Buzsaw Permanently Suspended

I know. As I said, the comparison is a bit lame.But what I meant to compare was people's attitude toward both of them. You can either try to work your way through Brad's spaghetti or you can just ignore him altogether.Likewise, you can either delve into the darkest recesses of Buzsaw's irrational thinking, or you can ignore him as well.I am truly sorry my joke with the megaphone got so out of hand, especially because I definitely see a possibility of explaining to Buz what his error regarding randomness and selection consists of. It will be hard, both to put it into words, and to make him understand, but I think it could be done.But he is no longer here. Sad.

I am only trying to reach TO the contained ORGANIC explanation say via Dirac's comparison's of densities(GibbsvsvonNeumannetc) but Buz might have reached you beyond that.

The upper content was from Dauben, "George Cantor" and the lower context was found in "Quantum Mechanics" by PAM Dirac.

I don't want to imitate Mark McGwire's recent evasive performance before Congress by using self-serving claims of focusing on the positive as a means of avoiding discussion of why Buzsaw was permanently suspended, but it seems most unfair to speak critically of someone who can't be present to defend himself. Why don't you send email to Percy if you want to know my true feelings.--Percy

That's exactly what I think is the problem with Buzsaw's - and other creationists' - thinking about selection. We need to explain to them how selection can - and does, in evolutionary thinking - mean something other than a conscious choice.

I agree. It's sad. But don't feel like the cause. It's one of those things that was "waiting to happen." It's like at the end of a failing relationship--anything can trigger a fight.Not that I want to compare him to Buz, but I think Mike the wiz started feeling like Buz (and others), feeling constantly picked on. Regardless of "the truth of the matter" or whatever, I think he did a good thing by stepping away for a bit. I'm glad to see "him" back (i.e. under an "assumed identity" ), but I think it was good for everybody for him to take a breather and avoid getting into this same kind of situation.But yeah, I'll miss Buz too. It's sad. I never got a chance to engage him any kind of debate.

I also routinely refer to the spade in my basement as "a spade". On a forum with established rules, if someone debates in such a way that breaks those rules, you boot them.It's really that simple.All right, I'm gonna stop pretending to speak for Percy now... just thought I'd respond briefly because I was identified by name in Mike's post.

---

"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!"
-Jane Christie

I'll let it slide Percy. I was going to email you but I think It seems you've made your mind up. To be honest though Percy, whatever the problem between you and Buz, I think the forum will lose out. But if your mind is concrete then it's set.If you're listening Buz, you can email me. If u don't want to fair enough, it was just to say goodbye good bud.

Okay, I won't get into the whole "what rules Buz broken" debate but I think others have behaved in a much more guilty and rule-breaking fashion.Example, Charles Knight spams messages with no content. When he said my post was "bollocks" he didn't back up why, and most of his posts are one sentence, and are more of a running commentary on what is happening. No offense admin but if he was creo he would have been outed after three days. No offense Charles either, but I hope you can see my point and it's truly not a personal one.You yourself include comedy in almost every post in serious forums Dan. Yet you and Charles aren't banned permanently for being you and Charles. If you were both creo Christian fundies, I think you would be treated differently.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 03-30-2005 07:57 PM

Don`t knock comic relief, Mike.You and I have done it on many an occasion to lighten the mood. After all, this is a message board, not a court defending your life and beliefs. While I never locked horns with Buz, he seemed to be able to uplift the frustration level repeatedly. While this may be a legitimate tactic in certain circles, is it valid here? To take the load off Admins, and in the spirit of democracy, should we have an exit procedure involving those charged with terminal disregard of the rules. Admins put up a name and a case for dismissal, the accused or a representative makes a reply, and we vote for removal. Say, ten or more votes ensures an exit?

Not to defend buz or anything, but if you continue to boot creationists like this there won't be any left. I understand your reason for loosing patience with him, but I seem to recall that creationists are held to a lower standard.I am now asking you to unboot buzsaw.

quote:

---

I have permantly suspended Buzsaw's posting privileges.

---

That truly sucks. The guy's a veteran.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

Your right mike. There will be different treatment for the few that differ in opinion. I don't find it very offensive personally, minnemoose being the only threat to my health so far.I think that buz was a good guy, but a radical guy. I also think that he wouldn't try to irritate the admin percy on purpose but it sort of came out like that.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

This isn't survivor, plz don't turn it into survival of the fittest. lol

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

Percy,I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one. Buz was probably one of the most pig-headed, frustratingly repetitious, hermetically sealed creationists we've ever had on this board. He was also the main instigator of the current trend of creationists-whining-about-board-unfairness-and-bias.However, some of us have done some of our best work explaining things to him - even if he never got it. A useful foil, if nothing else.Finally, to the best of my knowledge, he was NEVER nasty or vituperative. Willowtree was nasty, and was booted for it. SLPx is often vitriolic - and has had his tail booted several times for it - always to be allowed to return. Syamasu is the worst debator in history - but is still here. Buz never called anyone stupid, or said that all scientists are deluded liars - as Faith, who continues to post prolifically has done repeatedly. Buz was a gentleman, as far as discussion boards go at least.I would ask you to reconsider the permanent ban - something that hitherto has been reserved for spammers, purveyors of porn, people who attempt to hack the site, and others of that ilk. Buz, to my mind, simply doesn't fit that category.

I agree. I wrote something fairly similar a couple hours ago in the admin forum. I agree with the rest of what you say, also. Buzsaw will be missed.--Percy