OK, you've won.
Uncle Davey
I'm afraid my time here has not been very successful, although some
discussions with some people have been an exception to that.
I'm going to post somewhere else.
If I crosspost by accident to talk.origins in the meantime, it won't be on
purpose, so should that happen please don't start jumping up and down and
saying 'liar' and 'hypocrite' and all your favorite words again.
I've had enough of the hatred and negativity some people give out here all
the time. I've already named today the names of the people I think are good
and who are bad.
May God bless you all anyway, including those who have been spiteful, and
those who refused to accept my apologies when I needed to apologise.
Best,
Davey
David Jensen
<c32d4t$38q$0...@pita.alt.net>:
>I've decided not to feature in talk.origins for at least a year from now.
>
>I'm afraid my time here has not been very successful, although some
>discussions with some people have been an exception to that.
>
>I'm going to post somewhere else.
Brave Sir Robin!
>If I crosspost by accident to talk.origins in the meantime, it won't be on
>purpose, so should that happen please don't start jumping up and down and
>saying 'liar' and 'hypocrite' and all your favorite words again.
>
>I've had enough of the hatred and negativity some people give out here all
>the time. I've already named today the names of the people I think are good
>and who are bad.
You've been doing worse, but cannot seem to recognize it.
>May God bless you all anyway, including those who have been spiteful, and
>those who refused to accept my apologies when I needed to apologise.
<church lady>How convenient.</church lady>
Dan Luke
"Uncle Davey" wrote:
> I've decided not to feature in talk.origins for at least a year from
now.
What interesting timing! Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the
usenet-hall-of-fame ass kicking you just absorbed, could it?
Anyway, I don't believe you: I'm sure your sock puppets will still be
around.
--
Dan
(remove pants to reply by email)
Patrick James
(in article <c32d4t$38q$0...@pita.alt.net>):
> I've decided not to feature in talk.origins for at least a year from now.
<sfx of 'Top Gun Anthem'.>, though I'll not be surprised if he, ah,
'forgets' and posts here before 14 Mar 2005 anyway.
This post carefully stored away in Ye Archives for use later.
>
> I'm afraid my time here has not been very successful,
No kidding.
> although some
> discussions with some people have been an exception to that.
>
> I'm going to post somewhere else.
<sfx of prolonged cheering> <sfx of the Munchins from _The Wizard of Oz_
singing 'Ding-dong, the witch is dead'>
>
> If I crosspost by accident to talk.origins in the meantime, it won't be on
> purpose,
_suuuure_ it won't.
> so should that happen please don't start jumping up and down and
> saying 'liar' and 'hypocrite' and all your favorite words again.
Don't worry, I will.
>
> I've had enough of the hatred and negativity some people give out here all
> the time. I've already named today the names of the people I think are good
> and who are bad.
Why do I suspect that I've made yet another List?
>
> May God bless you all anyway, including those who have been spiteful, and
> those who refused to accept my apologies when I needed to apologise.
Don't let the door hit you on the ass as you exit.
>
> Best,
>
> Davey
>
>
>
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Eric Gill
> I've decided not to feature in talk.origins for at least a year from
> now.
<Glances at thoroughly hypocritical and dishonest mesasge> Why don't you
just make it until you develop some personal integrity?
And, yes, "hypocrite" and "liar" are quite popular terms for a hypocritical
liar. If you don't want those descriptive labels, stop earning them.
Whining that no one likes you because you are unlikeable is just asinine.
Buh-Bye!
John Wilkins
Brave Sir Robin ran away
He bravely turned his tail and fled
...
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
Armitage
<partial delurk>
I, for one, will be sorry to see Davey go, as I consider him to be above
the average for creationists in this group. (Bearing in mind that
the average includes sheldon, McCoy, Painful, RR, NM, BD, and yes,
Gastrich).
To his credit, he has never pasted 10 yards of turgid bollocks from AIG,
and he has sometimes conceded that he might be factually wrong, which is
pretty unusual. His answers can be fairly responsive, and he shows
flashes of wit and originality.
On the debit side, he has a big sincerity problem, is unwilling to
reason about his assertions, and tends to avoid the substantial part of
a post when responding. But you can't have everything, can you?
