Hi, I also asked Shades to look at the thread. But, please notice that ON THE THREAD IN QUESTION you told dart this his comments were off-topic and you asked a moderator to move them. There was no mention of marg, at all.
In your PM you mention "marg's responses to them" and yet completely ignore that marg herself was not on-topic FIRST. Dart was replying to marg already being off-topic. Anyway, it's neither here nor there... the posts were moved. It's resolved.
moved thread
The Intent, Clarity
The Dude wrote:antishock8 wrote:I just wanted to add my two cents to this thread. As I see it, italicizing words and colorizing phrases are really cool and add emphasis to a point. I know this because some of these posts are more colorful than the old string of Christmas lights we used to hang on my childhood house. Furthermore, legitimately using verbosity, eruditely underscoring post-modernistic virtual ideologies seems helpful when attempting to underscore postings on the Internet. Transilteration. Coginitive dissonance. Flimflammityflamboozle. Smart! Smart smart!! <- Rinse. Repeat. Fill up an entire page. *pop*
LOL When I quote this text I get see how much extra work goes into jazzing a post with special effects... So this makes me think of JAK as like Michael Bay and Marg as like a pimply thirteen year old who loves Transformers. Oops, ad hominen. My bad.
The Dude,
Sometimes I see the word “Quote” with no person following it. When that’s the case, I don’t know who was quoted.
In using devices available to distinguish what was said by whom, it is entirely for the purpose of assisting in easy tracking of who said what.
While you may believe as you wish regarding “jazzing a post with special effects,” that is not my intent. Rather, it is as I have stated to distinguish individuals and their comments with clarity.
JAK
This will no doubt be the fourth (or fifth, I'm losing count) time this request is ignored.
by the way, Jersey Girl, are you completely ignoring my repeated requests to remove MY NAME and prior participation in another thread out of your op? I can't address it and yet it stands.
I am unclear why you can't just snip the comments in regards to me as I'm not allowed to address them. Why are they in the OP if I can't comment on them?
The Dude wrote:
LOL When I quote this text I get see how much extra work goes into jazzing a post with special effects... So this makes me think of JAK as like Michael Bay and Marg as like a pimply thirteen year old who loves Transformers. Oops, ad hominen. My bad.
You're going to banished to outer darkness. First you're going to be swatted with a rolled up newspaper.
Since plagiarism is being discussed... this is what it is in relation to. I typed this earlier and deleted it 'cause I don't want to deal with it anymore. Yet, since it's here others can hash it out IF ANYONE CARES!
Gadianton wrote:Of historic interest concerning JAK's opening words and accusations.
Within 1 hour of CC posting on Godel, JAK had made his first accusation of assuming conclusions. But that accusation was merely 7 minutes after his analysis of Armstrong. Is it reasonable that JAK familiarized himself with Godel in one hour -- but most likely 7 minutes?
As some of the lurkers may be curious, note JAK's instructive paragraph:To accept the ontological arguments of Gödel, requires an irrational leap. His ontological argument has often been said to ascertain God's existence by a philosophical sleight of hand or a ruse of words. Gödel’s arguments are flawed, if by nothing else, his assumptions absent evidence. The minutia of his arguments tends to be intimidating. In any case, they are not transparent and philosophers today do not accept (universally) his assumptions and application of those assumptions to agree with Gödel’s conclusion.
Note the bold is plagiarized from here:
http://www.apollos.ws/ontological-argument/
But also note that the "HIS" reads from the article "THE". JAK's original misuse of copyrighted material also betrays that he thinks "the ontological argument" had its origin in Godel. How funny.
Moniker wrote:JAK -- tsk! tsk!
http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/Repor ... -38643.htm
Cite your sources:Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word
Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many
gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami are
the basic force in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and
other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic
force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and
healing.
Shinto emphasizes rituals and moral standards. It does not
have an elaborate philosophy, and, unlike many religions,
it does not stress life after death.JAK wrote:Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami (plural) are the basic forces in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and healing.
Shinto emphasized rituals and moral standards. It does not have an elaborate philosophy and does not stress life after death as do some other religions.
-
_Jersey Girl
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
My testimony of JAK. Hang on to your hat, JAK, I'm going to be blatantly honest and a little tongue in cheek.
