|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
 Posted - 09/26/2011 : 21:20:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
Will you deny that you altered thread 1 after banning MG ?
Removing some of your own comments and some others, comments that might have been embarrassing to you because you were shown to be stupid ? |
I ask: where is your evidence in support of these accusations, CRUX? It's a simple question.
|
in your forum and in internet archives. |
Where in those places? Why are you afraid to answer previous questions about this alleged evidence? |
I answered where it is. |
And I asked two follow-up questions, so why do you refuse to answer them?| I guess we can take it that you will be taking the 5th on that question for you, Dave. |
Since the answer doesn't really matter, why should I bother?| OK. We can move on for more of that honest debate. |
When have you been debating honestly?| It's not like it's a lot of work for you to do. It's a matter of saying "yes" or "no". |
Actually, it's a matter of saying "mu," isn't it? Your question was asked in bad faith, wasn't it? You're just trying to distract away from the accusations you made against me, aren't you?
|
I see !
You will not divulge, even if one of your questions is answered, and the answer to many of your badgering questions is already there.
(As I replied earlier; that I would have to search the internet archives and find the comparisons. Did you miss that, or are you being more dishonest ? )
I don't think you're gaining much by refusing to tell people if your cockatoo information was factual or not.
...and you say now that it doesn't matter ?
If it was not factual, how can that not matter ?
It's not just about your opinion of my intentions. It's about the readers, Dave.
How can they really figure this out correctly if you are stonewalling on this issue ?
It's odd.
A reader thinks you are honest, and therefore takes it upon himself to believe you presented factual info, and "that's that".
Another reader thinks you are honest, and because not answering. must be your way of not lying, then he is convinced that the info is not factual.
| Yep, that must be why DaveW refuses to answer. He won't lie so he can't reply. It's his high ethical standards. |
Stonewalling always seems to offer negatives, Dave. People see through it. Even dumb ones - like you must think they are.
So we'll just classify your demeanor as "reluctant", shall we ?
..... |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/26/2011 22:25:49 |
 |
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2011 : 22:02:39 [Permalink]
|
| would anyone like my explanation of THE STONEWALL, and what keeps Dave's lip buttoned ? |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/26/2011 22:04:19 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2011 : 22:22:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
I see ! |
No, you don't, do you?| Even though you refuse to tell your readers whether or not the info you posted was factual |
My "readers" are much more interested in your accusations, don't you think? If you could present evidence that supported those accusations, don't you think the later question you asked me would be utterly moot?| and even though I did answer your first question |
And you neglected many others, didn't you?| You steadfastly refuse to divulge, even if one of your questions is answered. |
Oh, are you looking to play tit for tat, CRUX?| Further, the answer to many of your badgering questions is already there, as I replied at the start about it. |
But it's your claim, isn't it? It's up to you to present the evidence that you claim exists, isn't it? How could it be "badgering" to ask you to present what you claim exists?| ...that I would have to search the internet archives and find the comparisons. Did you miss that, or are you being more dishonest ? |
No, I asked you how long you would need to do your homework, didn't I? You refused to answer, didn't you? So I ask again: when will you be presenting your evidence?| I don't think you're gaining much by refusing to tell if your information was factual. |
Considering who is doing the asking, I don't have anything to lose, do I? Seriously, why do you think it's so important that a nobody on the Internet answer your dishonest question?| You're claiming the answer doesn't really matter, Dave. |
Because the question is just a distraction, isn't it? If it really mattered, you would have asked your question as soon as I asked mine, wouldn't you have? Instead, you answered my question as if there were no veracity issues with it a mere hour, 47 minutes and 14 seconds after I'd asked it, didn't you? Then you waited another 25 hours, eight minutes and 39 seconds to accuse me of deleting and/or editing posts in the previous thread, right? Then you waited another 13 hours, ten minutes and 13 seconds to ask me if the "information" I'd presented in the question I'd asked you 42 hours, six minutes and six seconds beforehand, ignoring a bunch of questions about your accusations along the way, didn't you?| How can that be ? Either you were offering factual information or you were not. |
But that's a false dichotomy, isn't it? I was asking you a question, wasn't I? Shouldn't you have complained about the factualness (or lack thereof) of the "information" right after I asked you that question? Why did you wait so long after you accused me of massive fraud to ask me about a minor matter about which you have admitted ignorance?| If it was not factual, how can that not matter ? |
I'm not about to help you in your witch-hunt, am I?| It's not just about your opinion of my intentions. It's about the readers, Dave. |
No, it's entirely about your dishonesty, isn't it?| How can they really figure out all of what is going on if you are stonewalling on this issue ? |
I guess it's obvious that you don't think my "readers" are smarter than you, do you?Why do you think I'm stonewalling them or anyone else? Isn't it hypocritical of you to complain about stonewalling when that's precisely what you're doing with regard to presenting your evidence of my fraud?I don't think your evidence-free rhetorical tactics are odd at all... do you? Really?| would anyone like my explanation of THE STONEWALL, and what keeps Dave's lip buttoned ? |
Do you really think your readers are so idiotic as to think that that's more important than your evidence about your accusations that I deleted and/or edited comments just to keep from looking stupid? Why are you stonewalling them when you think that evidence exists that would demonstrate me to be a totally corrupt abuser of the modicum of power that I have? Why are you wasting time with this penny-ante bullshit about "stonewalling" when you claim to know of evidence that will completely discredit me amongst the entire skeptical community? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2011 : 22:44:52 [Permalink]
|
ah, a hit !
