Claims
newbie
understanding even simple words, yet assume they understand more complex issues.
Take Dave Horn for instance, who apparently thinks that claims must be supported
with evidence before claims "stand", that claims do not "stand" until supported.
http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?refid=1861597568
claim [klaym ] transitive verb 1. maintain something is true: to say, without
proof or evidence, that something is true.
noun (plural claims) 1. something that may be true: an assertion that
something is true, unsupported by evidence or proof.
**********
After a deep indepth study of the definition of "claim", it would appear that a
supported claim would not be a claim at all, that a claim is to say something
*without* evidence, or *unsupported* by evidence.
If a claim is made, it *is by definition* unsupported. In that sense(proper),
the claim "stands" until supported or disproven.
It makes no sense though to say that a claim "stands proven" until disproven.
The very definition, and USE, of the word excludes the existence of evidence, or
proof.
Perhaps Horn and others here will reflect on these deep concepts, and come to
the realization that a *claim* does "stand" until disproven. A claim stands
unproven or unsupported until proven or disproven.
Although to be perfectly honest, I believe Horn does not care what the
definition of the word is, he only wants to use his own interpretation of what I
have said on this subject, and would attempt to persuade readers that I say
claims "stand" until disproven means that a claim stands as proved until
disproved. But perhaps I am wrong about Horn and his understanding of such a
complex word like "claim." After all, he has claimed to be or been a "Major" in
the Armed Forces, has alleged BS degrees in psychology and biology, and claimed
to have been on Usenet for 6 years. LOL!
Dave Horn
Maybe, while he's at it, perhaps we can harken back to the vagaries of the
language, and the effective difference between "confessed" and "admitted" as
well as the use of "obey" and "defy."
In other words, Gnat-Strainer Newbie is trying again to extricate himself
from the mire in which he finds himself immersed.
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:tLBW6.10762$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com...
>
> Seems some of the evolutionists on talk.origins have
> a difficulty in understanding even simple words,
> yet assume they understand more complex issues.
Most of us understand that the language is dynamic and can have varying
meanings given context.
> Take Dave Horn for instance, who apparently thinks
> that claims must be supported with evidence before
> claims "stand", that claims do not "stand" until supported.
Indeed. A claim is simply that, as we shall see:
> http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?refid=1861597568
>
> claim [klaym ] transitive verb 1. maintain something is true:
> to say, without proof or evidence, that something is true.
"Without proof or evidence."
Did Newbie miss this?
> noun (plural claims) 1. something that may be true: an
> assertion that something is true, unsupported by evidence
> or proof.
"Unsupported by evidence or proof."
So where is the confusion? A claim is just that - a claim. By itself, it
is essentially meaningless - especially given certain contexts in which
claims are made.
Does Newbie just not get it...again?
> After a deep indepth study of the definition of "claim", it
> would appear that a supported claim would not be a
> claim at all, that a claim is to say something
> *without* evidence, or *unsupported* by evidence.
So Newbie discovers this after a "deep indepth study?"
Interesting. Perhaps Newbie should try something in addition to the
dictionary - and consider context and semantics.
> If a claim is made, it *is by definition* unsupported.
Newbie proclaims this as if it's new information.
Some of us knew all along.
> In that sense(proper), the claim "stands" until supported
> or disproven.
False.
*My* point has been that, given the context of Newbie's claims, they do not
*stand*. Making a claim - even believing it to be true - does not make it
true.
> It makes no sense though to say that a claim "stands proven"
> until disproven.
I'm curious as to who claimed that it did.
> The very definition, and USE, of the word excludes the
> existence of evidence, or proof.
Not necessarily. My Merriam-Webster's provides lots of variations and uses
of the word "claim," including from "to assert in the face of possible
contradiction" and "an assertion open to challenge." There's no talk of
"proof" or "evidence" in either of those definitions.
Dictionaries are histories of word usage - not hard and fast rules for use,
as Newbie seems to want to...*ahem*...claim.
> Perhaps Horn and others here will reflect on these deep
> concepts, and come to the realization that a *claim*
> does "stand" until disproven. A claim stands unproven
> or unsupported until proven or disproven.
There is nothing inherent in the definition that requires that a claim
"stand" (or, as implied by the context, "be accepted") until proven or
disproven.
What I find interesting about all this is that Newbie was denying that he
was saying this just a few hours ago. Now he's defending it.
That's very amusing.
