From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Bogus TAE reasoning, and why I get caught every time
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:58:20 CST

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
: 
: > Broughton, Wayne Jeremy (waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu) wrote:
: > : and I (Robert Derrick) wrote...
: > 
: >   [long goofy argument (on my part) about time dilation, speed,
: 
: > In the first case, the third guy was Kalki,
: 
: Huh? What do you claim I said concerning time dilation, etc...?

Did'ja even bother the read the whole thing, Ace?

I didn't say that you made any claim about time dilation.  I claimed
that I was involved in an ancilliary discussion with someone else about
something you said, wherein my opponent took the "weak case", where
he took your words at face value, and argued that you were making
a very simple and obvious statement.  And I took the "strong case",
wherein I inferred indirectly that your agenda actually was intended to
lead in a specific direction that would ultimate draw a conclusion that
supported your religious beliefs.  In other words, person 1, me, and
person 2, both actually agreed on the specific subject.  We disagreed
only on what you meant.

Yet you never once stepped in to either confirm what I claimed, or
defend yourself against my scurrilous remarks!  Instead, you misread
this post and went off on a belief that I said something that I didn't
say.

Are you really reading any of this?  My belief is that you are not.
You are working by responding to buzzwords and soundbites, and you
are only dealing with things that are being said in only the most
superficial manner.

My belief is that the reason you will not post an explanation of
Thompson's Info-theory proof is that you simply don't understand
it yourself.  You don't really seem capable of producing a synthesis
of the content of Thompson's work, so you are reduced to only being
able to post it in toto.

So, if you had read my post carefully, you would have recognized
yourself, as I am sure that most of the astute thinkers on T.O.
did, in the following paragraph, which you thoughtlessly deleted.

I wrote:
> I believe that when a TAE talks about consciousness, they are doing so
> solely to, somehow, prove that the supernatural soul exists, and that
> life is by it's nature, non-mechanistic.  All other discussion, that 
> tries to imply that the TAE didn't actually say that, in a
> particular case, does in no way mollify the intent in that case.

Notice the key words here, Gomer.  Consciousness.  Soul.  Non-mechanistic.
Name one other TAE, beside yourself, who has recently covered this ground.

: > I guess I have a strong opinion about what these guys are trying to
: > prove, and so I read freely between the lines.  This may be unsafe,
: > but I feel that if I were to mistate their position, they would be
: > the first to correct me.  Neither one ever did.
: 
: Jeez, this letter sounds like a Ronald Reagan speech. What exactly are
: you talking about?

Well, maybe it sounds like an RR speech because you were asleep when
you read it.  What other explanation could account for the fact that
you clearly missed the part where I was obviously talking about you.

: > the first to correct me.  Neither one ever did.

Look at this one again.  I argued back and forth with someone else
about a thread that you started, and consistently made strong
statements about what I considered to be your underlying agenda,
and you never once responded.

What I was talking about in this one post that you did acknowledge
was that I believed that you may have allowed the debate to rage
simply because of the controversy that it created.

I wrote:
> I think, if anything, they enjoy creating controversy.  It is clear
> from TAE writings that they view dissent as contrary evidence, as, if
> Gould disagrees with Sagan, this somehow lends credence to Gish and
> Sada Puta and Velicrashghi or even Charles Fort.

But I see now that at least in your case, I was mistaken.  You weren't
revelling in the controversy -- you didn't even know that it was
happening!  You were just zoned out.

--
rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com

NOTE: TAE: Theistic Anti-Evolution(ist)

NOTE 2: It was Ray Cote that had made some statements about the 
	nature of the constancy of time.  I offer this note just
	in case you are not aware of the fact-finding technique
	known as "process of elimination".