Well shit. It looks as though we won’t be enjoying a tasty beverage and lively debate with Casey this weekend or any other in the near future. Unless, of course, I’m willing to sell out my beliefs and join him in, and I quote here, his culture, “the culture of civility”.
Here, in it’s entirety, is Casey’s response. I’ll have more to say about this later, but right now I need to get some work done so I can go pick up the lovely Kate at the airport.
Enjoy, try not to take a drink of anything while reading, as you may spit it out about ten times over.
Dear Tiana,
Greetings and thanks for your e-mail. Of course you have made no such “assumption” that I’d rather not have such a discussion. You wrote me your e-mail to me about 24 hours ago and the fact that I haven’t replied yet means nothing other than that I’ve been debating whether to send you the e-mail I drafted yesterday in reply. I guess, now I’ll send it, even if my words turn out to be wasted.
To help you understand my response, I’d like to give you some background on me first.
I have a long track record of acting in good faith to try to build bridges between ID proponents and proponents of evolution for the purpose of having warm, friendly, civil, and serious dialogue and debate over ID and evolution.
In college, I founded the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club whose mission was (in part) to “Facilitate discussion, debate, and dialogue over these issues in a warm, friendly, and open atmosphere where individuals feel free to speak their personal views.” After graduating, I founded the IDEA Center as a non-profit with the same mission, and it has helped dozens of students found similar clubs. IDEA Clubs have successfully brought people on “both sides” of this controversial issue together to have warm, friendly, civil, rational, and honest dialogue, discussion, and debate over ID vs. evolution. In fact, just this week I reconnected with an old friend of mine from the UCSD IDEA Club—a committed evolutionist—and we’re planning to get together sometime.
The IDEA Club first formed in 1999, and at that time the debate was far less-politicized than it is today. Since that time, Darwinists have shown a dramatic decrease in interest in rational, friendly, civil dialogue and a dramatic increase in name-calling, antics, persecution, and scare-tactics. In my view (and this has been my view for a few years now), the most significant factor which led to the decline in Darwinist interest in serious and friendly dialogue / debate was the advent of the blogosphere around 2003-2004, because that has fostered and bred an internet “culture of demonization” among Darwinists against ID proponents. In this “culture of demonization,” status means everything. Participants in this “culture” score points and raise their “status” by mocking ID proponents or dicking around with them (your blog provides a nice example) and claiming that opponents of Darwinism are immoral, ignorant, silly, and evil, etc. In short, status among internet Darwinists is raised by the lengths one is willing to go to dehumanize ID proponents. The behavior of the internet Darwinist community highly driven by a desire to increase social-status, with intellectual pride being the hamster that turns the wheel. In many instances, this culture of demonization has spread off the ‘net into the real world. In one instance, elements of it got incorporated into a judicial ruling. Just so ya know, this “culture of demonization” does not go unseen by reasonable lurkers watching the debate, and it drives more folks towards my side of the debate than you would guess.
Though I don’t have the time to be as involved with IDEA as I used to be, I continue to take advantage of opportunities for serious, friendly, and civil discussion over ID, and in fact I’ve had had multiple private and friendly coffee / meal meetings with Darwinists in recent months to have friendly dialogue over ID. So I have pretty awesome street creds when it comes to my track record of being serious about having friendly conversation, dialogue, and debate over ID vs. evolution, and I put my money where my mouth is: I’ve invested countless hours and thousands of my own dollars trying to help students promote serious, friendly, and rational dialogue between ID proponents and evolutionists. I don’t say this pridefully: these “street creds” aren’t the kind of thing I wish to keep for myself and I wish that most internet Darwinists involved with this debate could build these same “street creds” rather than practicing their usual behavior.
This whole caricature you’re trying to label me with as being someone who is not interested in debate or dialogue is simply an extension of your involvement in the culture of demonization, and there’s no truth to it whatsoever.
With that background, here’s my response to your request:
I’d love to have coffee with someone who is interested in serious dialogue over ID and evolution, and in fact I’ve had countless such “coffees” since I started the IDEA club at UCSD in 1999. But I make it a rule to only go to such coffees when I think the person I’m meeting with are interested in serious and friendly, dialogue, and discussion and has good faith intention. You have not convinced me that you’re interested in that.