Yes, JAK is a teacher and a damn fine one. His posts are typically didactic in nature. He is a huge pain in the ass to follow! He will come at you in waves of thought to the point where you feel overwhelmed by his posts. You will have plodded your way through responding point by point to one of his lengthy post only to find yet another has appeared. You will want to smack him for it!
He uses color codes on a board like this to maintain the integrity of his responses in response to others. If you aren't interested in someone who approaches posts seriously and wishes to think and communicate precisely in the process then you'd be better off yahooing it up with someone else. He typically doesn't engage yahoo's nor will he respond to those posters whose posts are heavily laced with ad hom mainly because he doesn't see them as serious.
He will force you to follow him, stay on point, bring you back to point if needed and he will not stop doing that unless and until he deems you a non-serious waste of time. I have gone multiple pages of responses with JAK over long periods of time. It is aggravating beyond belief!
I have read literally thousands of post composed by JAK. He often uses links as reference. My observation is that he uses so many links that most posters aren't of the mind to read the material contained in the links. In the many years that I've been reading him, I can count 3 times when he hasn't framed a reference in quotes or supplied a link of some sort.
Anything else that needs testifying to?
Jersey Girl
(and yes, he's got a sense of humor but you're likely not going to see him inject it into a serious topical discussion)
Yes, JAK is a teacher and a damn fine one. His posts are typically didactic in nature. He is a huge pain in the ass to follow! He will come at you in waves of thought to the point where you feel overwhelmed by his posts. You will have plodded your way through responding point by point to one of his lengthy post only to find yet another has appeared. You will want to smack him for it!
He uses color codes on a board like this to maintain the integrity of his responses in response to others. If you aren't interested in someone who approaches posts seriously and wishes to think and communicate precisely in the process then you'd be better off yahooing it up with someone else. He typically doesn't engage yahoo's nor will he respond to those posters whose posts are heavily laced with ad hom mainly because he doesn't see them as serious.
He will force you to follow him, stay on point, bring you back to point if needed and he will not stop doing that unless and until he deems you a non-serious waste of time. I have gone multiple pages of responses with JAK over long periods of time. It is aggravating beyond belief!
I have read literally thousands of post composed by JAK. He often uses links as reference. My observation is that he uses so many links that most posters aren't of the mind to read the material contained in the links. In the many years that I've been reading him, I can count 3 times when he hasn't framed a reference in quotes or supplied a link of some sort.
Anything else that needs testifying to?
Jersey Girl
(and yes, he's got a sense of humor but you're likely not going to see him inject it into a serious topical discussion)
-
_Jersey Girl
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Heck, I ain't done yet.
JAK isn't going to change his posting methods for anyone here. I can tell you that much! No doubt, when he first began to post here people were thinking "What the hell? I've never seen anyone post like that". Nope, you haven't and neither did I. And I've never seen anyone think like that either.
JAK isn't going to change his posting methods for anyone here. I can tell you that much! No doubt, when he first began to post here people were thinking "What the hell? I've never seen anyone post like that". Nope, you haven't and neither did I. And I've never seen anyone think like that either.
-
_dartagnan
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2750
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm
As I told Moniker, I'm traveling for the next week and will only post when time permits. But I did want to comment here briefly to what Liz and Jersey Girl have said:
Liz,
No, I don't need to. We make judgments on people all the time, as we should. You expect people to just believe something because they say so, no matter what the evidence suggests? I know JAK couldn't have been a professor the same way I know chap, trevor, tarski, blixa and guy sajer, have been. The others can speak intelligently off the cuff about various issues without plagiarizing the web and trying to pass along other ideas as their own. They are generally more critical about what they accept as authoritative as well; JAK simply accepts anything posted on the web, so long as he likes what it says.
Feel free to continue doing that. I'm not sure where it states in the rules that I'm obligated to follow along. If you guys want to believe he is, then more power to ya. But I'm not going to just sit here, in light of his recent antics, while people tell me he is a brillant man who knows his stuff, using his supposed profession as evidence.
Normally? I guess that means there are exceptions. JAK fits the bill.
Jersey Girl,
No he isn't, on both counts.
His posts are a mess in the same way the posts by coggins are a mess.
Speak for yourself. He is easy to follow. He is also easy to refute. He is not easy to lure back into a rebuttal, however.