</relurk>
PS. Davey, if you're there, a present for you:
http://www.lib.ru/PELEWIN/widy.txt
--
Armitage
Dancing Blasphemer
<snip>
Nothing like the threat of legal action to scare a dishonest guy away,
eh Davey?
Now I'm curious. What exactly was in Davey's e-mails? Something bad
enough to make him run away rather than reveal them.
Dancing Blasphemer
Charles C.
Thank you for naming me as one of the bad ones.
If pointing out a liar is bad, thank you.
If pointing out a sock puppet is bad, thank you.
If pointing out fraud is bad, thank you.
If pointing out charlatans is bad, thank you.
My work with you is done, thank you.
In your absence I hope that you read and study the Bible and some good
non Calvinist / fundamentalist books about it. With a little hard work
you could end up with a healthy Christian faith that doesn't cause
harm to others and yourself as your words here have done.
Good luck Davey.
I hope that you find the real Jesus.
Charles
Remove the underscores to contact me.
Creationism: Sci-Fi for the soul
Cheezits
> Uncle Davey wrote:
[etc.]
>> I've already named today the names of the people I
>> think are good and who are bad.
Why do kooks always do that?
[etc.]
> To his credit, he has never pasted 10 yards of turgid bollocks from
> AIG, and he has sometimes conceded that he might be factually wrong,
> which is pretty unusual. His answers can be fairly responsive, and he
> shows flashes of wit and originality.
I agree. In all the years I have been reading t.o on and off, I have never
seen anyone try to claim that the existence of languages refuted evolution!
You gotta give him credit for coming up with something different.
Sue (who obviously has a soft spot for Uncle Davey)
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Richard Crawford
Believe it or not, I will be sorry to see UD go. I disagreed with him
on plenty of matters scientific and theological, but I feel that he
actually discussed issues with patience and respect. I also appreciated
his sense of humor.
Best wishes and God's blessings, UD.
--
Slainte,
Richard S. Crawford
AIM: Buffalo2K / Y!: rscrawford / ICQ: 11640404
http://www.mossroot.com http://www.stonegoose.com
"It is only with our heart that we can see clearly. What is essential
is invisible to the eye." --Antoine de Saint Exupery
Gary Bohn
"Cheezits" <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94ACD2FDE9B3Cc...@129.250.170.83...
> Armitage <armitag...@example.com> wrote:
> > Uncle Davey wrote:
> [etc.]
> >> I've already named today the names of the people I
> >> think are good and who are bad.
>
> Why do kooks always do that?
>
> [etc.]
> > To his credit, he has never pasted 10 yards of turgid bollocks from
> > AIG, and he has sometimes conceded that he might be factually wrong,
> > which is pretty unusual. His answers can be fairly responsive, and he
> > shows flashes of wit and originality.
>
> I agree. In all the years I have been reading t.o on and off, I have
never
> seen anyone try to claim that the existence of languages refuted
evolution!
> You gotta give him credit for coming up with something different.
>
> Sue (who obviously has a soft spot for Uncle Davey)
> --
> "It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
> make us what we are." - Red Green
>
TANSTAAFL
Gary
Ernest Major
Blasphemer <Dancing_B...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Nothing like the threat of legal action to scare a dishonest guy away,
>eh Davey?
>
>Now I'm curious. What exactly was in Davey's e-mails? Something bad
>enough to make him run away rather than reveal them.
>
that topic were merely trolling (he next to admitted it). There are
other explanations.
That he cross-posting his parting shop to free.christians does not speak
in favour of his sincerity.
--
alias Ernest Major
Jason Gastrich
Some of you guys would even doubt Dennis Kucinich's sincerity.
Jason
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
Daniel Harper
> Ernest Major wrote:
>> In article <f83d8e4f.04031...@posting.google.com>, Dancing
>> Blasphemer <Dancing_B...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>
>>> Nothing like the threat of legal action to scare a dishonest guy away,
>>> eh Davey?
>>>
>>> Now I'm curious. What exactly was in Davey's e-mails? Something bad
>>> enough to make him run away rather than reveal them.
>>>
>> You can't, and shouldn't, assume that. It may be that his arguments on
>> that topic were merely trolling (he next to admitted it). There are
>> other explanations.
>>
>> That he cross-posting his parting shop to free.christians does not speak
>> in favour of his sincerity.
>
> Some of you guys would even doubt Dennis Kucinich's sincerity.
>
No one gets a free pass around here. If Eugenie Scott (head of the NCSE)
herself came in here and starting tossing around arguments that were
totally invalid, she'd be called on it the same you are.
Why don't you try making some reasonable arguments, and seeing how people
react?
<snip Jason's .sig>
--
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor'and 'hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, that
you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on
the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
(Matthew 5:43-45, New English Translation)
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
Therion Ware
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:03:40 +0000 (UTC) in talk.origins, Jason
Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
reply to talk.origins
>Ernest Major wrote:
>> In article <f83d8e4f.04031...@posting.google.com>, Dancing
>> Blasphemer <Dancing_B...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>
>>> Nothing like the threat of legal action to scare a dishonest guy
>>> away, eh Davey?
>>>
>>> Now I'm curious. What exactly was in Davey's e-mails? Something bad
>>> enough to make him run away rather than reveal them.
>>>
>> You can't, and shouldn't, assume that. It may be that his arguments on
>> that topic were merely trolling (he next to admitted it). There are
>> other explanations.
>>
>> That he cross-posting his parting shop to free.christians does not
>> speak in favour of his sincerity.
>
>Some of you guys would even doubt Dennis Kucinich's sincerity.
That would probably depend upon whether he could be shown to be
misrepresenting matters of easily verifiable fact in the service of
his ideology, wouldn't it?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
John Baker
"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:5Gc5c.28642$4o3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Ernest Major wrote:
> > In article <f83d8e4f.04031...@posting.google.com>, Dancing
> > Blasphemer <Dancing_B...@hotmail.com> writes
> >>
> >> Nothing like the threat of legal action to scare a dishonest guy
> >> away, eh Davey?
> >>
> >> Now I'm curious. What exactly was in Davey's e-mails? Something bad
> >> enough to make him run away rather than reveal them.
> >>
> > You can't, and shouldn't, assume that. It may be that his arguments on
> > that topic were merely trolling (he next to admitted it). There are
> > other explanations.
> >
> > That he cross-posting his parting shop to free.christians does not
> > speak in favour of his sincerity.
>
> Some of you guys would even doubt Dennis Kucinich's sincerity.
I doubt the sincerity of *any* politician. They're about as sincere, and as
honest as.....well, as Christer trolls like you and Uncle Davey. Your point
is?
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Uncle Davey wrote:
> I've decided not to feature in talk.origins for at least a year from now.
Trolling camapign didn't quite turn out like you hoped, huh Davey?
Bye. <waving as you ride off into the sunset on your white horse>
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Jason Gastrich wrote:
> Ernest Major wrote:
>
>>In article <f83d8e4f.04031...@posting.google.com>, Dancing
>>Blasphemer <Dancing_B...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>>Nothing like the threat of legal action to scare a dishonest guy
>>>away, eh Davey?
>>>
>>>Now I'm curious. What exactly was in Davey's e-mails? Something bad
>>>enough to make him run away rather than reveal them.
>>>
>>
>>You can't, and shouldn't, assume that. It may be that his arguments on
>>that topic were merely trolling (he next to admitted it). There are
>>other explanations.
>>
>>That he cross-posting his parting shop to free.christians does not
>>speak in favour of his sincerity.
>
>
> Some of you guys would even doubt Dennis Kucinich's sincerity.
>
How dreadful.
Why again are your religious opinions any more authoritatative than mine
or my next door neighbor's or the kid who delivers my pizzas, "Dr"?
What again makes you more holy and infallible than anyone else? Why
again won't you answer that simple question?
Why don't you follow your good pal Davey and ride off into the sunset, "Dr"?
C. Thompson
We haven't "won" until the last yahoo renounces the nonsense of creationism.
Chris
Louann Miller
<no...@jose.com> wrote:
>I've decided not to feature in talk.origins for at least a year from now.
>
>I'm afraid my time here has not been very successful, although some
>discussions with some people have been an exception to that.
>
>I'm going to post somewhere else.
Dude! You forgot your bat and ball! It doesn't count as leaving in a
snit if you don't take your bat and ball when you go home.
Frank Reichenbacher
"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:omqb50pu32vifiks2...@4ax.com...