> Although to be perfectly honest, I believe Horn does not
> care what the definition of the word is, he only wants to
> use his own interpretation of what I have said on this
> subject, and would attempt to persuade readers that I say
> claims "stand" until disproven means that a claim stands
> as proved until disproved.
Until now, we've never had a clear statement from Newbie as to what he meant
when he made the claim. I still find it interesting that he was denying
saying this until this evening.
> But perhaps I am wrong about Horn and his understanding
> of such a complex word like "claim."
It would seem that I have a far greater understanding of such things than
Newbie.
> After all, he has claimed to be or been a "Major" in
> the Armed Forces, has alleged BS degrees in psychology
> and biology, and claimed to have been on Usenet for
> 6 years. LOL!
Or I could pretend to wander into a newsgroup - as Newbie has - and pretend
to be able to hold my own with science professionals because I took a couple
of science classes, built a complete coyote skeleton and have a pilot's
license.
Now that's worthy of considerably more laughter...almost as much as trying
to get Newbie to explain the "evidence" he claims "strongly suggests" a
component to life outside of chemical processes.
But the bottom line to this latest nonsensical rambling from Newbie?
He wants to avoid responsibility for his claims.
It won't work.
free
Stew Dean
added to the meme pool:
>How amusing! Newbie would once again try to give us a lesson in vocabulary!
>
>Maybe, while he's at it, perhaps we can harken back to the vagaries of the
>language, and the effective difference between "confessed" and "admitted" as
>well as the use of "obey" and "defy."
>
>In other words, Gnat-Strainer Newbie is trying again to extricate himself
>from the mire in which he finds himself immersed.
>
Dave. You are posting messages in the goal of agitating members - in
this case Newbie and increasingly myself.
I request for the last time that you stop trolling and go back to
debating. This is not a threat but a request. If you can't see you are
trolling then you are equaly bad as newbie.
Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
fuzzilod...@ziplip.com
Dave Horn
news:3b2b090...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
:
> On 16 Jun 2001 02:06:59 -0400, "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com>
> added to the meme pool:
>
> >How amusing! Newbie would once again try to give
> >us a lesson in vocabulary!
> >
> >Maybe, while he's at it, perhaps we can harken back
> >to the vagaries of the language, and the effective
> >difference between "confessed" and "admitted" as
> >well as the use of "obey" and "defy."
> >
> >In other words, Gnat-Strainer Newbie is trying again
> >to extricate himself from the mire in which he finds
> >himself immersed.
>
> Dave. You are posting messages in the goal of agitating
> members - in this case Newbie and increasingly myself.
The above quoted segment was from a bit of misdirection by Newbie, after he
had said "end of discussion." He has every right to post. I have every
right to reply. You have every right not to read it if you feel you will be
offended. You have *no* right to dictate how someone posts, to whom someone
posts, etc.
Get over yourself.
> I request for the last time that you stop trolling and go
> back to debating. This is not a threat but a request. If
> you can't see you are trolling then you are equaly bad
> as newbie.
In other words, if I don't agree with you, I'm as bad as Newbie. Gee...that
sounds more like Newbie than anything I've heard from another in quite some
time.
The "trolling" thing was taken care of last night and, as near as I can
tell, this isn't trolling.
If my writing agitates you that much, don't read it.
How hard is *that*?
majormyass
fuzzilod...@ziplip.com says...
>
>An excellent rebuttal, Dave.
>
Perhaps Ziplip Dave thinks so.
Dave Horn
news:oVQW6.11417$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com...
Ah, another Newbie sock puppet.
I think it's time to check Josiah's medication levels...
newbie
We could ask Horn, nay, challenge him, as to why he doubted Josiah of being a
Marine, and why Horn claimed to be a "Major" and demanded respect and obeyance,
yet would not identify himself and his rank. Also we might ask Horn why he felt
inclined to provoke and aggravate a Marine while at the same time pretending to
admonish Josiah for his behavior on Usenet.
Perhaps Horn is not aware that rank is not relative to a persons ability to
"call their commanding officer" and report their behavior. Staff ranking Majors
would be held to a higher standard than a private, so perhaps Horn should
identify his commanding officer. And as a civilian, I have the right to require
this "Major" to do so. UNLESS the "Major" is impersonating an officer in the
Armed Forces?? Or the "Major" is just a Major screw-up? (Maybe he's on a secret
mission!)
Call *me* sir, "Major" Horn. If you doubt my words, then give me the name of
your commanding officer.
In the meantime, screw-off, screw-up.
Dave Horn
news:eEYW6.11687$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com...
>
> In article <w9YW6.301876$oc7.23...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn
says...
> >
> >"majormyass" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:oVQW6.11417$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com...
> >> In article <s61nitcamhrqtai4e...@4ax.com>,
> >> fuzzilod...@ziplip.com says...
> >> >
> >> >An excellent rebuttal, Dave.
> >>
> >> Perhaps Ziplip Dave thinks so.
> >
> >Ah, another Newbie sock puppet.
> >
> >I think it's time to check Josiah's medication levels...
>
I have never seen it; and I doubt if I would believe it.
The point was that "majormyass" is another Newbie sock-puppet that likely
fooled no one.
> ...unlike the braggart Horn.
"Braggart?"
Since when is it bragging to have served one's country honorably?
I think Newbie's jealousy is showing here - but there's no reason for it.
If Newbie served honorably, I have always felt that how one did so or what
rank one attained makes no difference.
I've mentioned my service many times over the years. I don't brag about it.
It's simply a fact, and it's certainly nothing I need to prove to Newbie.
Newbie has decided to make it an issue in this newsgroup as yet another
means by which he can avoid the burden of the evidence for his claims. If
he can keep the issues personality-centered, more and more will not read.
That's fine. It's probably working.
But that doesn't cloud the simple fact that Newbie is doing everything he
can to avoiding answering the challenges to the claims he's made.
> We could ask Horn, nay, challenge him, as to why he
> doubted Josiah of being a Marine...
Asked and answered at the time. And I wasn't the only correspondent to
question it.
> ...and why Horn claimed to be a "Major" and demanded
> respect and obeyance...
Newbie obviously missed the point again; and his failure to read and keep
things in context is pretty clear.
Josiah tried to intimidate the audience with his claims to being a Marine
and used that kind of "authority" as a means by which to impress the readers
of the newsgroup. But Josiah's service - if it was genuine - was irrelevant
to the issues that occur in this newsgroup. My intent at the time was to
give Josiah a bit of his own medicine.
By the way, all of this misdirection by Newbie from more topical material
merely adds to my suspicion that he was Josiah - or at least, knows him very
well.
Newbie never got the point of my challenges to Josiah - not then and not
now. But if Newbie is *not* Josiah (and Newbie has never come right out and
said that), then it's not relevant.
> ...yet would not identify himself and his rank.
This is an incredibly stupid remark. My name is in the "from" header of any
message from me and Newbie has been making a lot of noise about rank.
Obviously, both were identified.
> Also we might ask Horn why he felt inclined to provoke
> and aggravate a Marine while at the same time pretending
> to admonish Josiah for his behavior on Usenet.
Asked and answered at the time.
A better question might be to ask Newbie why it's such an issue with him.
I've given my theory as to why this is. Newbie has ducked from it.
> Perhaps Horn is not aware that rank is not relative to a
> persons ability to "call their commanding officer" and
> report their behavior.
Again, Newbie never quite got the point. But never let it be said that
Newbie won't rant on...even when he doesn't get it.
> Staff ranking Majors would be held to a higher
> standard than a private...
I hope the readership will excuse me if I don't bow to what Newbie thinks a
"Staff ranking Major" would do. In fact, I'm not even sure what a "Staff
ranking Major" is supposed to be with respect to an ordinary,
run-of-the-mill major.
> ...so perhaps Horn should identify his commanding
> officer. And as a civilian, I have the right to require
> this "Major" to do so.
Newbie needs to get over himself. He does *not* have the right to require
anything; and even if I *had* a commanding officer, I can guarantee at least
the commanders *I* had would, at best, laugh themselves silly over all of
this.
But, of course, that was all last year, when I was still a reservist. I am
not a reservist now...but retired. Newbie can pound sand.
> UNLESS the "Major" is impersonating an officer in the
> Armed Forces??
Newbie's been implying this for quite some time...so now it's time for
Newbie to provide clear-cut evidence for this implication.
Can he do so?
Nope...he'll run from it.
> Or the "Major" is just a Major screw-up? (Maybe
> he's on a secret mission!)
A more likely explanation is that Newbie is just an idiot.
> Call *me* sir, "Major" Horn.
"Idiot" is more accurate. I prefer accuracy.
> If you doubt my words, then give me the name of
> your commanding officer.
I am my own commanding officer.
> In the meantime, screw-off, screw-up.
Nope. Newbie will know no peace in talk.origins. I have promised that.
newbie
>
>"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:eEYW6.11687$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com...
>>
>> In article <w9YW6.301876$oc7.23...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn
>says...
>> >
>> >"majormyass" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>> >news:oVQW6.11417$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com...
>> >> In article <s61nitcamhrqtai4e...@4ax.com>,
>> >> fuzzilod...@ziplip.com says...
>> >> >
>> >> >An excellent rebuttal, Dave.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps Ziplip Dave thinks so.
>> >
>> >Ah, another Newbie sock puppet.
>> >
>> >I think it's time to check Josiah's medication levels...
>>
>> I have identified myself and my service record...
>
>I have never seen it; and I doubt if I would believe it.
Horn seems to miss the point - my identification is on record. I could care less
what Horn doubts or believes.
>
>The point was that "majormyass" is another Newbie sock-puppet that likely
>fooled no one.
No kidding. The major-my-ass must have given me away.
>
>> ...unlike the braggart Horn.
>
>"Braggart?"
>
>Since when is it bragging to have served one's country honorably?
That is doubtful. All Horn has done is bragged about being a "Major."
>
>I think Newbie's jealousy is showing here - but there's no reason for it.
>If Newbie served honorably, I have always felt that how one did so or what
>rank one attained makes no difference.
ROTF! Jealous of Horn?? I doubt Horn "feels" much of anything but hatred.
>
>I've mentioned my service many times over the years. I don't brag about it.
>It's simply a fact, and it's certainly nothing I need to prove to Newbie.
But the point is that Josiah was a Marine, and Horn claimed to be a "Major" and
did not identify himself when admonishing Josiah, who can not be expected to
know what might have happened "over the years." Horn did "heh heh" brag about
it.
>Newbie has decided to make it an issue in this newsgroup as yet another
>means by which he can avoid the burden of the evidence for his claims.
If "avoiding the burden" was Horn's concern, I doubt he would be following me
around like a leg humping puppy. If a claim is made, there is a burden of proof
on the claimant to *support* the claim. If the claim is unsupported, there is no
"burden", only an unsupported claim. The problem with Horns seeming sincerity is
that no support I could possibly bring would not result in the same treatment by
Horn. Even when I have rephrased a statement, he has said that "it's too late
for that" and continues the same misrepresentation. Horn is a simple troll, and
has been since I have been posting.
>If
>he can keep the issues personality-centered, more and more will not read.
>That's fine. It's probably working.
That is exactly what Horn has been doing, but I think lately he has been
catching on to what the result might be for him.
>
>But that doesn't cloud the simple fact that Newbie is doing everything he
>can to avoiding answering the challenges to the claims he's made.
I don't have to answer "challenges" from Horn at all. I have said as much a long
time ago. Instead of taking the hint that I do not wish to discuss anything with
him, he continues to carry on, and lies his ass off.
>
>> We could ask Horn, nay, challenge him, as to why he
>> doubted Josiah of being a Marine...
>
>Asked and answered at the time. And I wasn't the only correspondent to
>question it.
Asked and answered is not an answer. It is an unsupported claim. There's a
challenge for Horn. Actually, I should be doing this with every thing the moron
says.
>
>> ...and why Horn claimed to be a "Major" and demanded
>> respect and obeyance...
>
>Newbie obviously missed the point again; and his failure to read and keep
>things in context is pretty clear.
Here's the point.
Horn: "My intent at the time was to give Josiah a bit of his own medicine."
My point: Provoking and aggravating a Marine while at the same time pretending
to admonish Josiah for his behavior on Usenet is not conduct befitting a Major
in the Armed Forces.
"Instructing" someone in the Armed Forces is a *command* from a higher ranking
officer. Horn did not, nor has he yet, identified himself as a Major. It seems
doubtful Horn understands how to identify himself as a member of the Armed
Forces.
>
>Josiah tried to intimidate the audience with his claims to being a Marine
>and used that kind of "authority" as a means by which to impress the readers
>of the newsgroup. But Josiah's service - if it was genuine - was irrelevant
>to the issues that occur in this newsgroup. My intent at the time was to
>give Josiah a bit of his own medicine.
>
>By the way, all of this misdirection by Newbie from more topical material
>merely adds to my suspicion that he was Josiah - or at least, knows him very
>well.
Woopty do. That is completely irrelevant. Horn either acted unbecoming an
officer, or he impersonated an officer. Plain and simple.
>
>Newbie never got the point of my challenges to Josiah - not then and not
>now. But if Newbie is *not* Josiah (and Newbie has never come right out and
>said that), then it's not relevant.
Oh, I got the "point." Josiahs first post on talk.origins was to me. After that,
he took a lot of abuse. Horn is likely an "army brat" and does not respect the
position of being in the service, especially if its a young man in the Marines.
