You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Did I say that?
Hmm, did I?
Man, can you even see how pathetic it is for you to pull the card you just pulled?
Or is it so painful to have someone say something about you on a message board that you don't like, that you get so bent out of shape you have to reach for the "A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation."
Seriously, you seem to have a severe ego problem if you can't handle what is said on a stock trading message board in the dungeons of P&R such that you post such threats, veiled or not.
Hmm, did I?
Man, can you even see how pathetic it is for you to pull the card you just pulled?
Or is it so painful to have someone say something about you on a message board that you don't like, that you get so bent out of shape you have to reach for the "A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation."
Seriously, you seem to have a severe ego problem if you can't handle what is said on a stock trading message board in the dungeons of P&R such that you post such threats, veiled or not.
Quote from kjkent1:
His membership is not the issue? You mean that it's ok for him to violate his sworn oath as long as he doesn't get caught?
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Did I say that?
Hmm, did I?
Man, can you even see how pathetic it is for you to pull the card you just pulled?
Or is it so painful to have someone say something about you on a message board that you don't like, that you get so bent out of shape you have to reach for the "A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation."
Seriously, you seem to have a severe ego problem if you can't handle what is said on a stock trading message board in the dungeons of P&R such that you post such threats, veiled or not.
I haven't made any threat to do anything to jem, and frankly, were I to do so, the State Bar prosecutor would just shrug and say, "de minimis non curat lex." I'm merely reminding jem, that as he claims to be a member of the Florida State Bar, that he has certain duties which exceed that of an ordinary citizen.
If he wants to make Susskind's book the centerpiece of his argument with others, and use its contents, and my representations of that book as a rationale to call me a liar, whether on an anonymous board, or anywhere else, then he has a legal duty to make a reasonable investigation of the book, and not simply quote the work out of context.
As for "you" suggesting that "I" have a severe ego problem, well, that is positively hillarious.
this is truly sickening.
zzz I thank you for having a sense of decency.
I happen to know KJ has done enough research to know I am a member of the Florida bar. That in itself should have sent up waring signs.
But this is no longer a joke to me.
Everything I have said regarding physics and Susskind is to my knowledge true and accurate. I apologize for calling Stu tweedle dumb. he is probably a bright guy but he does exhibit an annoying peanut gallery quality when deal with me.
To everyone else but KJ I hope you have not been too insulted by my comments - I really do not know you.
KJ - you have succeded in scaring me. I now doubt you are a real attorney because no real attorney would have just done what you did for dozens of legal and ethical reasons.
I will no longer speak with you.
However I have one thing to say, go ahead file your phony complaint just have the decency to put your real name to it.
zzz I thank you for having a sense of decency.
I happen to know KJ has done enough research to know I am a member of the Florida bar. That in itself should have sent up waring signs.
But this is no longer a joke to me.
Everything I have said regarding physics and Susskind is to my knowledge true and accurate. I apologize for calling Stu tweedle dumb. he is probably a bright guy but he does exhibit an annoying peanut gallery quality when deal with me.
To everyone else but KJ I hope you have not been too insulted by my comments - I really do not know you.
KJ - you have succeded in scaring me. I now doubt you are a real attorney because no real attorney would have just done what you did for dozens of legal and ethical reasons.
I will no longer speak with you.
However I have one thing to say, go ahead file your phony complaint just have the decency to put your real name to it.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
That you would even think to go to the "Florida State Bar" card demonstrates how beaten down you seem to be...
Man, this has to be one of lowest points I have ever seen an ET member reach...
You must mean one of the highest. kjkent's commitment to patiently dismantling the sophistry of members like you and jem has cemented his position as one of the most objective and learned people here. We have been forced to do this as a sort of ongoing tag team since you people have only one approach - to continuously assert and obfuscate and ignore the questions which arise as a result of your faith-based proclamations.
jem is completely discredited here. Zeleologist has stopped posting in this thread (except for the occasional gratuitous ad hominem). There are a few others, clearly disturbed (I will not name names but we all know who I mean) who chime in every once in a while.
Zzz, you are by far the most reviled and mistrusted member of this site. You have shown repeatedly that your only goal here is to pretend that you win every weak-minded debating point you attempt to make. You have shown that you are willing to lie, evade, deny and ignore in order to appear to be right. You utilize ad hominem, strawman and red herring and then accuse those who point it out of doing it themselves.
Your personal life is a mess. You have been banned from this site three times. Your post count shows that you have no life and are a pitiful internet Troll. Members like jem simply join the club of which you are the head fool.
Quote from jem:
this is truly sickening.
zzz I thank you for having a sense of decency.
I happen to know KJ has done enough research to know I am a member of the Florida bar. That in itself should have sent up waring signs.
But this is no longer a joke to me.
Everything I have said regarding physics and Susskind is to my knowledge true and accurate. I apologize for calling Stu tweedle dumb. he is probably a bright guy but he does exhibit an annoying peanut gallery quality when deal with me.
To everyone else but KJ I hope you have not been too insulted by my comments - I really do not know you.
KJ - you have succeded in scaring me. I now doubt you are a real attorney because no real attorney would have just done what you did for dozens of legal an ethical reasons.
I will no longer speak with you.
However I have one thing to say, go ahead file your phony complaint just have the decency to put your real name to it.
Chill out, jem. If I had any real beef with you, I wouldn't waste any time on the State Bar Court -- I'd just sue you, straight up.
I'd just appreciate it if you would actually read Susskind's book before telling everyone what he means, and calling me a liar.
I don't think that's an unreasonable request.
Ok, I will assume you have made no threat and take you at your word that it was not a threat in any way, and apologize if that is the case and say I was wrong if you actually were not making a threat of any kind.
So, then, I begin to wonder at your motivation for posting all that stuff. My guess is that you had to do at least some Google based some research to find that, so it appears you had some motivation.
I think, why would he post what he posted concerning the bar and possible problems that it could cause jem?
If not to be vindictive, or not to try and threaten jem, or attempt to control his behavior...then why would he post that?
If truly concerned for jem's well being, such that he didn't get in trouble in any way at all or damage his standing...then a PM would be the way to go. Why make it a public issue in a public forum when it concerns just jem?
Doesn't make sense to me, then it doesn't have to make sense...as I am taking you at your word...but then only you know your real motive.
jem is an overly emotional guy at times, he has gone after me in political threads because of my liberal positions, but I just put this all into context of P&R at ET. I think he has called me a liar at one time or another, who cares? His opinion doesn't make me a liar or a truth teller. It means so little in the larger context and I really would like to see exchange of ideas, and understanding of difference of opinion, with an acceptance that many arguments made here do have their foundation in logical fallacies, which doesn't make them true or false in the ultimate unknown reality, but does make them false logically.
When it comes to design or non design, no one really knows, it is just guessing and faith in the chosen system of evaluation and guesswork.
jem's argument is fallacious in its nature because it is an appeal to authority, and is no more true than those who appeal to scientists who say definitively in their opinion that there is no design. Scientists have different belief systems on the unknowable.
In my opinion, jem's basic argument is useless, as even if suddenly every single scientist believe in design, that wouldn't make it true, and neither does the beliefs of scientists in non design make design false.
I am not going to comment on what Susskind really thinks or believes, and a title of a book doesn't necessarily convey the meaning of the book. The only way for us to know what he really meant or really means to say would be to talk to him...
Oh, and one other thing, if you saw jem not following his "duties" as a bar member of Florida's bar in another thread, by attacking another ET member---say me---or violating what you thought was his "duty" in his comments to me....would you have as quickly posted the same post?
In addition, as by your own admission the State Bar prosecutor would just shrug and say, "de minimis non curat lex" why do you feel it is your duty to remind jem of his "duties?"
Again, a PM would be, in my opinion, the correct way to handle such things...
So, then, I begin to wonder at your motivation for posting all that stuff. My guess is that you had to do at least some Google based some research to find that, so it appears you had some motivation.
I think, why would he post what he posted concerning the bar and possible problems that it could cause jem?
If not to be vindictive, or not to try and threaten jem, or attempt to control his behavior...then why would he post that?
If truly concerned for jem's well being, such that he didn't get in trouble in any way at all or damage his standing...then a PM would be the way to go. Why make it a public issue in a public forum when it concerns just jem?
Doesn't make sense to me, then it doesn't have to make sense...as I am taking you at your word...but then only you know your real motive.
jem is an overly emotional guy at times, he has gone after me in political threads because of my liberal positions, but I just put this all into context of P&R at ET. I think he has called me a liar at one time or another, who cares? His opinion doesn't make me a liar or a truth teller. It means so little in the larger context and I really would like to see exchange of ideas, and understanding of difference of opinion, with an acceptance that many arguments made here do have their foundation in logical fallacies, which doesn't make them true or false in the ultimate unknown reality, but does make them false logically.
When it comes to design or non design, no one really knows, it is just guessing and faith in the chosen system of evaluation and guesswork.
jem's argument is fallacious in its nature because it is an appeal to authority, and is no more true than those who appeal to scientists who say definitively in their opinion that there is no design. Scientists have different belief systems on the unknowable.
In my opinion, jem's basic argument is useless, as even if suddenly every single scientist believe in design, that wouldn't make it true, and neither does the beliefs of scientists in non design make design false.
I am not going to comment on what Susskind really thinks or believes, and a title of a book doesn't necessarily convey the meaning of the book. The only way for us to know what he really meant or really means to say would be to talk to him...
Oh, and one other thing, if you saw jem not following his "duties" as a bar member of Florida's bar in another thread, by attacking another ET member---say me---or violating what you thought was his "duty" in his comments to me....would you have as quickly posted the same post?
In addition, as by your own admission the State Bar prosecutor would just shrug and say, "de minimis non curat lex" why do you feel it is your duty to remind jem of his "duties?"
Again, a PM would be, in my opinion, the correct way to handle such things...
Quote from kjkent1:
I haven't made any threat to do anything to jem, and frankly, were I to do so, the State Bar prosecutor would just shrug and say, "de minimis non curat lex." I'm merely reminding jem, that as he claims to be a member of the Florida State Bar, that he has certain duties which exceed that of an ordinary citizen.