I felt overwhelmed by his illogic and bigoted conclusions. He wants to eradicate religion, as does Dawkins. One might consider this kind of thinking "dangerous" to society, since it is precisely the kind of thinking that drove Hitler.
Yes, because he usually cuts stuff from websites and passes it off as his own. He has been busted for doing this at least twice. The reason he seems to be arguing wildly is because that's the result of borrowing various snippets from various sources. He is taking ideas and sentences from various authors and blending them together in a single post. This is why in one breath he is talking about religion and in the next, George Bush and an American theocracy. He is all over the place.
The result is not a product of scholarship. It is a mass of incoherent babble, interpreted by amateurs as brilliant. That's the real tragedy here. Again, I'm more interested in what tarski has to say about JAK's ability to argue, and I think most people would be as well. Tarski mopped the floors with JAK a few months ago and it was down right hilarious the way JAK kept trying to squirm his way out of it using the same exact tactics he uses this week. Longwinded diatribes filled with colors and littered with marg's yapping defenses.
Horse crap. He does for distraction purposes. It is annoying as hell to read and he knows it.
He responds to me all the time, but only up until the point where he is presented counterevidence he can't handle. Then, he suddenly vanishes while his internet women come running to his defense.
Barf.
What a lame excuse. I tried to get him to stay on his own point several times when he brought up the crusades and historians on Alexander and the evidenc for Jesus. He made some stupid comments that I easily refuted and then he vanished. It was his own thread. Those were topics he raised. Yet, he refused to stick around to defend them. So I figured he took the hit, learned from his mistakes and moved on.
Guess not.
A week later he is back again with new threads reiterating the same crap as before. And now he is trying to prove all religions are dangerous, in the spirit of Richard Dawkins, who of course, we all knew was the person he was mimicking from the start. That is when I took the gloves off.
Their problem is that they want to make an illicit leap from "God doesn't exist" to "Those who think he does are dangerous." In order for one to understand dangers in society, one must know something about sociology. JAK knows nothing about this, as was demonstrated in various threads where I provided long detailed refutations explicating the situation for him. JAK of course fled the scene, only to appear later on acting as if "nobody has refuted" his precious thesis.
I'm sorry, but I have debated with MANY professors, and JAK strikes me as a simpleton in the line of charity and coggins. The reason JAK cannot speak on the sociological points of the debate is because his source, Dawkins, doesn't either. JAK is always limited to whatever his current source has said. He doesn't know how to read beyond websites. Dawkins and JAK are both speaking on a subject neither one of them have any business speaking on.
And it is by design.
What? Wiki and skeptic.org? This is one reason I know he isn't a professor .
Because too many critical thinkers are here.
And we have seen at least two times where he didn't put a citation in quotes. And that's because he was hoping his audience would believe it was he who spoke those words, and not some internet author. If this were an LDS member you'd be grilling him over the fire. But no, he is another anti-religion bigot. We just gotta stick up for those guys at all costs, right?
Is he also a great kisser? Marg thinks so.
Liz,
With all due respect, Kevin, I don't think that you can state this conclusively unless you actually have some dealing with JAK in real life.
No, I don't need to. We make judgments on people all the time, as we should. You expect people to just believe something because they say so, no matter what the evidence suggests? I know JAK couldn't have been a professor the same way I know chap, trevor, tarski, blixa and guy sajer, have been. The others can speak intelligently off the cuff about various issues without plagiarizing the web and trying to pass along other ideas as their own. They are generally more critical about what they accept as authoritative as well; JAK simply accepts anything posted on the web, so long as he likes what it says.
We tend to take people at their word here regarding information they choose to reveal regarding education and careers.
Feel free to continue doing that. I'm not sure where it states in the rules that I'm obligated to follow along. If you guys want to believe he is, then more power to ya. But I'm not going to just sit here, in light of his recent antics, while people tell me he is a brillant man who knows his stuff, using his supposed profession as evidence.
If a poster has stated that they teach, that they are an attorney, that they are an accountant, etc, we normally take them at their word.
Normally? I guess that means there are exceptions. JAK fits the bill.
Jersey Girl,
JAK is a teacher and a damn fine one.
No he isn't, on both counts.
His posts are typically didactic in nature
His posts are a mess in the same way the posts by coggins are a mess.