Not only did you enter our prior conversation with false intentions where you admit you were “drunk and lying” (your words), but on your blog you then proceeded to call me and my co-workers names like “dumb,” “angry tank,” “deranged,” “backwards, nearly illiterate, dangerous fundamentalist,” “scary,” “full of shit,” and other various things. (You’re also blogging about this current incident, showing that your current intent is not good faith dialogue but that you hope to use this encounter to score points in the Darwinist culture of demonization.)
I get called unjustified names all the time on the ‘net and so I made my peace with such people and such incidents long ago; so I’m not angry about this, and as I said in my prior e-mail to you, I forgive you. But just because I forgive you doesn’t mean I have to choose to further interact with who might verbally abuse me. I am under no obligation to have coffee with people who would go into our meeting not with the intention of having friendly dialogue, but to use the encounter to score points in the culture of demonization. Also, my time is very limited and I don’t have time to talk to people who aren’t interested in serious discussion. So unless you prove to my satisfaction that you are interested in serious, friendly debate, I’m not not going to take time to meet with you. But since I feel it’s important to offer second chances, so I am willing to offer you a second chance:
If we’re going to have a private conversation, then it’s going to be completely on my terms and you’re going to have to prove to my satisfaction (it’s my call in the end) that you are serious about leaving the “culture of demonization” permanently behind you and moving into my community, the culture of civility, which includes many ID proponents and evolutionists, and is a community that is interested in serious, friendly, and civil dialogue with intellectual opponents. There are many evolutionists and ID proponents in this community, and I hope you might wish to join all of us. But I will be not be able to believe you are willing to believe you want to enter this community until, at the very least, I see the following:
(1) You privately apologize for your behavior towards me and my coworkers. (They didn’t ask for this, and I don’t need an apology, but if you want to prove to me that you are serious about wanting friendly conversation, you’d probably need to do this.)
(2) At the beginning of every page on your blog that discussed your visit to DI, you should place a disclaimer that (a) states that your behavior both inside and outside of DI with respect that incident was inappropriate and publicly apologizes for your behavior and (b) encourages other internet Darwinists to change their attitude and start engaging in friendly, civil debate.
(3) You make a new series of several posts on your blog supporting the importance of having civil, friendly, and rational dialogue in the debate over evolution, explaining that you feel that your prior behavior towards me and DI was inappropriate, and calling the internet Darwinist community (PandasThumb, Pharyngula, many other ScienceBlogs, and their associated smaller cheerleader blogs, like yours) to dramatically change their attitude and demeanor towards ID proponents and start treating ID proponents with respect, civility, friendship, and warmth. These blog posts should include criticizing many (like a few dozen—they’re easy to find) specific incidents of namecalling and incivility on the part of Darwinists against ID proponents on various Darwinist blogs and discussion groups.
(4) From the time I send this e-mail, I see you exhibit no further uncivil attitudes towards me or any other ID proponents. Note: If you post this e-mail publicly or discuss any contents of this e-mail publicly without first asking my permission, that will be a sign to me that you are not interested in serious, friendly discussion, and I will not meet with you under any further terms, regardless of what you do.
So it’s up to you. If demonstrate to my satisfaction that you will go into our conversation in good faith and with honest intentions, and if you demonstrate to my satisfaction that you want serious, friendly, rational dialogue and that you are interested in treating ID proponents with respect, I’ll happily consider meeting with you. And if we do have our conversation, it will be for the purpose of private dialogue, friendship, conversation, and reconciliation, and we will both agree that since we’re all interested in the best things life has to offer (friendship, honest and introspective truth-seeking) that there is no need to blog about it publicly. In fact, if we do meet, I would ask that you NOT bring a tape recorder in such an instance. We may disagree on ID vs. evolution, but we’re all fellow truth-seekers and fellow human beings we can respect and appreciate that shared quality and treat one another kindly in friendly conversation, dialogue, and debate. But if your future behavior shows that you simply want to score more points in the internet Darwinist community, that will show me that you aren’t interested in serious conversation and I won’t meet with you.
I’m sorry but it’s going to take a long time for you to demonstrate to me your interest in leaving the culture of demonization, and you won’t be able to do it before Kate leaves. If we ever have coffee, it’s going to take many months of you building up a track record of being someone who disavows the culture of demonization and applauds and participates in the culture of civility.
Regardless of where you choose to go from here, I want you to know that I forgive you, I wish you the best in your life, and I also hope, for your own sakes that you can join the culture of civility and friendship that is very real and very vibrant. I know you’re capable of better.
Again, all the best to you.
Sincerely,
Casey Luskin
Please note that yet again, La Luskin has forgiven me. Isn’t that just so gosh darn sweet of him?
November 21, 2008 at 5:29 pm
SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!!!
**standing ovation**
November 21, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Ya know, a “coffee” for “street cred” sounds mighty nice right about now.
November 21, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Christ, you think that list of demands is crazy, imagine what it must look like to sleep with him.
Ew, now I want that image out of my head.
November 22, 2008 at 3:23 am
Do you get “street cred” for sleeping with Casey?
November 22, 2008 at 4:13 am
Whahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
And I didn’t even read all of that crap! Cute how this IDiot only wants to have discussions with people who have “good faith intention”. In other words: religiots or otherwise deluded religious people who will just nod and say “Amen”, literally.
November 22, 2008 at 8:49 am
For starters, Mr. Civility, how about not calling us “Darwinists”?
November 22, 2008 at 9:11 am
By the way, you made it to Pharyngula. Again
November 22, 2008 at 9:24 am
Generally, I don’t think he was unreasonable. His response should have been much more brief. He simply took a round about way of saying that he did not wish to discuss anything with someone whose request he considered to be in bad faith. He certainly had ample background to conclude that the request was not well intentioned. He is not saying that he want only to have discussions with those who agree with him. He is saying he does not wish to spend his time in discussions with disingeneous individuals.
November 22, 2008 at 9:29 am
Really, you think that the length of his reply was the only unreasonable part of his barking mad reply?
I can completely understand his turning down our request to chat. That’s fine.
However, repeatedly referring to anyone who disagrees with him about a magical man in the magical sky magically creating all the magic that is our magical world as “darwinists” and calling them uncivil is quite rude, for one.
Another issue here is the entire tone of the email, where he insists, throughout that he is reasonable and civil, and I, PZ Meyers, the fine folks at PandasThumb and apparently a whole bunch of other educated, rational people are not only wrong, but JUST PLAIN MEAN TO HIM. MOMMY, MAKE IT STOP. Seems to be the real message here. The big kids are being mean to him and he sure does wish someone would tell the teacher.
Well, fuck that, Casey. It’s not civil to intentionally deceive people in the interest of sneaking your religion into our schools. It’s not civil to demand that people only post nice things about you in a letter riddled with insults towards them, their peers and their beliefs.
Ugh. I need more coffee.
November 22, 2008 at 9:29 am
I’m one of those Pharyngulites, and I just wanted to comment on this little passage from Mr. Luskin;
“…and if you demonstrate to my satisfaction that you want serious, friendly, rational dialogue and that you are interested in treating ID proponents with respect…”
See, Casey? *There’s* your problem – you want rational people to give respect to people whose “beliefs” are totally undeserving of even a modicum of respect. You have no proof of anything that you stand for, yet you wish to jam these totally unsubstantiated beliefs down our collective throats, and, in the name of civility, you expect us to thank you for this attempt at indoctrination.
Sorry – not going to happen. We’ll start being civil, when you keep your magic Jebus fan-fic crap to yourselves, and out of education *and* government.
November 22, 2008 at 9:52 am
I think Casey’s perspective in his response is being entirely misread.
Placed into context, a request was being made of him. He refused the request in a manner that he considered appropriate to the background of the request. He simply said that he did not wish to turn the other cheek; he did not wish to allow another bite at the apple; he did not wish to serve as a catapult for someone wishing to enhance his or her reputation within a group of like-minded individuals whose agenda he did not wish to enhance.
In light of the facts, he cannot be excoriated for the manner in which he refused a request that he considered disingeneous. In the context of these circumstances, the request for a discussion was rude and insulting; the manner in which he refused was not.
November 22, 2008 at 10:18 am
“….dialogue over these issues in a warm, friendly, and open atmosphere…”
Someone should remind him that debates in science are not settled by “warm-and-fuzzies”. You need cold, hard data.
And I agree with “stinger”…….
If someone wants to hold an open, honest debate on the topic, they should not be referring to us as “Darwinists” or “Committed Evolutionists”.
November 22, 2008 at 10:32 am
Here’s how yo can ‘apologize’.
Say on your blog:
Casey Luskin is offended that I said
“Casey Luskin is a backwards, nearly illiterate, dangerous fundamentalist.”
He wants me to apologize for saying
“Casey Luskin is a backwards, nearly illiterate, dangerous fundamentalist.”
