DaveScot's Sense of Humor

Ed, It's really a pity you don't open up and tell us your REAL feelings about DaveScot LOL

Now that he has a blog this should be amusing :-)

I know, I really should learn to be less shy about speaking my mind LOL

In the interests of "Can't We All Be Friends", I think you should translate "vitriol" for Dave.
I'm not sure Dave could spell "cat" if you sptted him the c and the a... He's not exactly the brightest bulb in the cahndelier. He might think it's something you put on your hair to impress the ladies at the Church Social...

I didn't bother to read Dave's post, but does he promise not to delete the posts of those who disagree? At least Ed gives 'em a chance to prove they are idiots.

Like all obnoxious asses, of course, you will pretend that you're really banned because people are "afraid of your ideas" or because they "hate the truth" or whatever rationalization you tell yourself to avoid admitting to being an obnoxious ass.

C'mon...DaveScot would never stoop to that level....

Just as I predicted, Ed Brayton refuses to lift the ban on DaveScot on his blog while here I allow his trackbacks including his kindergarten level insults aimed at me. That frames the censorship issue nicely.

God I love being right!

'Nuff said.

What's obnoxious about that?

See, its all about censorship!

Note...quote in bold from link above, No. 13.

Well yes, it does frame the "censorship issue" nicely. In more than two years of blogging, I've banned very few people and the ones I have banned are because they just polluted the place. In the meantime, I've carried on long exchanges with people I've disagreed with, even ones whose viewpoints were quite foolish like William Gibbons. In the meantime, Dembski has banned dozens of people from his blog in a very short time, most of them without any negative behavior at all and he has removed comments that were perfectly polite but questioned his views. That does indeed "frame" the "censorship issue" quite nicely, don't you think? Of course, since blogs are privately owned we can each ban anyone we like for any reason we like. But like most ID advocates, Dembski and DaveScot delight in pointing to alleged behavior by others that they are flagrantly guilty of themselves.

I guess "banning for Jesus" is just as acceptable as "lying for Jesus" when you're dealing with heretics.

/snark

I'm banned from the Dembski blog just for supporting science, so far as I can tell. I'll bet there are still dozens of people, if not hundreds, still banned over there for no reason other than having asked one of the dozens of questions.

If they want to establish credibility over there, they need to open up comments and deal with them. Really.

It won't happen -- you know, the deluge and all.

O'Brien and DaveScot pretend to allow your trackback as a "courtesy", but in all reality it was probably just to get some traffic swung back their way, in light of Dembski's announced shutdown.

His sense of humor is improving. He has already banned two people, one after the other, here. The current last comment is great:

Bill,

this 'new' site has become an absolute embarrassment...

reminds me of the Alexander Haig newsconference after Reagan was shot.

Its no longer enjoyable to read, Dave, why don't just you ban me too....

Comment by ajl -- January 8, 2006 @ 2:34 pm

(thought i'd save that in case he decided to delete it). Is it possible that Dembski chose davescot to run the blog because davescot is so completely detached from reality that Billy seems ALMOST sane and reasonable in comparison?

There is a certain irony of the whining, whinging and general cries of oppression that you get from ID proponents about a 'darwinian orthodoxy' or other idiocy. Here you have Davescot, a self confessed atheist "ID supporter" banning two theists immediately and without any fair discussion. He just bans them immediately for defending their views that morality requires religion and a belief in God.

Apparently, we in the evil atheist darwinian orthodoxy,who are supposed to be the ones oppressing viewpoints contrary to ours are amazingly more tolerant. I can't think of any theist, on Internet Infidels, on Pandasthumb, here or elsewhere who has been banned (arbitarily) for stating their theistic beliefs.

Best of all is this statement from Benjii

If you want to kick me out, fine! I'd rather be on a blog where there is freedom of thought and expression, not on a Stalinist one.

Why was he ever at the Uncommon Descent echo chamber to begin with then?

DaveScot wrote:[quote]Ed lifted my real name from a private email I sent to him. I don't particularly try to hide my real name, which is why Ed got it in a private correspondence, but I don't advertise it either.[/block]

It is funny that Dave wrote this since he did advertise his identity on the link below on comment #74. On comment #49 he invesitgates someone who I cited (Rod Swenson) and said that because of his past actions and his degree he is not a qualified scientist even though Swenson worked onlong side of other credible scientists and practiced science. Not only is practicing science important, but what you practice is what you should write about, which is more than Behe can accomplish. But I bring this up because DaveScot writes after his "investigating," "Ain't the internet great!," because it can be used to uncover who people really are. So he is upset that Ed found out that the assistant dean was the same person as the emailer, but DaveScot did the same kind of digging ( http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000697.html#c12575 ). So I guess DaveScot was right, the Internet is great since his past comments are recoverable and can be used against him.

Brian

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/223#comments

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=springer&FIELD1=INZZ&co1=AND&TERM2=dell&FIELD2=ASNM&d=ptxt