Why is the Terrestial Forum more frequented ...

[_EAllusion]

So let me ask for clarification. You think that Christianity is also full of "crackpot ideas"?

I don't think you are asking for clarification. I think you're asking because my saying "yes" is intended to blunt the impact of my evaluation of calling DCP's various crackpot ideas - say his fandom of intelligent design arguments or his dowsing comments - that way. Yeah, he thinks DCP is a crackpot, but he thinks Christians are too! Unfortuantely, I can't say "yes" because Christianity is too broad and vague of a category to nail down. I think there are things many Christians think as part of their religion that are egregiously unjustified. That'll have to do. It's also irrelevant and doesn't add clarity.

[_RayAgostini]

Incidentally, you can find a record of the Tarski/DCP exchanges on MAD, and while he may not have "fully engaged" Tarski here on MDB, he did indeed do so on MAD.

[_EAllusion]

So what you're saying is that marg is so stupid that she should never be taken seriously, and by DCP actually taking her seriously, he's a "small fish bully", more or less? That marg is just too stupid to be taken seriously by anyone of even minimal intelligence? But Tarski, because he knows mathematical equations and has a working knowledge of "formal logic", should be taken seriously?

I didn't' say anything about whether marg should be taken seriously or addressed. I said she is a poor debater and DCP will pick on poor debators on topics he wouldn't touch if more knowledgeable, skilled interlocuters are about. So I am saying that he is wont to take on the small fish, but the taken seriously stuff is of your own invention.

I'm not sure why you went with "knows equations" and "formal logic" with Tarski. You might have well said, "is edjumacated with fancy talk" and produced the same effect. The most relevant thing for the example in question is that Tarksi is a Ph.D. level physiscist who compentently argues. DCP's offered argument on thermodynamics and God, at the end of the day, is very bad. Some people are just better equipped than others for making that clear. And DCP appears to avoid those people for some reason. I wonder why.

[_EAllusion]

Incidentally, you can find a record of the Tarski/DCP exchanges on MAD, and while he may not have "fully engaged" Tarski here on MDB, he did indeed do so on MAD.

I referenced that specific example because DCP specifically avoided Tarksi when Tarkski attempted to prod him over it. On a board where moderators heavily censor conversations to make him look good, no less.

[_RayAgostini]

I'm not sure why you went with "knows equations" and "formal logic" with Tarski. You might have well said, "is edjumacated with fancy talk" and produced the same effect. The most relevant thing for the example in question is that Tarksi is a Ph.D. level physiscist who compentently argues. DCP's offered argument on thermodynamics and God, at the end of the day, is very bad. Some people are just better equipped than others for making that clear. And DCP appears to avoid those people for some reason. I wonder why.

Sorry, your Royal Logical Highness. by the way, you're an awful speller. Should I use that as an indication of your level of intelligence?

[_RayAgostini]

I referenced that specific example because DCP specifically avoided Tarksi when Tarkski attempted to prod him over it. On a board where moderators heavily censor conversations to make him look good, no less.

Who is "Tarkski"? or even "Tarksi"?

[_EAllusion]

Sorry, your Royal Logical Highness. by the way, you're an awful speller. Should I use that as an indication of your level of intelligence?

It's mostly typos, some genuine spelling errors. Yes, the spelling and grammar in my posts is notorious for leaving room for improvement. I joke about it all time. And no, copyediting motivation and skill is not a particulary good barometer of intelligence. Posters who try to condscend the intelligence of others for occasional spelling errors in otherwise articulate, thoughtful prose come off as desperate and not the sharpest thinkers themselves.

[_RayAgostini]

It's mostly typos, some genuine spelling errors. Yes, the spelling and grammar in my posts is notorious for leaving room for improvement. I joke about it all time. And no, copyediting [sic] (hyphen, dash or space is better) motivation and skill is not a particulary [sic] good barometer of intelligence. Posters who try to condscend [sic] the intelligence of others for occasional spelling errors in otherwise articulate, thoughtful prose come off as desperate and not the sharpest thinkers themselves.

Oh, I forget, we can only gauge someone's intelligence by how well they grasp "formal logic".

You hold to more dogmas than I've ever seen in my 37 year association with Mormonism.

[_EAllusion]

Oh, I forget, we can only gauge someone's intelligence by how well they grasp "formal logic".

No, not really.

"Copyediting" is just fine by the way. If you're going to be a grammar nazi, you might as well make sure you don't screw it up.

[_RayAgostini]

"Copyediting" is just fine by the way. If you're going to be a grammar nazi, you might as well make sure you don't screw it up.

If you can spell, then jackasses can talk.