Discussion of the ''DCP / plagiarism'' thread

[_Dr. Shades]

Awesome sauce!
That's exactly what this board needs - more DCP threads!

Ceeboo, what did we just get done talking about in the Spirit Paradise Forum?

(Pardon the temporary derailment, Lemmie, but this needed to be said.)

[_Ceeboo]

Awesome sauce!
That's exactly what this board needs - more DCP threads!

Ceeboo, what did we just get done talking about in the Spirit Paradise Forum?

(Pardon the temporary derailment, Lemmie, but this needed to be said.)

I wrote this post BEFORE my lesson on the other thread. Please forgive it as it will be the last time you ever see me make that mistake on this forum agin! Ever!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[Guest]

Hey W!

Having no expectation whatsoever that DCP would ever admit to (or even recognize) these kinds of deficiencies, let alone make any attempt to correct them, I've decided to pitch in and give him a hand - and will be doing so on new threads so as not to further defocus the efforts here.

Awesome sauce!
That's exactly what this board needs - more DCP threads!

Peace,
Ceeboo

Ceeboo,

Just to put your mind at ease; unless they have read my post above, most folks would not even realize that the new posts have anything to do with DCP. These posts will be topical and not personal.

The first will be one that I hope you will tune in for. DCP did a 'link and leave' drive-by regarding Bayes' theorem on his blog that ostensibly defends Mormonism and its faithful. I'm gobsmacked that he would be so careless when attending to his faithful flock.

No doubt due to his lack of reading in the sciences, he apparently doesn't realize that many of the most powerful arguments against theism emerge from the application of Bayesian analysis.

In my opinion, and that of many others including the recently discussed Sean Carroll, there is no better tool than that provided by the good Reverend Bayes for knocking down pretty much every argument for theism there is, especially those supposedly based on science (or better said pseudo-science, e.g. cosmological fine tuning, etc.) or on objective reality in general.

That said, I do not foresee mention of raccoons or whales, so you should be okay if you decide to check it out.

[_Lemmie]

Awesome sauce!
That's exactly what this board needs - more DCP threads!

Ceeboo, what did we just get done talking about in the Spirit Paradise Forum?

(Pardon the temporary derailment, Lemmie, but this needed to be said.)

Why should I mind? At this point tom's and my documentation and the relevant discussion thereof are buried so deep in someone's derailing by personal crisis and rule-breaking "f*** you" strategy that it can't possibly matter. It would be easier at this point to move the on-topic posts.

and for the record:

So far on this thread, Lemmie has tolerated my comments on the substandard quality of DCP's work for reasons other than plagiarism and I appreciate her forbearance.

DrW, no forbearance is necessary! I consider your comments to be extremely insightful; they are absolutely on-topic as they are a significant and revealing expansion of the issues discussed in the OP.

[_Ceeboo]

Ceeboo,

Just to put your mind at ease; unless they have read my post above, most folks would not even realize that the new posts have anything to do with DCP. These posts will be topical and not personal.

The first will be one that I hope you will tune in for. DCP did a 'link and leave' drive-by regarding Bayes' theorem on his blog that ostensibly defends Mormonism and its faithful. I'm gobsmacked that he would be so careless when attending to his faithful flock.

No doubt due to his lack of reading in the sciences, he apparently doesn't realize that many of the most powerful arguments against theism emerge from the application of Bayesian analysis.

In my opinion, and that of many others including the recently discussed Sean Carroll, there is no better tool than that provided by the good Reverend Thomas Bayes for knocking down pretty much every argument for theism there is, especially those supposedly based on science (or better said pseudo-science, e.g. cosmological fine tuning, etc.) or on objective reality in general.

Great! I look forward to reading it then.

That said, I do not foresee mention of raccoons or whales, so you should be okay if you decide to check it out.

No mention of raccoons or whales? Sounds like your thread is going to be a real snoozer then.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[Guest]

Why should I mind? At this point tom's and my documentation and the relevant discussion thereof are buried so deep in someone's derailing by personal crisis and rule-breaking "f*** you" strategy that it can't possibly matter. It would be easier at this point to move the on-topic posts.

That posters Agenda, as you rightly point out, was to drown the thread in personal drama drivel.

Don’t give it up Lemmie.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'd like to propose to Dr. Shades that he peal off any direct references to Dr. Peterson's plagiarisms and start a new thread since this thread has become so bloated. It makes it hard for anyone wanting to fact check the references, since they have to wade through so much chaff. Anyone else support this move?

- Doc

[_Tator]

I do. Pin it in the hall of fame threads. Just the evidence.

[_Res Ipsa]

I'd like to propose to Dr. Shades that he peal off any direct references to Dr. Peterson's plagiarisms and start a new thread since this thread has become so bloated. It makes it hard for anyone wanting to fact check the references, since they have to wade through so much chaff. Anyone else support this move?

- Doc

I do, with the caveat that someone assist Shades by posting for him links to the posts that should go in the new thread. I don’t think we should saddle him with sifting and sorting the posts.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'd like to propose to Dr. Shades that he peal off any direct references to Dr. Peterson's plagiarisms and start a new thread since this thread has become so bloated. It makes it hard for anyone wanting to fact check the references, since they have to wade through so much chaff. Anyone else support this move?

- Doc

I do.

Earlier in the thread, I saw Lemmie mention that she'd reported posts in an effort to save the integrity of the thread topic going forward. Can't recall just now how many--5 or so? I did not see any of those reported posts split off from the thread or any comment by the mod team indicating why they decided not to do that. I don't understand why they weren't split off as it was just in the recent past that posters were encouraged to report to prevent total derail. Why were they not?

You've got a person (JP) on this thread who attempted to thwart it from the start. Who later admitted that she was against the thread. She has thrown everything but the kitchen sink towards derailing it.

At this point it's reached a state of FUBAR to the point where as Lemmie so rightly put it, it would be easier to split off the topic from the derail itself.

Yes, if there is such a thing as a vote for preference here, my preference is to save the topic and protect the effort that the OP and others have invested in the documentation they've contributed.