If he wants to make Susskind's book the centerpiece of his argument with others, and use its contents, and my representations of that book as a rationale to call me a liar, whether on an anonymous board, or anywhere else, then he has a legal duty to make a reasonable investigation of the book, and not simply quote the work out of context.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
why do you feel it is your duty
You would ask this question...
Absolutely pathetic. It is truly sickening how you switch from sophistry to apparent attempts at conciliation when it suits your shallow needs.
You are without a doubt the most intellectually dishonest individual I have ever encountered. It is true that one cannot make generalizations about most individuals based on what you read on an anonymous internet board, but in your case, it is (disgustingly) obvious.
You are despicable and this site would be a hell of a lot better if they just banned you again, and for good this time.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Ok, I will assume you have made no threat and take you at your word that it was not a threat in any way, and apologize if that is the case and say I was wrong if you actually were not making a threat of any kind.
So, then, I begin to wonder at your motivation for posting all that stuff. My guess is that you had to do at least some Google based some research to find that, so it appears you had some motivation.
I think, why would he post what he posted concerning the bar and possible problems that it could cause jem?
If not to be vindictive, or not to try and threaten jem, or attempt to control his behavior...then why would he post that?
If truly concerned for jem's well being, such that he didn't get in trouble in any way at all or damage his standing...then a PM would be the way to go. Why make it a public issue in a public forum when it concerns just jem?
Doesn't make sense to me, then it doesn't have to make sense...as I am taking you at your word...but then only you know your real motive.
jem is an overly emotional guy at times, he has gone after me in political threads because of my liberal positions, but I just put this all into context of P&R at ET. It means so little in the larger context and I really would like to see exchange of ideas, and understanding of difference of opinion, with an acceptance that many arguments made here do have their foundation in logical fallacies, which doesn't make them true or false in the ultimate unknown reality, but does make them false logically.
When it comes to design or non design, no one really knows, it is just guessing and faith in the chosen system of evaluation and guesswork.
jem's argument is fallacious in its nature because it is an appeal to authority, and is no more true than those who appeal to scientists who say definitively in their opinion that there is no design. Scientists have different belief systems on the unknowable.
In my opinion, jem's basic argument is useless, as even if suddenly every single scientist believe in design, that wouldn't make it true, and neither does the beliefs of scientists in non design make design false.
I am not going to comment on what Susskind really thinks or believes, and a title of a book doesn't necessarily convey the meaning of the book. The only way for us to know what he really meant or really means to say would be to talk to him...
Oh, and one other thing, if you saw jem not following his "duties" as a bar member of Florida's bar in another thread, by attacking another ET member---say me---or violating what you thought was his "duty" in his comments to me....would you have as quickly posted the same post?
In addition, as by your own admission the State Bar prosecutor would just shrug and say, "de minimis non curat lex" why do you feel it is your duty to remind jem of his "duties?"
Again, a PM would be, in my opinion, the correct way to handle such things...
This may be your single most genuinely useful post in the history of ET.
I don't think you're being objective at the moment -- however, I do believe that you're being sincere. jem called me a liar -- not in a PM -- in public. That is over the line, in my view -- so if he wants to play hardball, then it's fair for him to get a "brush back."
I'm a lot of things. I may get facts wrong, and misinterpret what I believe to be true. My opinions may even be ill conceived. I'll even admit to having a big ego.
However, I am not a liar. Not here, and not anywhere else.
Yes, jem did call you a liar. We agree.
He has called me a liar. So?
If you really were offended, a PM would have been the way to handle it, IMO.
If you really did think you were damaged as a result of his outburst, you would have sued, by your own admission...
So while I am taking you at your word, I am still left with my previous questions unanswered...not that they need to be, or that you need to answer them, or that it really matters anyway, it is just P&R...
Oh, and a brush back is an intimidation move by a pitcher in baseball, a type of "threat" in that particular game. Not saying your "brush back" was a threat...since you claim it was not, and you also claim you never lie...so there we have it.
He has called me a liar. So?
If you really were offended, a PM would have been the way to handle it, IMO.
If you really did think you were damaged as a result of his outburst, you would have sued, by your own admission...
So while I am taking you at your word, I am still left with my previous questions unanswered...not that they need to be, or that you need to answer them, or that it really matters anyway, it is just P&R...
Oh, and a brush back is an intimidation move by a pitcher in baseball, a type of "threat" in that particular game. Not saying your "brush back" was a threat...since you claim it was not, and you also claim you never lie...so there we have it.
Quote from kjkent1:
This may be your single most genuinely useful post in the history of ET.
I don't think you're being objective at the moment -- however, I do believe that you're being sincere. jem called me a liar -- not in a PM -- in public. That is over the line, in my view -- so if he wants to play hardball, then it's fair for him to get a "brush back."
I'm a lot of things. I may get facts wrong, and misinterpret what I believe to be true. My opinions may even be ill conceived. I'll even admit to having a big ego.
However, I am not a liar. Not here, and not anywhere else.