Even if Josiah did brag about his experiences, and had ideas or beliefs not
shared by Horn, Horn still acted unbecoming to an officer, OR Horn impersonated
an officer.
>
>> ...yet would not identify himself and his rank.
>
>This is an incredibly stupid remark. My name is in the "from" header of any
>message from me and Newbie has been making a lot of noise about rank.
And Horn increasingly shows his stupidity. Apparently he does not understand how
to identify himself.
>
>Obviously, both were identified.
Both what were identified? Claiming to be a Major by typing "Major?" What a
moron.
>
>> Also we might ask Horn why he felt inclined to provoke
>> and aggravate a Marine while at the same time pretending
>> to admonish Josiah for his behavior on Usenet.
>
>Asked and answered at the time.
The standard response when Horn does not want to answer. Yet this is an
admission that Horn did provoke and aggravate the Marine.
>
>A better question might be to ask Newbie why it's such an issue with him.
Showing Horn as either behaving unproffessionally or impersonating an officer is
a pretty valid issue. And since he doesn't want me to "get any peace as long as
I post" then he must be pretty stupid to think that a former Marine would not
give him his money's worth. And glad to do it.
>
>I've given my theory as to why this is. Newbie has ducked from it.
Dream on, Paluxy. A little attempt to misdirect, old Davey boy?
>
>> Perhaps Horn is not aware that rank is not relative to a
>> persons ability to "call their commanding officer" and
>> report their behavior.
>
>Again, Newbie never quite got the point. But never let it be said that
>Newbie won't rant on...even when he doesn't get it.
Horn seems to think using the word "rant" helps his cause. But just seeing
Paluxy try it is humorous. I made it quite clear what the point is above, as I
also did in the last post. Horn thinks he can dissect posts and misdirect the
context, then claim that I did not get the point. Very limp-wristed of you,
Davey.
>
>> Staff ranking Majors would be held to a higher
>> standard than a private...
>
>I hope the readership will excuse me if I don't bow to what Newbie thinks a
>"Staff ranking Major" would do. In fact, I'm not even sure what a "Staff
>ranking Major" is supposed to be with respect to an ordinary,
>run-of-the-mill major.
ROTFLMAO! Only Horn would write "run-of-the mill Major." What a phony this moron
is.
>
>> ...so perhaps Horn should identify his commanding
>> officer. And as a civilian, I have the right to require
>> this "Major" to do so.
>
>Newbie needs to get over himself. He does *not* have the right to require
>anything; and even if I *had* a commanding officer,
And there is where Horn is very wrong. It is a crime to impersonate an officer,
and one who portrays himself to be an officer is required to identify himself as
such. And Usenet is a public communications media.
>I can guarantee at least
>the commanders *I* had would, at best, laugh themselves silly over all of
>this.
They definitely would had you called Josiah's CO, but a Major behaving in like
manner might be frowned upon. Officers *are* held to a high standard.
>
>But, of course, that was all last year, when I was still a reservist. I am
>not a reservist now...but retired. Newbie can pound sand.
Now whud a figued Horn would come up with that one?? Not that this matters, as
this all happened LAST YEAR. Yet... retired, Horn? This means you retain the
rank, does it not? Sure you dont mean resigned?
>
>> UNLESS the "Major" is impersonating an officer in the
>> Armed Forces??
>
>Newbie's been implying this for quite some time...so now it's time for
>Newbie to provide clear-cut evidence for this implication.
One way or the other, old Davey. You either are a Major, and did not identify
yourself to a member of the service when you "pulled rank", or you were
impersonating an officer. Either way...
>
>Can he do so?
I don't need to. You did not identify yourself. Hint, "Major." This is a form of
communication not visual.
>
>Nope...he'll run from it.
Typical Horn accusation. Garbage, Horn.
>
>> Or the "Major" is just a Major screw-up? (Maybe
>> he's on a secret mission!)
>
>A more likely explanation is that Newbie is just an idiot.
The likely explanation is found by a review of your posts to Josiah, and your
refusal to identify yourself. You played "games" with the claim that you were an
officer. You are the idiot here, Paluxy.
>
>> Call *me* sir, "Major" Horn.
>
>"Idiot" is more accurate. I prefer accuracy.
I doubt if you could hit the broadside of a barn, moron. And you're likely a
coward. How's that for accuracy.
>
>> If you doubt my words, then give me the name of
>> your commanding officer.
>
>I am my own commanding officer.
Self employed, huh. Or you are the biggest of the little green plastic soldiers
on your bedroom floor...
>
>> In the meantime, screw-off, screw-up.
>
>Nope. Newbie will know no peace in talk.origins. I have promised that.
>
The only thing you have delivered is hot air. And it stinks, Paluxy. And so do
your buds. You're a moron. All I would have to do is killfile you, if I wanted
your kind of "peace" in talk.origins.
Dave Horn
>
> In article <yWYW6.302129$oc7.23...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn
says...
> >
> >"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:eEYW6.11687$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com...
> >>
> >> In article <w9YW6.301876$oc7.23...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave
Horn
> >says...
> >> >
> >> >"majormyass" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:oVQW6.11417$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com...
> >> >> In article <s61nitcamhrqtai4e...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> fuzzilod...@ziplip.com says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >An excellent rebuttal, Dave.
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps Ziplip Dave thinks so.
> >> >
> >> >Ah, another Newbie sock puppet.
> >> >
> >> >I think it's time to check Josiah's medication levels...
> >>
> >> I have identified myself and my service record...
> >
> >I have never seen it; and I doubt if I would believe it.
>
> Horn seems to miss the point - my identification
> is on record.
I didn't miss the point at all. I responded by saying that I hadn't seen it
and I'm not sure I'd believe it if I did.
How did I miss the point?
Now, if I were to snip away all that was not of substance - all the
misdirection and evasions that Newbie has foisted on us - again - in the
last 24 hours - would I find anything of substance?
Let's find out:
[Snip]
....
....
....
So...that would be "no."
I will not argue about my service record - which is really none of Newbie's
business - and I will not indulge Newbie's latest attempts to misdirect away
from the fact that Newbie is a cowardly little "man" who will do everything
under the sun to avoid answering for more topical and relevant claims in the
newsgroup. Newbie can rant and rave to his heart's content, but he will
still be exposed.
We return you now to topicality.
What is the evidence that "strongly suggests" a component to life other than
chemical processes?
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...
Dave Horn
[Snip]
After the ranting and raving and near-slander that occurs in this latest
line of...ummm..."reasoning" that Newbie foists upon us, I have two
questions.
First, for those of you who were present in the newsgroup last year and
remember Josiah: How many of you think that this latest round of
long-winded, evasive nonsense provides at least a modicum of evidence that
"newbie" is simply another sock-puppet for Josiah or vice versa?
Second, how many in the studio audience today have Newbie killfiled?
I'm just a little curious...
Mark VandeWettering
>First, for those of you who were present in the newsgroup last year and
>remember Josiah: How many of you think that this latest round of
>long-winded, evasive nonsense provides at least a modicum of evidence that
>"newbie" is simply another sock-puppet for Josiah or vice versa?
Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if you two aren't sock puppets of each
other...
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
A Pagano
Pagano to Newbie:
A review of the length of most threads started by Paluxy Dave is strong
indication that most everyone, including his secular brethren, either
have killfiled him or completely ignore his childishness. He may very
well be knowledgable about a number of topics but he spends so much time
stamping his feet and waving his arms wildly like some madman that we
may never know. I can attest that this is not new behavior for Paluxy
Dave but a long standing one.
Although its pretty apparent that you derive a fair amount of amuzement
from Paluxy Dave (as do I) you should also have come to realize that
Paluxy Dave's posts have little substance and their sole goal is to
waste your time from other more worthwhile arguments. Beyond his
amuzement value he is of value because he undoubtedly gives the secular
side of the argument a bad name. My advise is not to take him seriously
because he is so childish; don't worry about his slander because almost
no one reads his rantings or if they do they don't take them seriously;
and not to waste too much time with his silly, childish nonsense.
Regards,
T Pagano
Eric Gill
>
> Dave Horn wrote:
> >
> > "newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> > news:qm1X6.11784$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com...
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > After the ranting and raving and near-slander that occurs in this latest
> > line of...ummm..."reasoning" that Newbie foists upon us, I have two
> > questions.
> >
> > First, for those of you who were present in the newsgroup last year and
> > remember Josiah: How many of you think that this latest round of
> > long-winded, evasive nonsense provides at least a modicum of evidence that
> > "newbie" is simply another sock-puppet for Josiah or vice versa?
> >
> > Second, how many in the studio audience today have Newbie killfiled?
> >
> > I'm just a little curious...
>
> Pagano to Newbie:
> A review of the length of most threads started by Paluxy Dave is strong
> indication that most everyone, including his secular brethren, either
> have killfiled him or completely ignore his childishness. He may very
> well be knowledgable about a number of topics but he spends so much time
> stamping his feet and waving his arms wildly like some madman that we
> may never know. I can attest that this is not new behavior for Paluxy
> Dave but a long standing one.
Talk about handwaving.
Life's a bitch for a determined net.liar such as Pagano when someone
just as determined takes the time to dissect every pompous, wordy, and
truth-free post in minute detail, taking any possible satisfaction out
of the Baffling With Bullshit priciple Pagano and his ilk live by.
Speaking of killfiles-
<snip, plonk>
Dave Horn
news:slrn9ipn87...@peewee.telescopemaking.org...
> On 17 Jun 2001 10:28:09 -0400, Dave Horn <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
>
> >First, for those of you who were present in the newsgroup
> >last year and remember Josiah: How many of you think that
> >this latest round of long-winded, evasive nonsense provides
> >at least a modicum of evidence that "newbie" is simply
> >another sock-puppet for Josiah or vice versa?
>
> Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if you two aren't sock puppets
> of each other...
I think we'd be a lot less entertaining, were that the case.
Dave Horn
news:3B2CED30...@fast.net...
[Snip typical pretentiousness from Pagano]
> [Repost]
"Nope" doesn't cut it.
[Repost]
[In April], I provided three references to debunk Pagano claims with respect
to what another writer had to say about creationist claims concerning
thermodynamics. With typical bluster, Pagano claimed that the author had
offered a caricature of the "creationist position" as it relates to
thermodynamics. A typical evasion by Pagano ensued in which he demanded
references (which were provided). Pagano ignored them, at first, but was
goaded into responding when I forced the issue. He then stated that he
would take the three references and examine them. He promised that he would
approach the references with respect to six points that he would make. This
was a pretty firm assertion on his part.
Pagano took the first reference that I offered and dismissed it. However,
he failed to fulfill the six points that he said he would fulfill. He then
stated that he would do the same with the other two references.
This Pagano never did. He went from asserting this would be done, to
presuming to offering me an "out" with respect to his presumption of "harsh
criticism" of the references, to stating that he would get to them "when
time permits," after which he treated us to yet another disappearing act.
Since I can predict that Pagano, assuming he works up the courage to respond
at all, will respond with lies and misrepresentations of that even (along
with his typical bluster), I am fully prepared to repost the details of that
exchange. But this was my response to Pagano's last gasp with respect to
that issue, posted April 22nd:
[Begin repost]
"A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:3AE23824...@fast.net...
>
> Oh I'm not finished with Horn yet.
Nor I with Pagano.
> Still two more url links to review and comment on concerning
> his defense of Sharp (for those interested please see the post
> with Subject title: Horn's First Link Proves Nothing but His
> lack of interest in Truth).
An article which I answered and thoroughly refuted all points Pagano made.
Pagano has not responded to that article. This is certainly not a surprise.
> If these two other links are as bad as the first one I will have
> shown conclusively that the Horn has no credibility whatsoever.
I have never worried about Pagano claims with respect to my credibility. If
the concensus of recorded opinion is any indicator at all, it is Pagano who
has a problem in this area, and he will continue to do so.
> I will post the results of my review of those links both in
> the appropriate thread and as new threads so others will
> be sure to see.
And I'll be waiting. I won't be expecting much.
Pagano's lies will be exposed every time he posts. I hope he enjoys the
ride.
I know *I* will...
[End repost]
As we can see above, Pagano stated he would post reviews of the other links
in both "the appropriate thread" and in a new thread "so others will be sure
to see."
Pagano disappeared after that.
Pagano still owes us for two links.
[End Repost]
newbie
>
>"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:qm1X6.11784$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com...
>>
>> In article <yWYW6.302129$oc7.23...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn
>says...
>> >
>> >"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>> >news:eEYW6.11687$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com...
>> >>
>> >> In article <w9YW6.301876$oc7.23...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave
>Horn
>> >says...
>> >> >
>> >> >"majormyass" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:oVQW6.11417$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com...
>> >> >> In article <s61nitcamhrqtai4e...@4ax.com>,
>> >> >> fuzzilod...@ziplip.com says...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >An excellent rebuttal, Dave.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Perhaps Ziplip Dave thinks so.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ah, another Newbie sock puppet.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think it's time to check Josiah's medication levels...
>> >>
>> >> I have identified myself and my service record...
>> >
>> >I have never seen it; and I doubt if I would believe it.
>>
>> Horn seems to miss the point - my identification
>> is on record.
>
>I didn't miss the point at all. I responded by saying that I hadn't seen it
>and I'm not sure I'd believe it if I did.
>
>How did I miss the point?
The point is, you lying moron, that identification is a positive means of
identifying a person, it is hard data evidence.
Horn told Josiah that he did not care to see the unit Josiah was attached to,
and claimed that it would be "meaningless." Although knowing the name of a unit
is not identification of the individual, a call to the unit and request to know
whether an individual is stationed there would have been simple, if Horn had
been sincere.
This, coupled with Horn's apparent ignorance of what identification means in the
military, lack of understanding that a Major is a staff, or senior rank, is not
indicative of a Major in the Armed Forces. And Horn's behavior is unbecoming an
officer, definitely unbecoming a staff officer in the US military.
>
[snip]
>
>I will not argue about my service record - which is really none of Newbie's
>business -
You don't get to tell me what my business is, liar. You got that, puke? The
evidence so far is that you only claim to be an officer, yet you gave at least
one order to a member of the US military, without identifying yourself. Your
conduct was and still is unbecoming an officer. At the least your conduct was
very unbecoming of an officer, and at the worst, impersonating an officer.
This is damn sure my business.
[snip]
Dave Horn
whinings, what do we have left?
Let's take a look:
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:3VfX6.12576$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com...
[Snip]
Hmmm...typical...not unusual at all...nothing of substance (except more
evidence that Josiah or Newbie are sock-puppets of one-another) and Newbie's
typical inability to keep things in context.
And, of course, more attempts by Newbie to avoid more topical material about
which he has made claims.
Let's return to that, shall we?
Dave Horn
....and I will not indulge Newbie's latest attempts to misdirect away from
the fact that Newbie is a cowardly little "man" who will do everything under
the sun to avoid answering for more topical and relevant claims in the
newsgroup. Newbie can rant and rave to his heart's content, but he will
still be exposed.
We return you now to topicality.
What is the evidence that "strongly suggests" a component to life other than
chemical processes?
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...
[End repost of snipped segment]
Notice that what was snipped was a return to a topical issue. Newbie really
has no argument about anything else - not really. He simply uses them to
cloud the fact that Newbie, who claims never to run from argument, does
nothing *but* "run from argument," by any means necessary to cloud the fact
that Newbie has spouted off a very great deal on things he clearly knows
nothing about...
....including military rank structure.
He's got it all wrong. No wonder he's so angry.
Mark VandeWettering
Once I realized that newbie could not be forced into admitting his
obvious errors by actually explaining them to him, he ceased to be
interesting or entertaining. Compared to other obvious nutcases
on talk.origins, he's really rather mild and harmless.
Besides, arguing about science is interesting. Arguing about
arguments is not.
Louann Miller
VandeWettering) wrote:
>Once I realized that newbie could not be forced into admitting his
>obvious errors by actually explaining them to him, he ceased to be
>interesting or entertaining. Compared to other obvious nutcases
>on talk.origins, he's really rather mild and harmless.
>
>Besides, arguing about science is interesting. Arguing about
>arguments is not.
That was never five minutes just now!
Louann
Ken Cox
> Seems some of the evolutionists on talk.origins have a difficulty in
> understanding even simple words, yet assume they understand more complex issues.
>
> Take Dave Horn for instance, who apparently thinks that claims must be supported
> with evidence before claims "stand", that claims do not "stand" until supported.
You are an adulterer, a murderer, and a thief.
Now, do I need to supply any evidence for the above claim
to stand?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
wf...@ptd.net
>Seems some of the evolutionists on talk.origins have a difficulty in
>understanding even simple words, yet assume they understand more complex issues.
>
>Take Dave Horn for instance, who apparently thinks that claims must be supported
>with evidence before claims "stand", that claims do not "stand" until supported.
>
>http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?refid=1861597568
>
>claim [klaym ] transitive verb 1. maintain something is true: to say, without
>proof or evidence, that something is true.
>
you mean like creationists do when they say 'goddidit'?
Mark VandeWettering
I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
>Louann
Todd S. Greene
I had had some doubts, but Tony has removed all of them. He's feeling
the pinch after all. When Tony starts using words like "amuzement" [sic]
and "slander," you know that you've hit home.
Incidentally, my irony meter broke on this one. Now I have to get a new
one. I'll make sure that my new one has a bigger scale.
Regards,
Todd S. Greene
On 17 Jun 2001 12:44:28 -0400 A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote (msg-id
<3B2CED30...@fast.net>):