

See, I can endure more complex pieces. In college, I took many philosophy classes. I did fine in them.Just think of it like your upper body endurance and strength. Sure, I can comfortably do 200 on a chest bench. It doesn't mean I want to always lift 200 lb everytime I want to move an object.Perhaps it is normal for you to think and write the way you do sometimes, but it's not for the rest of us. If need be, I'll endure as many and as much complex pieces as need be. It doesn't mean I want to do it every time I get online.But please, don't let me stop you if that's your normal style and it would take extra effort for you to write the way you talk. Just remember that not all of us have the time to read through complex pieces. In fact, I tend to just speed read through most of the posts here. When I find something I'm interested in then I'll put a little more brain power into it. If it appears like something Brad McFall had written, I just skip right over it. Not really worth the time. Well, I wouldn't use the word "improve" as much as "temporarily change".Think of it this way. In a live debate, we talk to each other almost like the way we would talk in an everyday situation. When we submit our academic papers, they tend to be more complicated and they certainly resemble nothing like the way we talk. I tend to think of an online conversation as resembling more of a face to face thing than academic papers. The only difference, really, is we can't interrupt each other in the middle of a sentence.While you were gone, there was a thread about the way creationists tend to write on here. We concluded that the reason creationists tend to write so badly is because they try to immitate academic papers without actually being able to tell the difference between a technical paper and gibberish. I understand that the way you write is not gibberish, but when it gets to certain levels technical writings aren't that far from jargon.Please don't take this as a criticism of the way you write. It's not. I'm just telling you that a lot of us simply don't have the time to go through academic papers on an everyday basis. You don't have to do much, really, to change. Just write more like the way you talk and it will be just fine.PS Ever considered having a great debate with Brad McFall?

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

I guess I don't understand what you're asking. The opportunity you have to not engage in disruptive and dishonest behavior now is the exact same opportunity you had when you left.You're asking for some kind of "clean slate", but there really is no slate to clean. There's not some punishment waiting in the wings for you for what you did in the past. My complaint then, and my fear now, is that you'll continue to support ideas you know are probably wrong with disingenuous argumentation; that you'll continue to substitute rebutting your opponents with attacking assertions no one has made; that you'll continue to quote-mine your opponents and deliberately misinterpret their remarks in the most impeachable way; and that you'll do so in the middle of messages so long and confusing, none of the admins will read them (thus, your misconduct goes undetected while my frustration becomes the basis of moderator action.)It's not within my power, H, to punish you for your sins. I have no interest in doing so. I'm merely asking now what I asked you more than a year ago - to go forth and sin no more. The opportunity for you to do just that is as wide open as it's ever been. I have not brought up the past because I'm trying to get you sanctioned for past behavior. That's not in my power to do, and if the admins were going to take action for the behaviors I chronicled, they would have done so back then.I only brought it up because NJ asked me to do so. He wanted an example of what I thought was objectionable behavior on your part, so I provided one. I linked to that post merely for his edification, not to seek sanctions against you.If I ever do have cause to complain, it'll be about the things you say from now on, I assure you. The past is not forgotten, but it will only be an impediment to your current activities if you choose to make it one.

removed by authorEdited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Instead of throwing a tantrum while every one else is rejoicing the return of EvC's prodigal son, why not just say nothing at all, or at least reserve your scorn for an appropriate thread?

---

1) He's not EvC's "prodigal son". He's just been gone a while.2) "Everyone else" isn't rejoycing. A few people are.

Gee, thanks. Eh, I'll take any compliment from you, no matter how small.
That aside, I still don't see why you think he is disingenuous. I would hope that's where your respect lies. Was I supposed to read the succeeding dialogue as well, or just that post? But people do try to do that all throughout the forum. Everyone thinks they've found their Eden and their way is the right way, which, if you think about it, makes sense. Anyone that ascribes to a belief obviously does so because they belief in the veracity of the claim. There have been a few people who have been vocal about it. I don't need to name names, but there have been a few people to call you out on it-- otherwise, how would you even know that people have taken issue with it?That also doesn't mean you aren't liked here. Sure, you annoy the hell out of me, just as I'm sure its likewise for you. But you are a valuable asset to EvC. Besides, we need that contrast to keep EvC interesting. Yin-yang... I'm up, you're down. You're darkness and I'm light (A little joke) I don't see it. I guess like most of our discussions, we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

I had to use google to find

quote:

---

Evolutionary Psychology continues to pop up in various threads regarding human behavior. This is particularly true for explanations of human sexuality, or attraction.

​

These explanations are not usually supported with evidence from science, or (rarely) when papers are mentioned, that a critical examination of their contents take place. And yet these explanations are treated by posters as if acceptable or accepted by both evolutionary theorists and psychologists alike... despite conflicting evidence presented on this matter.

---

this.I cant see how things would have changed to where I would differ from what Holmes wrote here(declining to agree or not towards the end of the second section etc). Well before this post I discussed evopsych with Holmes and came to some amount of agreement about how wrong it was being taught (for me at Cornell)or used. So I really did not have much to disagree with Holmes about in the areas of most interest to me.In this topic angle I can say that on reading Lloyd’s book more closely since, that whatever agreement Holmes and I might create it would only amount to arguments against the audience that Lloyd asserts is Dawkins’ target. Thing is not only is this not my target I think Dawkins is wrong. I dont see much of need for a great debate on that.

Your posts really can not be distinguished from those written by a complete and utter asshole.My feelings about you personally I will keep to myself.Cheers.

Speak for yourself. I am one of those that are constantly doubting our own interpretation of reality. Now, don't confuse this with absolutely not having any idea what something is not. While I still have doubts as to what right and wrong are, I can definitely tell that what you believe are wrong most of the time.Us skeptics are not as "all knowing" as people often think.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!