William Dembski is a censor
jack.m...@gmail.com
I twice registered a username there and posted two messages. The
messages never appeared on the site, although other comments dated
after mine did, and the username was disabled both times. I could find
no contact information on the site, but 'whois' gave me an email
address for Dembski. To his credit, he did respond to my question of
"Has my account been deliberately disabled?" with an email consisting
of the single word "Yes." A request for the reason has thus far gone
unanswered.
This is Dembski's site, so I don't dispute that he can make any rules
he wishes. What I do find offensive is the complete lack of any
indication that he censors his site and removes accounts at his whim.
The registration mechanism is open to all, suggesting that the
discussion taking place includes anyone who wishes to participate. In
fact, it appears that Dembski allows only people who agree with him to
post. Again, his blog, his rules, but he could be more up front about
what those rules are.
I suppose it is naive to expect a greater respect for intellectual
honesty and rational discussion in his own forum than the ID movement
demonstrates in its public interactions.
The two messages I posted are:
+++++ topic: Behe's performance in Dover +++++
dodgingcars writes:
> > From admitting that science had to be redefined to include ID,
>
> Not quite. He's actually saying that science was a broader term in
> the past and has been redefined to exclude ID now.
That is not at all what he claimed in his testimony. Behe recognizes
that ID is not a scientific theory and sought to change the definition
rather than address the aspects of ID that make it not qualify as
science. He then admitted under cross-examination that his definition
allows astrology to be called science as well.
> > The evidence about the peer review of his book (which I have
> > ordered, it isnt in my local shop) was pretty bad
>
> How was it bad?
If you read the testimony, you'll see that he first claimed that his
book had been subject to the same level of peer review as are articles
in journals such as Nature and Science. In fact, one of the people
listed as a reviewer never even read the book, nor did he provide any
feedback. The feedback provided by other reviewers was without
exception unsupportive of ID, yet Behe changed nothing and published
the book anyway.
TheSun is absolutely correct, Behe got hammered.
+++++ end message +++++
+++++ topic: trilemma +++++
> 1. Science cannot test the proposition that biological features
> are designed.
Untrue. Anyone claiming that a particular biological feature is
designed has the burden of proof for demonstrating that. One means of
doing so would be to demonstrate that it is impossible for the feature
to have arisen through any natural mechanism.
> 2. Darwinism explains that the appearance of design in biology not
> as actual design but as the product of natural selection and
> random variation.
More precisely, natural selection acting on existing variation and
additional variation arising via mutation.
> 3. Darwinism is science.
More precisely, modern evolutionary theory is scientific because it
explains observations, makes testable predictions, and has been
modified such that it is in accord with new observations. In fact, the
support for modern evolutionary theory comes from such a wide
variety of disciplines that it is arguably as strong as the theory of
gravity. Work is ongoing to continuously improve the theory. That's
what science is all about.
Where do you see a contradiction among these three statements, properly
clarified?
+++++ end message +++++
Clearly it must have been my grossly abusive style and penchant for
vulgarity that got me banned from Dembski's blog.
Jack
Erwin Moller
> William Dembski censors his weblog (http://www.uncommondescent.com).
>
> I twice registered a username there and posted two messages. The
> messages never appeared on the site, although other comments dated
> after mine did, and the username was disabled both times. I could find
> no contact information on the site, but 'whois' gave me an email
> address for Dembski. To his credit, he did respond to my question of
> "Has my account been deliberately disabled?" with an email consisting
> of the single word "Yes." A request for the reason has thus far gone
> unanswered.
>
> This is Dembski's site, so I don't dispute that he can make any rules
> he wishes. What I do find offensive is the complete lack of any
> indication that he censors his site and removes accounts at his whim.
> The registration mechanism is open to all, suggesting that the
> discussion taking place includes anyone who wishes to participate. In
> fact, it appears that Dembski allows only people who agree with him to
> post. Again, his blog, his rules, but he could be more up front about
> what those rules are.
>
> I suppose it is naive to expect a greater respect for intellectual
> honesty and rational discussion in his own forum than the ID movement
> demonstrates in its public interactions.
>
<snip>
Hi Jack,
What a coward Dembski is.
He is afraid his 'sheep' hear anything He (Dembski) didn't approve to.
How fitting.
Jeeez.
Thanks for reposting your comment in here.
It will become everlasting in Google memorybanks.
:-)
Let's hope his clan doesn't buy Google to 'clean' it up.