He is a huge pain in the ass to follow!
Speak for yourself. He is easy to follow. He is also easy to refute. He is not easy to lure back into a rebuttal, however.
He will come at you in waves of thought to the point where you feel overwhelmed by his posts.
I felt overwhelmed by his illogic and bigoted conclusions. He wants to eradicate religion, as does Dawkins. One might consider this kind of thinking "dangerous" to society, since it is precisely the kind of thinking that drove Hitler.
You will have plodded your way through responding point by point to one of his lengthy post only to find yet another has appeared.
Yes, because he usually cuts stuff from websites and passes it off as his own. He has been busted for doing this at least twice. The reason he seems to be arguing wildly is because that's the result of borrowing various snippets from various sources. He is taking ideas and sentences from various authors and blending them together in a single post. This is why in one breath he is talking about religion and in the next, George Bush and an American theocracy. He is all over the place.
The result is not a product of scholarship. It is a mass of incoherent babble, interpreted by amateurs as brilliant. That's the real tragedy here. Again, I'm more interested in what tarski has to say about JAK's ability to argue, and I think most people would be as well. Tarski mopped the floors with JAK a few months ago and it was down right hilarious the way JAK kept trying to squirm his way out of it using the same exact tactics he uses this week. Longwinded diatribes filled with colors and littered with marg's yapping defenses.
He uses color codes on a board like this to maintain the integrity of his responses in response to others
Horse crap. He does for distraction purposes. It is annoying as hell to read and he knows it.
If you aren't interested in someone who approaches posts seriously and wishes to think and communicate precisely in the process then you'd be better off yahooing it up with someone else. He typically doesn't engage yahoo's nor will he respond to those posters whose posts are heavily laced with ad hom mainly because he doesn't see them as serious.
He responds to me all the time, but only up until the point where he is presented counterevidence he can't handle. Then, he suddenly vanishes while his internet women come running to his defense.
He will force you to follow him, stay on point, bring you back to point if needed and he will not stop doing that unless and until he deems you a non-serious waste of time.
Barf.
What a lame excuse. I tried to get him to stay on his own point several times when he brought up the crusades and historians on Alexander and the evidenc for Jesus. He made some stupid comments that I easily refuted and then he vanished. It was his own thread. Those were topics he raised. Yet, he refused to stick around to defend them. So I figured he took the hit, learned from his mistakes and moved on.
Guess not.
A week later he is back again with new threads reiterating the same crap as before. And now he is trying to prove all religions are dangerous, in the spirit of Richard Dawkins, who of course, we all knew was the person he was mimicking from the start. That is when I took the gloves off.
Their problem is that they want to make an illicit leap from "God doesn't exist" to "Those who think he does are dangerous." In order for one to understand dangers in society, one must know something about sociology. JAK knows nothing about this, as was demonstrated in various threads where I provided long detailed refutations explicating the situation for him. JAK of course fled the scene, only to appear later on acting as if "nobody has refuted" his precious thesis.
I'm sorry, but I have debated with MANY professors, and JAK strikes me as a simpleton in the line of charity and coggins. The reason JAK cannot speak on the sociological points of the debate is because his source, Dawkins, doesn't either. JAK is always limited to whatever his current source has said. He doesn't know how to read beyond websites. Dawkins and JAK are both speaking on a subject neither one of them have any business speaking on.
I have gone multiple pages of responses with JAK over long periods of time. It is aggravating beyond belief!
And it is by design.
I have read literally thousands of post composed by JAK. He often uses links as reference.
What? Wiki and skeptic.org? This is one reason I know he isn't a professor .
My observation is that he uses so many links that most posters aren't of the mind to read the material contained in the links.
Because too many critical thinkers are here.
In the many years that I've been reading him, I can count 3 times when he hasn't framed a reference in quotes or supplied a link of some sort.
And we have seen at least two times where he didn't put a citation in quotes. And that's because he was hoping his audience would believe it was he who spoke those words, and not some internet author. If this were an LDS member you'd be grilling him over the fire. But no, he is another anti-religion bigot. We just gotta stick up for those guys at all costs, right?
Anything else that needs testifying to?
Is he also a great kisser? Marg thinks so.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
-
_Jersey Girl
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
-
_dartagnan
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2750
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm