Does anyone understand how things work with the banning?

[_beastie]

I read the whole thread this morning, and want to note two very obvious things:

DCP wrote many paragraphs explaining why he would not answer tarski's points.

DCP did respond to some posters in regards to their points, rather than taking the time to write numerous paragraphs explaining why he won't respond.

Conclusion....... anyone? anyone??

Mormon apologetics = hothouse flower

[_antishock8]

Mormon apologetics = hothouse flower

Jesus, once again Beastie nails it.

[_antishock8]

Wow. I just reviewed the thread. Tarski, I'm sorry you put effort and thought into something just to have it so casually dismissed. To add insult to injury the Mods do it in a deliberately deceitful manner. They make it appear you ceded the thread to Mr. Peterson. I'm surprised the other mini-acolytes haven't jumped in and piled on... Hrm.. I wonder why...

[_Chap]

I read the whole thread this morning, and want to note two very obvious things:

DCP wrote many paragraphs explaining why he would not answer tarski's points.

DCP did respond to some posters in regards to their points, rather than taking the time to write numerous paragraphs explaining why he won't respond.

Conclusion....... anyone? anyone??

Mormon apologetics = hothouse flower

I agree that DCP has exposed himself here. If he had just done his 'have to go to a meeting now; and I can't be bothered to talk to you anyhow' stuff AND THEN SHUT UP he would have been much wiser. Instead he put up post after silly post, enough to have answered Tarski several times over.

The reason DCP won't engage Tarski is simple and obvious. Tarski knows about physics.

DCP has just got an idea about atheism and the second law of thermodynamics out of some book or other. He is however utterly unequipped to argue about these subjects with someone who is has been properly trained to understand what (for instance) entropy is, how it relates to temperature and the disorder in a system, and to apply these concepts quantitatively to real situations in open and closed systems.

These are really difficult things to get right. I know because I have studied and taught them (though that is not what I do now). My son who is studying physics at university is capable of giving me real problems with some of the questions he asks me.

DCP can't cut the mustard on this, so he has to run and hide ...

[_TrashcanMan79]

Dr. Peterson, in explaining to Tarski why he chooses to refrain from responding to his (Tarski's) points, writes:

My character, personality, and (real or alleged) positions are continuously the stuff of scores of threads on numerous blogs and message boards -- including, very likely, many of which I'm completely unaware. I'm not inclined to voice everything I think, believe, or suspect on a message board so that oftimes malignant, intellectually unfair, and hostile critics (e.g., to choose a peculiarly noxious and obsessive example, my Malevolent Stalker) can paw it over and, all too often, distort and caricature it.

I'm not sure that responding to Tarski's few posts should be considered as "voic[ing] everything [he] think[s], believe[s], or suspect[s]," but I thought this was an interesting reason to give for not engaging the Tarskinator.

[_Moniker]

I find it surprising that there are individual threads where certain posters are not able to post. Has this ever occurred before? Is the Dude still suspended from MAD, as well?

I would have enjoyed seeing a conversation -- not necessarily a debate. I would think that publications would be quite relevant for discussion on the board. Yet, it seems the board wants to be more of a testimony meeting, lately, and a free for all between the age old important question if LDS are really Christians.

[_skippy the dead]

I find it surprising that there are individual threads where certain posters are not able to post. Has this ever occurred before?

It's apparently a new feature that they instituted with a recent software upgrade.

In certain situations, I could see how it would make sense. Some folks can spoil an otherwise smashing good thread, and won't stay out voluntarily. But when someone is making a point without violating rules, and gets locked out of a thread without other participants knowing about it, that's kinda crummy. The mods should put a note in the thread saying "Tarski was annoying Prof. P, so we've banned him from the thread" or somesuch.

[_Tarski]

I find it surprising that there are individual threads where certain posters are not able to post. Has this ever occurred before?

It's apparently a new feature that they instituted with a recent software upgrade.

In certain situations, I could see how it would make sense. Some folks can spoil an otherwise smashing good thread, and won't stay out voluntarily. But when someone is making a point without violating rules, and gets locked out of a thread without other participants knowing about it, that's kinda crummy. The mods should put a note in the thread saying "Tarski was annoying Prof. P, so we've banned him from the thread" or somesuch.

Yes and who do they think really belongs in the thread? Since I am an atheist/agnostic who knows something about cosmology, I think I ought to be allowed in a thread about and article whose title is "Cosmology and Atheism".
But maybe that's precisely way I am banned from the topic. LOL
*sigh*

[_Yoda]

Dr. Peterson just posted on a thread in Telestial. I asked him if he wouldn't mind looking at this thread, and responding.

I'm curious as well.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If DCP wanted Tarski unbanned, he could certainly arrange it. He could at least mention that fact on the thread.

But no. That is the kind of intellectual coward he is.

I've just noticed this thread. (I don't look in here every day.) I didn't know that Tarski was banned. (I haven't posted anything on the board formerly known as FAIR since early last evening, if I'm not mistaken.) I still don't know that he's been banned, actually, and have no idea why he would have been banned, either. If indeed he was.

As Tarski well knows -- and as, in simple fairness to me, he should by now have mentioned -- I intervened privately with the moderators on his behalf just a few weeks ago and persuaded them to unban him.

And don't worry. My thoughts on theism and cosmology will be published eventually, and it'll be open season on me in any and all venues that the critics choose. That's the kind of intellectual coward I am.