Regards and respect,
Erwin Moller
Bobby D. Bryant
> William Dembski censors his weblog (http://www.uncommondescent.com).
>
> I twice registered a username there and posted two messages. The
> messages never appeared on the site, although other comments dated
> after mine did, and the username was disabled both times. I could find
> no contact information on the site, but 'whois' gave me an email
> address for Dembski. To his credit, he did respond to my question of
> "Has my account been deliberately disabled?" with an email consisting
> of the single word "Yes." A request for the reason has thus far gone
> unanswered.
He doesn't care to have boring old reality disrupting the fantasy
world he lives in.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
dene_...@yahoo.co.uk
[...]
> Clearly it must have been my grossly abusive style and penchant for
> vulgarity that got me banned from Dembski's blog.
You should have agreed that Behe looks dashing wearing a flat cap, or
that you'd like to see all Muslims killed, or that Jeffrey Shallit
looks like a freak. Those kinds of comments are perfectly acceptable.
Ron O
What does Shallit look like? Dembski and Meyer look like something
that Buffy would have to deal with, you would think that such people
would be sensitive about slights like that.
Ron Okimoto
Elf M. Sternberg
> William Dembski censors his weblog (http://www.uncommondescent.com).
No, he does not. He edits. It's a private space; he has the
right to do as he wishes with it. Please don't descend to using the
same rhetorical nonsense people like Dembski use to vilify their
opposition.
Elf
Dylan
.
.
.
.
He's a chicken: Buc-buc-buc-buGAWK!
.
.
.
.
jack.m...@gmail.com
> > William Dembski censors his weblog
(http://www.uncommondescent.com).
>
> No, he does not. He edits.
Editing suggests making changes that improve prose. A number of his
regulars could benefit from that. Dembski removes or prohibits the
posting of comments based on their content. That activity is
censorship and deserves the negative associations of that term rather
than the neutral or positive associations of the word "edit."
> It's a private space; he has the right to do as he wishes with it.
I fully agree, and said so twice in my original post. What I find
offensive is not his use of his private property per se, but the fact
that he doesn't make it clear anywhere on his site that he will remove
comments and accounts of people with whom he disagrees. He falsely
gives the impression that his blog comments are an open forum.
Jack
chris.li...@gmail.com
That's sarcasm, right?
Because it is by no means a private space. It is almost as public as
anything on the web. The only way to make it more public is to do away
with the free registration.
If the ability to post, and view posts, was by invitation only, it
would be a private space.
But he invites people to discuss the topics on his forum.
Which he censors by the wholesale removal of posts and the bouncing of
users who disagree with his claptrap.
If he was editing, he might delete an obscenity here or there, or
insert something [clearly demarcated, with attribution. -ct] to make a
point more accessible.
Perhaps you're willing to let him have his cake and also eat it. I see
no reason to.
All that being said, he is in charge of the space, and he can make the
rules. But as the OP indicated (and you edited:), the rules are not
made clear, and in particular it is in no way a free and open
discussion.
Chris
Dylan
jack.m...@gmail.com wrote:
> Elf M. Sternberg writes:
> > > William Dembski censors his weblog
> (http://www.uncommondescent.com).
> What I find
> offensive is not his use of his private property per se, but the fact
> that he doesn't make it clear anywhere on his site that he will remove
> comments and accounts of people with whom he disagrees. He falsely
> gives the impression that his blog comments are an open forum.
>
> Jack
Were you surprised?
Dylan, a pro-evolution creationist
Uncommon sense trumps common sense.
Erwin Moller
Maybe Elf, maybe not.
Of course: It is his space and he can do whatever he wants.
But giving the impression you are have an openminded discussion where people
can respond to stuff he writes, and then start deleting stuff that is NOT
rude, but just not his opinion, is getting very very close to censoring by
my definition. :-/
Well, he just should add that he is deleting stuff that doesn't fit into his
propaganda. That would be fair.
just my 2 cent..
Regards,
Erwin Moller
jack.m...@gmail.com
> Were you surprised?
Oddly enough, I was surprised twice. First by Debmski's frank, albeit
brief, admission that he had removed my account and second by his lack
of respect for rational discussion. The scholars that I know
personally demonstrate a level of intellectual integrity that would
prohibit the creation and maintenance of a sham discussion forum. I
expect more of someone who has earned a Ph.D.
Jack
evilgeniusabroad
the direputable windbag is once again going on about Shallit.
Remembering that the Thomas More Law Centre was the one that kept him
off the stand, not the plaintiffs.
