Changes

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog (view source)

Revision as of 20:56, June 24, 2008

2,109 bytes removed , 20:56, June 24, 2008

no edit summary

Line 887: Line 887:

:::If I am allowed to continue questioning this without further threats from sysop:Bugler I would say that it seems to me to be extremely unlikely that the link would be to "shock site". But I agree with you that we should be told why it was necessary to censor the reply. Especially so when Mr Schafly has been arguing for the importance of the disclosure of data all this time.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 10:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Deal however you see fit Bugler old fruit. Your censorship of both me and more importantly of Lenski will stand fine testament. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

−

~~Censorship? Censorship? Even a good dog needs a tug on the choke chain every now and again - and where on earth am I supposed to have censored the esteemed Prof?~~ [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

+

<nowiki>http://www.tinyurl.com/5qjao8</nowiki> [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:Bugler. Very obviously the link in Lenski's e-mail has been censored (as per the top of this thread). I have simply asked specifically why this is the case. If that gets me banned it says more about you than me. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Bugler, perhaps rather than trying to speak for Mr. Schlafly, you could stand down and let him respond to questions that were directed at him and that he is more qualified to answer. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 10:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

−

:::~~<nowiki>http://www~~.~~tinyurl~~.~~com/5qjao8</nowiki>~~ [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

+

:::RedDog, it has been removed as it links to a site deemed unacceptable. I do not know what the link was. I did no remove it. However, one either believes that Andrew Schlafly acted in good faith or not. If you believe not, then why should you be here? I know I wouldn't be. And since he acted in good faith and the best interests of CP, we should leave it at that.

+

ZTak, MYOB

+

[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:I agree Bugler and I accept good faith. But make no mistake this IS censorship. There is no other word for it. I do accept what you say though and will let the matter drop here. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Line 941: Line 944:

Your own senior sysops [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475426 warned you] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475433 repeatedly] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=476314 that this would not go well]. I think it's only fair that those fair warnings are acknowledged by those of us who claim to "know better" - some here know better too, but couldn't turn the ship around in time. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:What sort of Liberal defeatism are you bound up in, and why do you assume, without examining the facts of the matter, that this has not gone well? Have a look at the lead on the front page, and read Professor Lenski's message. 'By their words shall ye know them'! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

−

::'By their words shall ye know them'. Is that a quote? And if so where is it from? It sounds like it's a corruption of Matthew 7:16, but I don't know if it's just made up or from somewhere else or just a mistake.[[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Please be charitable==

Line 961: Line 963:

thank you in anticipation. --[[User:Kajira|Kajira]] 14:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

−

~~== "P.P.P.P.S.?" ==~~

−

~~Wow. Professional. The guy writes like a 12-year-old girl. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)~~

−

~~:Wow. besides the ad hom, does anyone care to contest the substance of what the guy said? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT)~~

−

::Fair enough. I think Lenski raises a valid point that honestly hadn't occurred to me--namely, the logistics of transporting and storing biological materials. While a request for data stored in electronic form is one thing, a request for actual samples of the cultures is another. Unless facilities for the storage of such material are available, I don't think this issue can be brought to a conclusion that will be satisfactory for everyone. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:54, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

−

~~== E. coli in our bowels ==~~

−

So if they're mutating and evolving, why don't they kill us? Our bodies obviously have defenses that protect us from the E. coli in our guts, but with all this evolving supposedly going on, you'd think they'd have evolved into something that could overcome those defenses and kill us so they could feast on our corpses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

−

: Or you'd think that our bodies have evolved ways to deal with that. Or you'd think that there would be no advantage for e.coli to evolve a trait that would kill off its host environment. Or you'd think that humans would have evolved wings and third arms and eyes in the back of their heads in order to better adapt to their environments. Where exactly is it written in evolutionary science that all organism will eveolve the traits that you happen to think would improve their chances? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

−

~~: Not to mention that evolution doesn't have a "goal." Yeesh, the ignorance here is astounding.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)~~

−

~~:: Shows what you know! The goal of evolution is obviously to "evolve" in whatever manner it takes to destroy all of humanity. Who's ignorant now? [[User:Bobdobbs|Bobdobbs]] 15:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)~~

Bugler

3,303

edits