And your pacifier. Don't forget that either.
Oh, and your teddy bear.
And your favorite blankie.
And your crayons, otherwise you won't be able to write anything for the
special people at the library to post for you.
And the special spoon you eat your strained peas with, don't forget that
too.
Frank
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:uvednYoSG4D...@speakeasy.net...
You no doubt thought you were adding something funny to Louann's amusing
remark, but instead you just squelched it.
Some people can be funny, others are ..... like you.
Uncle Davey
Skitter the Cat
On 14-Mar-2004, "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote:
<header snip>
> I've decided not to feature in talk.origins for at least a year from now.
Well, I hope to hear from you then. The decision to go or stay, is of
course, yours-but I wish you hadn't decided to leave.
>
> I'm afraid my time here has not been very successful, although some
> discussions with some people have been an exception to that.
I'm not sure what you mean by successful, but I've found your posts
interesting and have enjoyed your sense of humor.
> I'm going to post somewhere else.
I hope you enjoy "there"-wherever "there" is...maybe I stumble into you
"there" ;)
> If I crosspost by accident to talk.origins in the meantime, it won't be on
> purpose, so should that happen please don't start jumping up and down and
> saying 'liar' and 'hypocrite' and all your favorite words again.
>
> I've had enough of the hatred and negativity some people give out here all
> the time. I've already named today the names of the people I think are
> good and who are bad.
I missed where you named names (not implying that you didn't do what you
said, only that I haven't seen it yet).
>
> May God bless you all anyway, including those who have been spiteful, and
> those who refused to accept my apologies when I needed to apologise.
May God bless you too, UD.
I have disagreed with you, and on occasion agreed with you-but I've never
wanted you to go away. It's been fun and interesting.
>
> Best,
To you also-and good luck.
Skitter the Cat
John Wilkins
Rubbish, Chris. People should be entitled to believe anything they like,
including homeopathy, sympathetic magic, and astrology. We will have won
when they abandon attempts to have it taught as science.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Frank Reichenbacher wrote:
He should look on the bright side ---- if he goes to another group where
no oen has already seen what a lying manipulating forging sockpuppeter
he is, he can once again trot out all his favorite sockpuppets and amuse
himself with his pointless trolling all over again. <shrug>
He should thank us for once again giving him the opportunity to go ahead
and do the only thing that he really WANTED to do anyway (but was
prevented from doing here).
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
C. Thompson wrote:
> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> We haven't "won" until the last yahoo renounces the nonsense of creationism.
>
I quite disagree. In a democracy, people are entirely free to hold
whatever religious opinions they like, no matter HOW dumb others might
think they are.
What they are NOT entitled to do is attempt to force their religious
opinions onto others by lying and claiming that those religious opinions
are really "science".
It is not the creationist religious opinions I object to --- it is their
Taliban-like proclivity to force those opinions onto others, whether
those others like it or not.
Michael Howard
<snip>
"Yay! I won!"
"You didn't win anything, Ralph. You're failing English."
"Me fail English? That unpossible!"
-----------------------------------
mike
"That's an interesting theory. Only one problem: It's stupid. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard."
C. Thompson
> C. Thompson <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Uncle Davey wrote:
>>
>> We haven't "won" until the last yahoo renounces the nonsense of
>> creationism.
>>
>> Chris
>
> Rubbish, Chris. People should be entitled to believe anything they
> like, including homeopathy, sympathetic magic, and astrology. We will
> have won when they abandon attempts to have it taught as science.
I disagree. Don't mistake an an acceptable outcome with a real victory. I
would like a world in which people (of their own accord, of course) were
rational, and did not put their money, time, and health into things like
astrology and homeopathy.
Yes, they do have a right to believe there are aliens controlling the stock
market, the planet is hollow, angels watch over us, and any other nonsense.
But I think we'd all be better off if Andy Rooney didn't get tons of hate
mail for calling Mel Gibson a kook.
Chris
C. Thompson
> C. Thompson wrote:
>
>> Uncle Davey wrote:
>>
>> We haven't "won" until the last yahoo renounces the nonsense of
>> creationism.
>>
>
>
>
> I quite disagree. In a democracy, people are entirely free to hold
> whatever religious opinions they like, no matter HOW dumb others might
> think they are.