This was posted by one of his sheep, it's pretty sad when even Iders
are pointing out he's crap:
quote
"Bill, dont do this.
Shallit was stopped from being a witness by the TMLC and by the judge
saying there was a verbal agreement between all the parties that meant
Shallit could only be called to rebutt you, the documents are on-line
for everyone to see, If Shallit was really embarrasing himself, why
did our side fight so hard to keep him off the witness stand?
More to the point, Bill, why didnt you go on the stand and expose him?"
Dylan
Those two surprises corrrelate well with Dembski's personal history,
going back to his days at Baylor university, where he displayed
rudeness to the university administration and to the rest of the
faculty, and where he also refused to engage himself in honest and open
debate with others -- both on campus and off -- on his pet take
on ID.
Elf M. Sternberg
> Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
> > jack.m...@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > > William Dembski censors his weblog (http://www.uncommondescent.com).
> >
> > No, he does not. He edits. It's a private space; he has the
> > right to do as he wishes with it. Please don't descend to using the
> > same rhetorical nonsense people like Dembski use to vilify their
> > opposition.
> That's sarcasm, right?
No, it is not.
> Because it is by no means a private space. It is almost as public as
> anything on the web. The only way to make it more public is to do away
> with the free registration.
We seem to have different definitions of "private." You're
using the definition "expressed or visible only to an individual or a
select few." I'm using it in the legal sense of "of property, owned and
operated by an individual or group not associated with the government."
In that sense, Dembski's site is private property.
Is he disingenious by not explicitly mentioning his editorial
policies? Of course he is. Can we force him, or any author, or any
newspaper or magazine, to be more explicit? Not unless *we* censor:
Censor: a government official who examines written works, films,
plays, and the like in order to control the contents are
considered objectionable on political, moral, or other grounds.
(Wordsymyth.net)
Elf
jack.m...@gmail.com
topic? If so, it has been removed.
(No, Dylan, I'm not surprised this time.)
Jack
evilgeniusabroad
Removed. LOL, poor Debmski, he must be mad as a hatter.
chris.li...@gmail.com
No one in this thread has disputed his right to do whatever he wishes
on his webspace. He bought it, maintains it (or pays to have it
maintained) and yes, it's his private property.
Likewise, no one has said that he *must* practice "truth in
advertising" (for lack of a better phrase) in letting it be known that
he censors his forum (from Merriam-Webster: censor (vt): to examine in
order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable).
The primary reason for the OP was a commentary on the personality of
someone who would run a forum in that manner.
Chris
dene_...@yahoo.co.uk
Ron O wrote:
> dene_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > jack.m...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > William Dembski censors his weblog (http://www.uncommondescent.com).
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Clearly it must have been my grossly abusive style and penchant for
> > > vulgarity that got me banned from Dembski's blog.
> >
> > You should have agreed that Behe looks dashing wearing a flat cap, or
> > that you'd like to see all Muslims killed, or that Jeffrey Shallit
> > looks like a freak. Those kinds of comments are perfectly acceptable.
>
> What does Shallit look like?
Not sure, but DaveScot (Dembski acolyte number 1) thinks that Shallit
looks like a freak IIRC.
> Dembski and Meyer look like something
> that Buffy would have to deal with, you would think that such people
> would be sensitive about slights like that.
I dunno. Dembski just looks like a nerd, while Meyer looks ordinary
with a hint of weirdness.
Dylan
evilgeniusabroad wrote:
> Yes I did.
>
> Removed. LOL, poor Debmski, he must be mad as a hatter.
And not only "mad as a hatter," but also "had as a matter" of fact.
Dylan
dene_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
. . . .
> I dunno. Dembski just looks like a nerd, while Meyer looks ordinary
> with a hint of weirdness.
I attended one of Dembski's lectures on ID at one of the Clairmont
(cluster of) colleges, Clairmont, California, a year or so ago. I took
serious notes. And though I'm neither a mathematician nor a scientist,
I caught some assertions about what is "probable" and what isn't, and
what is "complex" and what isn't. During Q'n'A I asked one and got an
off-putting answer, something like he didn't have time to present all
of his material. (He showed so many slides during his lecture that he
couldn't get through them all, and at the end simply flashed through
about 30 of them with little if any comment.) So I went up afterward
and stood in a line of about eight people to ask him to get more
specific and engaged. He was shorter than I had imagined from his
pictures or from seeing him at a distance (I was sitting in the back of
the lecture hall). He also looked "young for his years." He doesn't
look stupid at all, but has a very high forehead (which people used to
associate with "more brains"). Nor is he at all impolite in person. Was
very cordial, in fact. When I again asked the same question (and I
waited in line and let people in ahead of me so as to maximize his
answering time), he said only that new studies were coming out which
proved his point. Now, why didn't he say that in public?
