Still no explanations from Mark Johnson
Adam Warlock
transparent "evasive maneuvers," even to the point of accusing me of being a
troll. As I understand it, a troll in Usenet parlance is one who posts to
provoke or disrupt and there is usually a concomitant aversion to actual
discussion. The "troll" does not want to engage in discussion. Usually, he
just wants to be annoying. I do not have that desire. I encourage
discussion. I think it's up to the reader to decide the "troll." Perhaps
he or she will decide that we're both trolls.
In response to my comments about my relative lack of participation in
Usenet, Mark protested about the number of articles that I have posted in
reply to him. However, I suspect that Mark conveniently overlooked the
qualifier, "relatively," in my remarks; and I suspect that Mark would want
no part of a comparative post count.
Mark continues to reask questions that I have answered, reask other
questions that I believe should be deferred until Mark returns the favor of
answering questions and engaging in honest discussion, and he tells us that
he will continue to ask these questions until the other questioners stop, as
I recall from the reading (none of the exchanges were in Outlook Express
when I opened it today, so I must work from memory and start over, as I am
in this thread). Here, Mark exposes himself in a manner that I suspect he
did not intend. The last part is very telling--Mark will repeat the
question until the others stop. I have already suggested that Mark's intent
is to wear down his opposition by means of aggravating or frustrating them
and not by engaging in intelligent discussion. The other party will, as
Mark says, "stop," and Mark wins.
Mark has made some noises about how I "disappeared" when asked the
questions--which is obviously false and anyone who reads the exchanges can
see that. I don't spend every day in the newsgroup, as Mark does, and I
usually only post on or near the weekends. Finally, Mark is wanting some of
us to "agree" that we don't know anything about the subject matter.
In short, Mark Johnson is trying every tactic that he can contemplate so
that he can avoid the discussion of the subject. That subject is evolution.
Mark almost never says "evolution." He calls it "evolutionism." Several of
us have asked that he define the term and I have suggested that he provide
his understanding--what does "evolutionism" mean? Mark almost never
acknowledges the question and, on those rare occasions when he does, he tell
us simply that he doesn't believe in it. Of course, that isn't what he was
asked. Mark tells us that he wants us all to agree to Matt's
single-statement "Theory of," and not make any modifications or change our
minds for a period of time--a year, I believe. Some of us won't do that
because we don't believe the phrase is accurate enough--it's too simplistic
to serve. And Mark will not tell us what "mutation" is and why he doesn't
believe in it, either.
Finally, Mark has ignored every single thread that I have initiated in which
I seek to get his understanding of these things. He does this because those
are shorter threads (starting, of course, with a single message) and it's
not as easy to get lost within them--it's not as easy to selectively remove
context from the messages to which he responds without getting caught
because the shortness of the message makes the previous message easier to
find.
In the end, I find Mark Johnson to be dishonest and juvenile; but hope
springs eternal. I simply would like to see Mark explain his understanding
of "mutation" and "evolutionism," that we can have some common ground on
which to have a discussion. This will have the added benefit of allowing
the reader to see if there is anything of merit to his criticisms or if he
is simply criticizing what he does not understand.
• R.L.Measures
wrote:
> It has nearly been a week. I saw that Mark has continued his rather
> transparent "evasive maneuvers," even to the point of accusing me of being a
> troll. As I understand it, a troll in Usenet parlance is one who posts to
> provoke or disrupt and there is usually a concomitant aversion to actual
> discussion. The "troll" does not want to engage in discussion. Usually, he
> just wants to be annoying. I do not have that desire. I encourage
> discussion. I think it's up to the reader to decide the "troll." Perhaps
> he or she will decide that we're both trolls.
> ...
• Do you like goat fajitas?
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Adam Warlock
news:r-1507041...@192.168.1.100...
> In article <T9HJc.16992$ve2.8191@okepread05>, "Adam Warlock" <g...@away.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It has nearly been a week. I saw that Mark has continued his rather
> > transparent "evasive maneuvers," even to the point of accusing me of
being a
> > troll. As I understand it, a troll in Usenet parlance is one who posts
to
> > provoke or disrupt and there is usually a concomitant aversion to actual
> > discussion. The "troll" does not want to engage in discussion.
Usually, he
> > just wants to be annoying. I do not have that desire. I encourage
> > discussion. I think it's up to the reader to decide the "troll."
Perhaps
> > he or she will decide that we're both trolls.
> > ...
I've never heard of them. Why do you ask?
• R.L.Measures
wrote:
> ". R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
> news:r-1507041...@192.168.1.100...
> > In article <T9HJc.16992$ve2.8191@okepread05>, "Adam Warlock" <g...@away.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It has nearly been a week. I saw that Mark has continued his rather
> > > transparent "evasive maneuvers," even to the point of accusing me of
> being a
> > > troll. As I understand it, a troll in Usenet parlance is one who posts
> to
> > > provoke or disrupt and there is usually a concomitant aversion to actual
> > > discussion. The "troll" does not want to engage in discussion.
> Usually, he
> > > just wants to be annoying. I do not have that desire. I encourage
> > > discussion. I think it's up to the reader to decide the "troll."
> Perhaps
> > > he or she will decide that we're both trolls.
> > > ...
> > . Do you like goat fajitas?
>
> I've never heard of them. Why do you ask?
** Trolls eat goat meat.
Adam Warlock
I see. Well, I believe I understand what a Usenet troll is supposed to be,
and if My understanding is correct, of Mark and me, it's not me. Of course,
you may have a different opinion and, of course, you are entitled to it.
Sumbuny
"Adam Warlock" <g...@away.com> wrote in message
news:9MPJc.18430$ve2.17738@okepread05...
>> I see. Well, I believe I understand what a Usenet troll is supposed to
be,
> and if My understanding is correct, of Mark and me, it's not me. Of
course,
> you may have a different opinion and, of course, you are entitled to it.
Mark has a rather long and interesting history here in a.r.c.r-c, and you
can see some of it here:
http://home.jtan.com/~ircd_/meetmarkjohnson/#thennow
Buny
Adam Warlock
• R.L.Measures
<g...@away.com> wrote:
> ". R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
> news:r-1607040...@192.168.1.100...
> > In article <SzHJc.17206$ve2.2579@okepread05>, "Adam Warlock" <g...@away.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >...
> >
> > ** Trolls eat goat meat.
>
> I see. Well, I believe I understand what a Usenet troll is supposed to be,
> and if My understanding is correct, of Mark and me, it's not me.
• Could be, but the only conclusive proof is what kind of fajitas Mark
orders for lunch when he thinks he isn't being watched.
>Of course,
> you may have a different opinion and, of course, you are entitled to it.
cheers, Adam