And nowhere in my post did I even hint at any sort of compulsion to make
them change.
But I think the real victory is when reason triumphs over superstition.
Chris
Frank Reichenbacher
"C. Thompson" <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3783n$idr$1...@pat.cis.cuny.edu...
> John Wilkins wrote:
> > C. Thompson <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Uncle Davey wrote:
> >>
> >> We haven't "won" until the last yahoo renounces the nonsense of
> >> creationism.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >
> > Rubbish, Chris. People should be entitled to believe anything they
> > like, including homeopathy, sympathetic magic, and astrology. We will
> > have won when they abandon attempts to have it taught as science.
>
> I disagree. Don't mistake an an acceptable outcome with a real victory.
I
> would like a world in which people (of their own accord, of course) were
> rational, and did not put their money, time, and health into things like
> astrology and homeopathy.
There are times when I would surely agree with you on this. But then I think
if we had to live in a world of pure reason, we would go nuts with boredom.
Not that it matters. The fact is that there will always be *two* tails on a
normal curve.
Frank
C. Thompson
> "C. Thompson" <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c3783n$idr$1...@pat.cis.cuny.edu...
>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>> C. Thompson <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Uncle Davey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We haven't "won" until the last yahoo renounces the nonsense of
>>>> creationism.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>
>>> Rubbish, Chris. People should be entitled to believe anything they
>>> like, including homeopathy, sympathetic magic, and astrology. We
>>> will have won when they abandon attempts to have it taught as
>>> science.
>>
>> I disagree. Don't mistake an an acceptable outcome with a real
>> victory.
> I
>> would like a world in which people (of their own accord, of course)
>> were rational, and did not put their money, time, and health into
>> things like astrology and homeopathy.
>
> There are times when I would surely agree with you on this. But then
> I think if we had to live in a world of pure reason, we would go nuts
> with boredom.
There's nothing that says we couldn't still enjoy Star Wars or Miles
Vorkosigan.
We just wouldn't have to believe it.
Chris
Louann Miller
>> I've decided not to feature in talk.origins for at least a year from now.
>>
>> I'm afraid my time here has not been very successful, although some
>> discussions with some people have been an exception to that.
>>
>> I'm going to post somewhere else.
>>
>> purpose, so should that happen please don't start jumping up and down and
>> saying 'liar' and 'hypocrite' and all your favorite words again.
>>
>> I've had enough of the hatred and negativity some people give out here all
>> the time. I've already named today the names of the people I think are good
>> and who are bad.
Okay, we've got general agreement that this was a badly done departure
speech. If for no other reason than that getting the last word and
leaving are incompatible goals. One poster's exit line is another
poster's straight line.
A question for discussion -- what would be a _good_ departure speech?
Assume a poster who like Davey was (a) deeply entangled in the debate
and (b) losing on all fronts. Would it be best not to make a speech at
all, just to quit showing up? Or is some vague closer like "I have
other things to do" or "you've given me a lot to think about" pretty
much a requirement? I realize that no true creationist (tm) would
allow any admission of losing or wrongdoing to enter the exit speech.
My first impression is that the best exit speech would be none at all
-- just go. You lose face, of course, especially if you have
challenges and claims hanging outstanding in the active discussion
threads. There would be a certain amount of "hah, you see, X made all
those claims and then ran away" going on. But it would die down pretty
quickly when it became apparent that you really weren't coming back;
this is a busy newsgroup.
I can't think of any "declare victory and get out" options that
wouldn't invite even more ridicule. No point in making a bad situation
worse; take the hit points and cut your losses.
Louann
Ernest Major
<loua...@yahoo.net> writes
>
>A question for discussion -- what would be a _good_ departure speech?
>Assume a poster who like Davey was (a) deeply entangled in the debate
>and (b) losing on all fronts. Would it be best not to make a speech at
>all, just to quit showing up? Or is some vague closer like "I have
>other things to do" or "you've given me a lot to think about" pretty
>much a requirement? I realize that no true creationist (tm) would
>allow any admission of losing or wrongdoing to enter the exit speech.
>
is a non-trivial task), but in this particular case if he had said that
his trolling addiction was getting out of hand, and he was going cold
turkey, I might well have accepted that at face value.
--
alias Ernest Major
A troll-baiter's just another troll, on the froup he takes his toll.
A kook-basher's just another kook, any good result is just a fluke.
Thomas H. Faller
Try this:
"Pardon me, I have to go see a man about a dog."
Works around here.
Tom Faller
John Thompson
> >Uncle Davey wrote:
> >> I've decided not to feature in talk.origins for at least a year from now.
> >>
> >> I'm afraid my time here has not been very successful, although some
> >> discussions with some people have been an exception to that.
> >>
> >> I'm going to post somewhere else.
> >>
> >> If I crosspost by accident to talk.origins in the meantime, it won't be on
> >> purpose, so should that happen please don't start jumping up and down and
> >> saying 'liar' and 'hypocrite' and all your favorite words again.
> >>
> >> I've had enough of the hatred and negativity some people give out here all
> >> the time. I've already named today the names of the people I think are good
> >> and who are bad.
>
> Okay, we've got general agreement that this was a badly done departure
> speech. If for no other reason than that getting the last word and
> leaving are incompatible goals. One poster's exit line is another
> poster's straight line.
>
> A question for discussion -- what would be a _good_ departure speech?
> Assume a poster who like Davey was (a) deeply entangled in the debate
> and (b) losing on all fronts. Would it be best not to make a speech at
> all, just to quit showing up? Or is some vague closer like "I have
> other things to do" or "you've given me a lot to think about" pretty
> much a requirement? I realize that no true creationist (tm) would
> allow any admission of losing or wrongdoing to enter the exit speech.
Maybe "they're cutting way back on our internet access here at the
state hospital so I won't be posting anymore" :)
Given conditions (a) and (b) above, any exit is likely to be awkward.
The best I can imagine is something like "The responses to my posts
have contained a lot of material I'm not familiar with. It has not
conviced me that my own ideas are wrong, but it has conviced me that I
need to learn more about these things before I can present my own
ideas in the most effective way." (a longer version of "you've given
me a lot to think about".
Around 10 years ago there was a small cult whose leader was as
graceful and sensible as I've ever heard of for someone who's just
looked like an idiot. They had take themselves off somewhere
(moutaintop/motel in Texas/somewhere away from where their regular
lives were) to wait for the great earth shaking event that was to
occur (return of Jesus/God shows up on TV/something similar). When it
didn't happen his advice to his followers was "I think we should all
go home", and some time later he recommended that, in view of his
inaccuracy on the Big One, it would be wisest to regard all his
previous statements as worthless. I was pleasantly surprised that such
a person was ready to admit he was wrong and advise his followers to
return to normal life.
Kermit
The great ones are so difficult to reproduce; context is everything.
In the Battle of Gettysburg, the exit speech of Gen, John Sedgwick was
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist-"
Although one could argue that the self-referencing irony was
unintentional, and therefore he deserved no credit for any resultant
giggles. Oscar Wilde, on the other hand, knew exactly what he was
saying on his deathbed. His last words were "Either this wallpaper
goes, or I go."
Kermit
"The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne" - Chaucer
John Wilkins
> Louann Miller wrote:
>
...
> > I can't think of any "declare victory and get out" options that
> > wouldn't invite even more ridicule. No point in making a bad situation
> > worse; take the hit points and cut your losses.
> >
> > Louann
>
> Try this:
>
> "Pardon me, I have to go see a man about a dog."
>
> Works around here.
>
> Tom Faller
I usually say, "Excuse me, but I must void my bowels now". Works a
treat.
Dana Tweedy
"Kermit" <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b38d8c5.04031...@posting.google.com...
Sorry, that was Spotslyvania Court House, May, 1864, nearly a year after
Gettysburg. "Uncle John" as his troops called him, Commander of the Sixth
Corps, survived the battle of Gettysburg without a scratch. His actual last
words were ""All right, my man; go to your place." For the full story, see:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/sedgwickdeath.htm
DJT (who's a part time tour guide at Gettysburg)
Pip R. Lagenta
Hey, guy, if people wanted the *true* story, there wouldn't be
creationists.
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Lab Rat
<snip>
>
>
> The great ones are so difficult to reproduce; context is everything.
>
> In the Battle of Gettysburg, the exit speech of Gen, John Sedgwick was
> "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist-"
>
> Although one could argue that the self-referencing irony was
> unintentional, and therefore he deserved no credit for any resultant
> giggles. Oscar Wilde, on the other hand, knew exactly what he was
> saying on his deathbed. His last words were "Either this wallpaper
> goes, or I go."
>
> Kermit
> "The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne" - Chaucer
I have, in my time, used the rather poetic "I'm going for a walk. I
may be some time"
Ratty
Wakboth
> >> I've decided not to feature in talk.origins for at least a year from now.
> >>
> >> I'm afraid my time here has not been very successful, although some
> >> discussions with some people have been an exception to that.
> >>
> >> I'm going to post somewhere else.
> >>
> >> If I crosspost by accident to talk.origins in the meantime, it won't be on
> >> purpose, so should that happen please don't start jumping up and down and
> >> saying 'liar' and 'hypocrite' and all your favorite words again.
> >>
> >> I've had enough of the hatred and negativity some people give out here all
> >> the time. I've already named today the names of the people I think are good
> >> and who are bad.
>
> Okay, we've got general agreement that this was a badly done departure
> speech. If for no other reason than that getting the last word and
> leaving are incompatible goals. One poster's exit line is another
> poster's straight line.
>
> A question for discussion -- what would be a _good_ departure speech?
> Assume a poster who like Davey was (a) deeply entangled in the debate
> and (b) losing on all fronts. Would it be best not to make a speech at
> all, just to quit showing up? Or is some vague closer like "I have
> other things to do" or "you've given me a lot to think about" pretty
> much a requirement? I realize that no true creationist (tm) would
> allow any admission of losing or wrongdoing to enter the exit speech.
How about something along these lines?
"Okay, I see I'm losing; obviously, I wasn't prepared as well as I
thought I was, while you were. I'll concede the field, this time; it's
time to go read some more. Thank you for an interesting debate."
> My first impression is that the best exit speech would be none at all
> -- just go. You lose face, of course, especially if you have
> challenges and claims hanging outstanding in the active discussion
> threads. There would be a certain amount of "hah, you see, X made all
> those claims and then ran away" going on. But it would die down pretty
> quickly when it became apparent that you really weren't coming back;
> this is a busy newsgroup.
>
> I can't think of any "declare victory and get out" options that
> wouldn't invite even more ridicule. No point in making a bad situation
> worse; take the hit points and cut your losses.
Have there been, in the history of this newsgroup, any cases of a
losing Creationist conceding and making a dignified exit?
-- Wakboth (who likes to believe in politeness and good manners)
Greg G
> Thomas H. Faller <fal...@sgi.com> wrote:
>
> > Louann Miller wrote:
> >
> ...
> > > I can't think of any "declare victory and get out" options that
> > > wouldn't invite even more ridicule. No point in making a bad situation
> > > worse; take the hit points and cut your losses.
> > >
> > > Louann
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > "Pardon me, I have to go see a man about a dog."
> >
> > Works around here.
> >
> > Tom Faller
>
> I usually say, "Excuse me, but I must void my bowels now". Works a
> treat.
"I have to drop the kids off at the pool."
--
Greg G.
What I _need_ is a well-deserved break, but I don't deserve it yet.
Louann Miller
(John Wilkins) wrote:
>Thomas H. Faller <fal...@sgi.com> wrote:
>
>> Louann Miller wrote:
>>
>...
>> > I can't think of any "declare victory and get out" options that
>> > wouldn't invite even more ridicule. No point in making a bad situation
>> > worse; take the hit points and cut your losses.
>> >
>> > Louann
>>
>> Try this:
>>
>> "Pardon me, I have to go see a man about a dog."
>>
>> Works around here.
>>
>> Tom Faller
>
>I usually say, "Excuse me, but I must void my bowels now". Works a
>treat.
If Unc had said that on departure, there would have been a universal
cry of "we thought that's what your posts were!" Not an improvement
from his standpoint.
Louann "somebody's got to take the easy ones" Miller
Louann Miller
Rat) wrote:
>I have, in my time, used the rather poetic "I'm going for a walk. I
>may be some time"
>Ratty
Can't beat the classics.
Louann Miller
(Wakboth) wrote:
>> A question for discussion -- what would be a _good_ departure speech?
>> Assume a poster who like Davey was (a) deeply entangled in the debate
>> and (b) losing on all fronts. Would it be best not to make a speech at
>> all, just to quit showing up? Or is some vague closer like "I have
>> other things to do" or "you've given me a lot to think about" pretty
>> much a requirement? I realize that no true creationist (tm) would
>> allow any admission of losing or wrongdoing to enter the exit speech.
>
>How about something along these lines?
>
>"Okay, I see I'm losing; obviously, I wasn't prepared as well as I
>thought I was, while you were. I'll concede the field, this time; it's
>time to go read some more. Thank you for an interesting debate."
That's probably the best one yet, although most creationists might
prefer to cut out the 'losing' and 'concede' clauses.
Frankly, I suspect some of 'em are trapped. They know deep down that
they get their hineys kicked between their shoulder blades every time
they open their mouths, but they can't bring themselves to quit
posting because that would mean admitting they'd been wrong. So they
just hang around and get wronger and crankier. (In both senses of that
last.) It's a purely self-imposed trap, but it seems very real.
Steve Schaffner
Pedant point:
The original was "I am just going outside and may be some time."
Susan S
<s...@iron.broad.mit.edu>:
Oates, yes?
Susan Silberstein
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "John Wilkins" <john...@wilkins.id.au> napisał w wiadomości
news:1gaqfmf.1b5h5qt152xblxN%john...@wilkins.id.au...
> C. Thompson <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Uncle Davey wrote:
> >
> > We haven't "won" until the last yahoo renounces the nonsense of
creationism.
> >
> > Chris
>
> Rubbish, Chris. People should be entitled to believe anything they like,
> including homeopathy, sympathetic magic, and astrology. We will have won
> when they abandon attempts to have it taught as science.
Which, I hasten to add, I was never asking for in the first place.
For me it can be taught under philosophy.
Uncle Davey, and that doesn't start getting taught until kids are not really
kids any more, and the majority don't even go down the route of ever even
opening any philosophy book.
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Susan S" <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:247h501igi6pkqub6...@4ax.com...
The full text was "I'm just going outside, Bathsheba Everdene, and I may be
some time."
Uncle Davey
R.Schenck
> In talk.origins I read this message from Steve Schaffner
> <s...@iron.broad.mit.edu>:
>
>> lab_...@hotmail.com (Lab Rat) writes:
>>
>>> unrestra...@hotmail.com (Kermit) wrote in message
>>> news:<2b38d8c5.04031...@posting.google.com>... <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The great ones are so difficult to reproduce; context is everything.
>>>>
>>>> In the Battle of Gettysburg, the exit speech of Gen, John Sedgwick was
>>>> "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist-"
>>>>
>>>> Although one could argue that the self-referencing irony was
>>>> unintentional, and therefore he deserved no credit for any resultant
>>>> giggles. Oscar Wilde, on the other hand, knew exactly what he was
>>>> saying on his deathbed. His last words were "Either this wallpaper
>>>> goes, or I go."
>>>>
>>>> Kermit
>>>> "The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne" - Chaucer
>>>
>>> I have, in my time, used the rather poetic "I'm going for a walk. I
>>> may be some time"
>>
>> Pedant point:
>> The original was "I am just going outside and may be some time."
>>
> Oates, yes?
no thanks.
he's going for a walk?
Not the after dinner kind?
Is he gonna use his hands, and gonna use his mind?
hmm, something tells me ud wouldn't like having a Bad Religion song
paraphrased in reference to him.
--
This is an automatic signature of MesNews.
Site : http://mesnews.no-ip.com
Steve Schaffner
Yes. Or rather, Oates as reported by Scott.
--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
It seems a pity, but I do not think I can write more.
Robert Falcon Scott
Louann Miller
<s...@iron.broad.mit.edu> wrote:
>> >Pedant point:
>> >The original was "I am just going outside and may be some time."
>> >
>> Oates, yes?
>
>Yes. Or rather, Oates as reported by Scott.
Granted it was cold outside, but at least there was some kind of
atmosphere.
Louann "smeg off" Miller.
John Wilkins
But no fun, fun, fun, in the sun, sun, sun...
--
John "Cat" Wilkins