The answer, I suspect, was that the "new studies" coming out couldn't
answer the question either (which had to do with the internal
consistency of his argumentation). I can't even remember what the
question anymore, since I don't really care whether or not he can
defend his position. I'm only interested in learning new facts and in
the best theories to arrange those facts coherently.
APOCALYPSE
nonsense the idiotic pricks and pedants use in defense of anything.
It's like saying "I don't murder whores. I kill them" in defense of the
green river killer's spree.
"Censor" and "edit" are not the exact same thing but censoring is a
type of editing. While TRUE censoring can only be imposed by one person
or entity on another, that is only because censoring in the true
fashion carries pejorative connotations. Private boards censor trolls
all the time.
No one disputes its his space and he's got the right to use it to
spread lies and misinformation, and censor out dissenting opinions if
it's his perogative. But its also the OP's perogative to call him out
on it in a forum he doesn't have the power to censor. And it's his
right to accuse him of censoring not for any productive purpose but for
reasons due to fear of dissent.
er...@swva.net
Hmm. Did he hang around schoolyards wearing a trenchcoat? We might
have a story here.
Dylan
If you're making a metaphor, then, yes, we do have a story. It's
already been published. If you're interested you might Google for it.
I'm not interested enough to Google it and bring the links here.
However, I've read his personal history. And not just at Baylor.
There's an episode in whch he lectured a skeptics organization, and
failed to engage them and their questions at all. According to the
account, which I read in one of the two leading skeptics journals
(can't remember which one), all he would do is to threaten the skeptics
with the fact that he was going to go to the creationists (which he
later did do) and that they would hear him. Which they most certainly
did not do. But they did use him for their own purposes.
Andrew Arensburger
> This is Dembski's site, so I don't dispute that he can make any rules
> he wishes. What I do find offensive is the complete lack of any
> indication that he censors his site and removes accounts at his whim.
This is almost, but not quite, true. No, he doesn't give any
indication up front (e.g., when you register) that comments will be
filtered for content. And yes, some comments disappear with no
indication that they were ever there. But if you read the site long
enough, you'll notice signs in there that Dembski does bowdlerize,
e.g.:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/297#comment-5491
I'll respond to your questions, but this is your last post
here.
and I remember seeing a comment saying that he had deleted two
comments, but not the following comments that referred to them.
See also
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/198#comment-2313
and
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/198#comment-2346
The first comment disappeared for a while, but was later
restored without comment.
There are several comments of mine still up there:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Auncommondescent.com+arensb&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial
but my guess is that he hasn't noticed them.
I suspect that the way he rationalizes his behavior is by
equating those who question ID with trolls. Or maybe he realizes
perfectly well what he's doing, and doesn't care. Maybe he thinks it's
okay to lie for Jesus.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
And now a word from our sponsor:
dene_...@yahoo.co.uk
Ah yes, the (in)famous "promissory notes".
Lt. Kizhe Catson
> dene_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>>jack.m...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>William Dembski censors his weblog (http://www.uncommondescent.com).
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>Clearly it must have been my grossly abusive style and penchant for
>>>vulgarity that got me banned from Dembski's blog.
>>
>>You should have agreed that Behe looks dashing wearing a flat cap, or
>>that you'd like to see all Muslims killed, or that Jeffrey Shallit
>>looks like a freak. Those kinds of comments are perfectly acceptable.
>
>
> What does Shallit look like?
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/toronto_howlerfest_2005/#continue
Third photo down (the one with the car), guy right of centre with blue
ball cap. He's not nearly as freaky as that bearded wierdo just left of
centre, with the broad-brim hat.
See also photo #6.
-- Kizhe
Stuart
Dembski looks like Waldo..
Stuart
A.Carlson
wrote:
Ah, the good old 'proof through selective definition' dodge. The
primary issue of the original post was that Dembski *censors* content
on his own site. The issue was about his act of censorship, not his
right to, which the original poster, and everyone else seemed to agree
on.
First, how do you contend that erasing entire posts that contradict
his own viewpoints and erasing the perpetrator's entire account
amounts to editing and not censorship?