OK,The Stonewall: the smallest mind in the business does deeds so petty that it brings a smile
As you all know, I presented about flamingos and flamingos and f...
Dave began challenging whether or not if was true that the color-food hypothesis had indeed been tested in routine manner as I had suggested it must have been. "What test" , he says.
Apparently he would say my info was not peer reviewed, not credible, not factual, or just not shown, or whatever criticism one brings. It's a routine move , as you all know. Sceptics do move on that credibility issue. Fine. It's a routine challenge to be followed up later.
Now if my Berkeley site reference stuff is not factual ( you could guess the fallout) ... then Dave is triumphant.
Hell, I can then choose whatever authority the opposition is using. I'll use what others think is right, to show my reasoning.
So, after observing his route of attack, I looked back at what he had been using in his arguments.
Damn if it ain't these Cockatoos.
Now if Dave has been using cockatoo not-colouring-up reports as factual evidence, and it's the same kind of "animal husbandry" report as the info on the flamingos came from, then he is shown to be a hypocrite.
"Berkeley". I don't really give a hoot, because if Berkeley sucks, it's not really my prob. As well, the other info from other people is identical, so it does not matter.
Key word."Does not matter"
ref Dave's excuse.
Stonewall so damn petty it almost beggars belief
All that, for that.
It's honest debate.
|
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/26/2011 23:11:32 |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2011 : 23:26:05 [Permalink]
|
Is Berkeley supported by any of the garden variety testing as used in animal husbandry practice, or has it got anything at all ?
I'm going to see what I find from their cites, later on.
Nite all.
| The food they eat makes their phenotype white or pink. |
|
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/26/2011 23:38:21 |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2011 : 23:32:13 [Permalink]
|
| when you claim to know of evidence that will completely discredit me amongst the entire skeptical community? |
I never said that, Dave. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2011 : 03:00:39 [Permalink]
|
DaveW. It is obvious CRUX is able to drag this debate on a single line from Berkeley101 based on his interpretation of the sentence and the context in which he is applying it. He is not taking the total mechanism that influences genotype-phenotype and actually believes technically he is correct in stating diet alone changes color and phenotype.
CRUX is crying out for some recognition any recognition. As MG /CRUX he has invested a huge amount of effort and time in this 2 sequel drama. And wants some victory or acceptance. I have done CRUX a favor by updating this site with the facts about flamingos and phenotypes. The rest is up to you to provide some face saving exit for him. At least for effort.
Be considerate DaveW.Your readers have all the facts about phenotype, flamingos and carotenoid diets. They don't need CRUX nor should he be crucified for some faulty assumptions on an unfamiliar subject he has struggled with for 3 years.
If you talk to someone who does not understand science, genes or genotype-phenotype. The explanation is valid. Eat shrimp and color turns pink, take shrimp away and no pink. It is the shrimp, duh!! It is hard to explain to someone who does not have a science background that there is more to it than what meets the eye.
CRUX totally ignores the relationship between genotype and phenotype or cannot see their connection. That is just evidence of his lack of knowledge of genetics and evolution.That is why he is trolling.
| The food they eat makes their phenotype white or pink. |
But it is wrong to apply only phenotype to change in color. Because there is a genotype/gene factor that causes this to happen. I provided a link and excerpt of scientific papers that explains it. The carotenoids in the shrimp cannot be synthesized by the flamingo directly. It is broken down by genes which then gets deposited in the feathers thereby giving it the color. Why the link to genes in this process is import for scientist is to establish the carotenoids are not directly stored in the feathers. There is a big difference here, because if it is directly stored in the feathers then no genes are involved. The have found the genes responsible and the mechanism behind the coloring. It also explains why some birds are not affected by the same shrimp diet and incidentally humans cannot synthesize carotenoids either.
The carotenoids are among the major pigments in avian plumage and provide bright colors to species in a number of orders. Birds cannot synthesize carotenoids metabolically, but can modify extensively those obtained in the diet. The chemical nature of the pigment molecules deposited in the plumage is at least partly under genetic control, as the genotype is initially responsible for the patterns and colors that distinguish each species. The genetic control of plumage colors is understood for some species on the basis of evidence such as the pigments found in sexually dichromatic species, color mutants, and hybrid populations. The biochemical processes and the organization of pigment deposition are under relatively simple genetic control.
Data so far obtained has shown that key genes involved in cholesterol efflux appear to also play a major role in carotenoid transport too. With a growing list of candidate genes. |
Scientific paper on specific genes involved in the process of cartenoid coloration in birds.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/05/17/rspb.2011.0765.abstract
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2011 : 04:44:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
Dave began challenging whether or not if was true that the color-food hypothesis had indeed been tested in routine manner as I had suggested it must have been. |
When did I do any such thing?That was about whether "the question" had anything to do with a test, and not about whether any such test was valid, wasn't it? This is another question you have refused to address, correct?| Apparently he would say my info was not peer reviewed, not credible, not factual, or just not shown, or whatever criticism one brings. |
"Apparently" now means "stuff I just made up," doesn't it? Do you understand now that your fabrications are what made my answer irrelevant?No, you making stuff up is not honestly debating, is it?| when you claim to know of evidence that will completely discredit me amongst the entire skeptical community? |
I never said that, Dave. |
I never said that you said it, did I? Aren't you aware of the effect that a presentation of your evidence would have?
When are you going to present that evidence, anyway? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2011 : 04:52:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
| What evidence do you have that the people behind BerkeleyEvolution101 are liars? |
Oh, you didn't catch that it was my poor attempt at humour. Pardon the facetiosity. |
You should realise the jam you're in, accusing a staff member of gross ethics-violation without evidence. Attempting humour is the last thing you should do right now, it's only compounding the shit you're in because the seriousness of the accusation you made demands sober words from you. Man up, and defend your accusations promptly while your reputation is still salvageable.
In the light of your accusation about Dave allegedly editing posts in old locked threads in order to "look better", it is seriously damaging to your case that you yourself go back and edit so many of your own posts.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2011 : 04:59:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
DaveW. It is obvious CRUX is able to drag this debate on a single line from Berkeley101 based on his interpretation of the sentence and the context in which he is applying it. He is not taking the total mechanism that influences genotype-phenotype and actually believes technically he is correct in stating diet alone changes color and phenotype.
CRUX is crying out for some recognition any recognition. As MG /CRUX he has invested a huge amount of effort and time in this 2 sequel drama. And wants some victory or acceptance. I have done CRUX a favor by updating this site with the facts about flamingos and phenotypes. The rest is up to you to provide some face saving exit for him. At least for effort.
Be considerate DaveW.Your readers have all the facts about phenotype, flamingos and carotenoid diets. They don't need CRUX nor should he be crucified for some faulty assumptions on an unfamiliar subject he has struggled with for 3 years. |
Justin, this hasn't been about flamingos or phenotypes or science for seven pages now. I'm not going to reward his efforts because he's been lying about me, personally. I've got no motivation to be considerate of someone willing to make such nasty accusations without being able to support them. Nobody backed him into a corner where that was his only logical course of action. He volunteered the allegations, out of the blue.
If he wants to save face, he should demonstrate that he's a mature adult by apologizing completely and with sincerity, or by making a full presentation of the evidence against me. Right now, he just looks like a liar, and continuing the lies isn't going to help him save face. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2011 : 05:11:00 [Permalink]
|
Dave, you have provided AMPLE evidence that you are and have been behaving VERY unethically !
Now why don't you try to explain why you would not answer the question that you were stonewalling ?
Wouldn't THAT that be a better idea than bluffing ?
YOu are the liar, DaveW
I offered no lie. Not one. Yours litter the area.
Why did you stonewall, Dave ?
You ARE honest, after all. |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/27/2011 05:18:48 |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2011 : 05:22:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by CRUX
| What evidence do you have that the people behind BerkeleyEvolution101 are liars? |
Oh, you didn't catch that it was my poor attempt at humour. Pardon the facetiosity. |
You should realise the jam you're in, accusing a staff member of gross ethics-violation without evidence. Attempting humour is the last thing you should do right now, it's only compounding the shit you're in because the seriousness of the accusation you made demands sober words from you. Man up, and defend your accusations promptly while your reputation is still salvageable.