Second, how many definitions of 'censor' did you have to pass over to
find one that fit your much more narrower definition?
My dictionary (Merriam Webster's) simply states the following for the
*VERB* censor:
To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered
objectionable.
The noun censor [L. fr. censere, to give as one's opinion. assess], as
in one who censors material would naturally be expected to be acting
in an official capacity for some organization, be it government or
private, simply based on the fact that it takes positional authority
to carry out censorship.
Regarding Dembski's site, someone clearly has the capacity to censor
material (read: remove any and all material not fawning over Master
Dembski or his works), unless you are suggesting that Dembski gets
nothing but praise showered upon him and what he calls *science* with
respect to ID.
Ferrous Patella
Has anyone seen Behe and Pterry in the same room at the same time?
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Å vite hva man ikke vet,
er også en slags allvitenhet.
Dylan
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> news:1131734939.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by :
. . . .
> > I dunno. Dembski just looks like a nerd, while Meyer looks ordinary
> > with a hint of weirdness.
> >
>
> Has anyone seen Behe and Pterry in the same room at the same time?
Rumor has it that they can't see themselves in a mirror.
Dylan, a pro-evolution creationist
Uncommon sense trumps common sense.
Dylan
. . . .
> > I dunno. Dembski just looks like a nerd, while Meyer looks ordinary
> > with a hint of weirdness.
> >
>
> Has anyone seen Behe and Pterry in the same room at the same time?
Rumor has it that they can't see themselves in a mirror.
Dylan, a pro-evolution creationist
Uncommon sense trumps common sense.
evilgeniusabroad
And I noted this response....how long before it goes?
"Bill, you're not doing our side any good with this.
Acually, given the extensive rebuttal you have suffered on the Shallit
issue, you're making us look very, very bad.
Next you'll start saying 'creationism' and not intelligent design, and
mention god 40-times over while dribbling on a bible.
FFS, put your ego away, and either shut up or adit you're wrong.
the words crank and goon come to mind."
theSun, BTW, says he is an IDer, but claims we all exist in a giant
computer simulation (thus, I assume, the 'finely tuned physical
constants').
Imagine, someone who thinks this is a computer simulation calling
Demski a crank!
The tears are rolling down my leg.
Chris Ho-Stuart
[snip]
> quote
>
> "Bill, dont do this.
>
> Shallit was stopped from being a witness by the TMLC and by the judge
> saying there was a verbal agreement between all the parties that meant
> Shallit could only be called to rebutt you, the documents are on-line
> for everyone to see, If Shallit was really embarrasing himself, why
> did our side fight so hard to keep him off the witness stand?
>
> More to the point, Bill, why didnt you go on the stand and expose him?"
Do you know who posted this, and where, and when? It would be
good to have this documented.
Cheers -- Chris
chris.li...@gmail.com
My guess is you will only find this on the Wayback Machine...I will
take a look.
Chris
chris.li...@gmail.com
Dembski has- surprise surprise- blocked waybackmachine access.
Chris
John Burton
> right to do as he wishes with it. Please don't descend to using the
> same rhetorical nonsense people like Dembski use to vilify their
> opposition.
>
>
He censors. Most censorship is of course legal. But stil censorship.
John
catshark
<evilgeni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>jack.m...@gmail.com wrote:
>> William Dembski censors his weblog (http://www.uncommondescent.com).
>
>the direputable windbag is once again going on about Shallit.
Well, it looks like Dembski has finally been able to find that transcript
of Shallit's deposition and is now asking his posse to comment on it. His
prior posts about Shallit seem to have dissappeared though. See an account
at _Dispatches from the Culture Wars_ for November 11th and 12th:
<http://www.stcynic.com/blog/>
At least he is an equal opportunity Orwellian. He even makes himself a non
person.
[...]
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement,
but we must not exaggerate ID's successes on the scientific front.
- William A. Dembski -
Andrew Mead Mc Clure
> Censor: a government official who examines written works, films,
> plays, and the like in order to control the contents are
> considered objectionable on political, moral, or other grounds.
> (Wordsymyth.net)
When you have to *misquote a dictionary* to make your point, you have a
problem.
That's definition number 1 out of 4 that wordsmyth.net gives, yes. Is
there a reason you ignored definition #2?
2. Anyone who exercises authorizing control over information or ideas.
And of course, that's just the noun. Here's the definitions they give for
the verb form of "censor":
1. To examine and control the content of.
2. To delete or omit (part of a written text or other medium) as a censor.