In the light of your accusation about Dave allegedly editing posts in old locked threads in order to "look better", it is seriously damaging to your case that you yourself go back and edit so many of your own posts.
|
Noooo, it isn't. I have not done anything unethical. I like to edit the posts to improve them, I don't try to change history, and I don't deny it.
Nothing wrong with a little levity. I suggest that you try Uremol ointment for your condition.
What I do not do, is use dirty tricks constantly, as Dave is doing.
The Stonewall
The Aegean Task Trick
The "It's factual for cockatoos but not flamingos" Trick
oh shit.
need a coffee for that list.
Think about why Dave would be doing stonewalling if what he says is true
look at his response
| Do you understand now that your fabrications are what made my answer irrelevant? |
How is it the question about the nature of his presentation, irrelevant ?
How is it not important to people's understanding ?
Is that cockatoo stuff from Dave's bag factual ?
I thought it was.
He claims that I am a fabricating. So instead of giving a simple yes or no, on "Is your stuff factual ?", he STONEWALLS.
...and then later claims MY "fabrications" make the answer to that question about the nature of the stuff he was using, irrelevant.
Really !
But the excuse was not about relevance. It was about making no difference.
As I said. It all works out that there is no problem, but he wanted there to be one for me.
If Dave was being truthful, and so concerned, then why would he be engaging in petty stonewalling on COCKATOOS.
I decided to crack the stonewalling because there is no use in drawing that topic out, about the nature of the reports being factual or not.
Now he can explain what was so very important about NOT answering.
|
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/27/2011 06:03:58 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2011 : 06:00:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
ah, a hit ! |
Fouled, back and away.
OK,The Stonewall: the smallest mind in the business does deeds so petty that it brings a smile
As you all know, I presented about flamingos and flamingos and f...
|
You suggested. Presented implies some sort of evidence for the suggestion.
Dave began challenging whether or not if was true that the color-food hypothesis had indeed been tested in routine manner as I had suggested it must have been. "What test" , he says.
|
In critical thinking, evidence is required. You suggested from ignorance. Using Internet sources, I can also suggest that we never went to the moon. It would be erroneous because the Internet sites used as evidence would be quickly debunked. The request for your evidence is still outstanding.
Apparently he would say my info was not peer reviewed, not credible, not factual, or just not shown, or whatever criticism one brings. It's a routine move , as you all know. Sceptics do move on that credibility issue. Fine. It's a routine challenge to be followed up later.
|
Only if that evidence was not a peer reviewed source and/or had serious problems with methodology. Skeptics require evidence that has been scientifically vetted.
Now if my Berkeley site reference stuff is not factual ( you could guess the fallout) ... then Dave is triumphant.
Hell, I can then choose whatever authority the opposition is using. I'll use what others think is right, to show my reasoning.
|
And that would be a fallacious appeal to authority.
So, after observing his route of attack, I looked back at what he had been using in his arguments.
Damn if it ain't these Cockatoos.
|
Only if you ignore the context. You have not supported your assertion.
Now if Dave has been using cockatoo not-colouring-up reports as factual evidence, and it's the same kind of "animal husbandry" report as the info on the flamingos came from, then he is shown to be a hypocrite.
|
No. He is showing the evidence you presented in context. Cherry picking quotes does not help your case.
"Berkeley". I don't really give a hoot, because if Berkeley sucks, it's not really my prob. As well, the other info from other people is identical, so it does not matter.
Key word."Does not matter"
ref Dave's excuse.
Stonewall so damn petty it almost beggars belief
All that, for that.
It's honest debate.
|
No, it isn't.
Now for a different accusation. You have accused David of deleting posts and editing posts. As there is no evidence of this taking place currently and this has not occurred in the past (except for those posts which were spam and even then David clearly identified what was deleted, why, and by whom), this accusation is baseless. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2011 : 06:13:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
[br... critical thinking, evidence is required. You suggested from ignorance. Using Internet sources, I can also suggest that we never went to the moon. |
Your intellect is like sludge.
Show the public education site that carries moonshot hoax material. Thank you.
You are dismissed for your clumsy attempt at using such tactics.
.... |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/27/2011 06:18:22 |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2011 : 06:21:23 [Permalink]
|
look at the time Dave spent doing timelines about the evolution of the question, instead of saying if the stuff was factual or not
STONEWALL. It was very petty, but many such unethical actions combined, can cover the truth.
STONEWALL. The action of one who seeks quick resolution ? |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/27/2011 06:23:30 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut 2