He won’t talk to me again because I said
“Casey Luskin is a backwards, nearly illiterate, dangerous fundamentalist.”
So I’ll apologize for saying
“Casey Luskin is a backwards, nearly illiterate, dangerous fundamentalist.”
I’m sure “backwards, nearly illiterate, dangerous fundamentalists” everywhere would resent being associated with Casey Luskin.
(thanks to Rick Mercer)
November 22, 2008 at 10:55 am
You still don’t get it.
He doesn’t really want an apology. To that end, he has placed stipulations which makes the offering of an apology unlikely. He simply wants you to go away and stop bothering him with requests for discussions. He thinks the only reason these requests are being made is to score points within a special interest group. He is simply saying that he will not serve as a foil for enhancement of reputations in that special interest group.
November 22, 2008 at 11:04 am
^ He’s not saying anything “simply”.
And IF you are right, he’s an even bigger idiot than I thought him to be because he doesn’t get it that name-calling and posing ridiculous demands is not going to make anybody go away. We just laugh at him even harder.
November 22, 2008 at 11:11 am
I’m sorry but it’s going to take a long time for you to demonstrate to me your interest in leaving the culture of demonization
Culture of demonization? Casey thinks the “Darwinist” culture is literally made from demons! (Or at least he pretends like he believes that crap.) Get real.
November 22, 2008 at 11:58 am
Name calling? You mean idiot, backwards, illeterate, dangerous fundamentalist, does not quality as name calling?
Name calling is not going to make anyone go away? We will just laugh at him?
I don’t think Casey cares whether you laugh at him or not. All he wants is for you to go away and stop bothering him for discussions aimed solely at making a reputation in the evolutionist community. He is saying that “simply”. He “simply” does not want to serve your aspirations.
November 22, 2008 at 12:37 pm
1) Illeterate =/= the correct spelling of “illiterate”. Just thought I’d mention it.
2) Casey, is that you? You were getting really good with the spellcheck there for a minute, but I don’t know…Only a backwards, illiterate, dangerous fundamentalist would, when whining about being called such, manage to misspell illiterate.
I don’t really think Silver Fox (the name, by the way? I am actually gagging right now) and Casey are the same person, like, in the holy trinity sense of the phrase, but they do share some striking similarities.
November 22, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Fox, it’s not “solely” to score points. People are pointing out that his entire organization is founded on lying about its goals, and made to support an anti-science belief system. Further, he’s a hypocrite, because he’s done just as much mud-slinging as any anonymous net commenter has.
November 22, 2008 at 3:10 pm
He’s a hypodrite because he slings mud at mud-slingers? Now there is some kind of self-indictment there. You have to agree that’s funny as hell.
His entire organization is founded on lying about its goals? No, his goal is to show that science began in a different way from what you think. Just because you don’t like his goals don’t mean he’s lying. There’s a difference between being wrong and lying.
Again, he simply wants you to go away and stop pestering him about debates because he believes you’re not an honest broker – he suspects your motives based on his background experiences with your ilk.
You probably think Casey and his breed of theists are poisoning the minds of young school children by pumping them full of religion. Think of all the parents who are working two jobs to keep their children out of secular schools and in parochial schools. Think of the millions of parents who would love to have the means to pull their kids out of public schools and put them into schools where their little minds would be “poisoned” by religion. Is that what you really think; they are cooperating with Casey in the ruination of their kids?
Doesn’t it strike you that you have some sort of self-apotheosis going there. No wonder you don’t believe in Gos; you’re convinced that you are God.
November 22, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Don’t feed the troll… http://www.somersoft.com/forums/gallery/data/506/Do-not-feed-the-troll.jpg
November 22, 2008 at 4:26 pm
The whole thing reads like a Nigerian e-mail scam. I’m surprised he didn’t ask you for your bank account number!
November 22, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Hmmm…interesting reply Silver Fox. We don’t believe in God because we’re convinced that we are God….doesn’t really hold water.
People like Casey in the ID world really are just elitists. They assume that their was is the correct way, and if you step on their toes, you’re a demon-like proponent of Neo-darwinism.
How unscientific can you get? At least when an evolutionist has new data provided they change their ideas and continue to research. That is sciences. Completely unbiased.
The idea of ID is so completely biased it should NEVER be allowed into a classroom. It’s like a gym teacher hating dodge ball and never letting the kids play it. It’s retarded.
-Erin
November 22, 2008 at 7:16 pm
If Casey really wanted her to go away and leave him alone then he wouldn’t dignify her email with a response, now would he?
November 22, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I think that the response was overly long, not so nice, and full of mildly derogatory terms towards supporters of evolution.
However, although I personally might be willing to speak with someone who repeatedly referred to me as stupid on his/her blog, I can understand his reluctance to do so. I see myself as a very liberal person, but one who nevertheless enjoys hearing arguments from all points of view. I listen to everyone’s opinion quite fairly, and to me, that’s one of the most important qualities a person can have.
Although I don’t necessarily agree, I’m guessing that Casey thinks you are talking to him just to prove your point, not out of a genuine intellectual interest in how he could possibly go about proving his side of the argument. I’m not saying you necessarily did anything wrong, I’m just saying that if you truly want to speak to him instead of just ranting, this strategy probably isn’t going to work.
Again, I strongly disagree with him and the way he has been going about all of this, but in my infinite quest for fairness, I’m a bit mixed.
November 22, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Silver Fox, you’ve got it one. Yes we do think that all religions, and not just Casey and his particular cult, are brainwashing their kids. The problem is that they are, in one sense at least, doing it innocently, for they themselves have invariably been brainwashed from birth.
Sounds like you are going for the argumentum ad populum approach. Sorry, but science doesn’t work that way. Though Casey and his fellow cultists keep trying to make it work that way by trying the very same argument rather than actually doing science.
Why else do they try to inveigle themselves onto local education boards to corrupt the teaching of science rather than doing their own scientific research and presenting that for peer review. Oh wait, thats right, whenever they try to cobble together some ‘research’, often by bastardising or quote mining other real scientists research, and claim it as their own they get their asses handed to them by real scientists.
But hey, it’s far easier to quote mine, demonise us ‘Darwinists’ and appeal to argumentum ad populum than doing real science. Please, just once, offer up one, yes just one, paper of theirs that has stood up to real peer review. Oh and I don’t mean in some hacked together journal created purely for the purpose of appearing to do peer review of Idiots ‘research’.
Until then, they are just another bunch of death cultists whining about us mean evilutionists because we insist they play by the same rules as we do.
November 22, 2008 at 10:05 pm
“If Casey wanted her to go away he wouldn’t dignify her email with a response”.
Of course he would. He said he was civil and was not opposed to dignified discussion. To ignore her email would show a lack of civility and be undignified.
November 23, 2008 at 4:04 am
Hey, I’ve got me a sock! Lets make a puppet…
November 23, 2008 at 7:02 am
Did you actually reply to him by e-mail? Remember to be dignified and civil!
November 23, 2008 at 10:01 am
I haven’t yet replied to him via email. It’s been a busy weekend. I do plan to though.
One thing I’d like to address: Silver Fox’s contention that Casey and his ilk aren’t lying, and that there is a difference between lying and being wrong.
I agree that there is a difference between lying and being wrong. However, that isn’t relevant to Casey et al.
What they’re doing, over and over and over again, is lying because they know they’re wrong. They KNOW the evidence doesn’t support their assertions. They just believe that, since they are quite certain that the end answer is “goddidit”, the ends (lying endlessly and without shame) justify the means (getting teachers to lie for them and people to buy those lies).
In short, they suck.
November 23, 2008 at 1:25 pm
“…I, PZ Meyers, the fine folks at PandasThumb and apparently a whole bunch of other educated, rational people are not only wrong, but JUST PLAIN MEAN TO HIM…”
Well, I do have to say that Meyers has slowly but surely became a personification of Luskin’s caricature of rabid atheists. He stopped talking fact and started using DI (as in the organization) as a punching bag.
He even ticked me off a few times when he talked about planetary scientists and astronomers as “space nuts” who “finally had a worthwhile thing to do” when tracking a replica of the Beagle floating around the ocean. I mean seriously, where’s the respect for fellow scientists?
November 23, 2008 at 3:31 pm
When I said there was a difference between lying and being wrong I present that as a statement of fact and didn’t wish to imply that Casey was either lying or wrong.
Science lives in a sensate worldview which is governed by what can be seen or touched. It’s paradigm is dependent on experiment and conclusion, ephemeral as those conclusions may be since the scientific paradigm is essentially neo-heraclidan as it is constantly in flux where conclusions are changing from time to time. So empirical facts are short-lived and absolutes are non-existent.
Casey lives in an ideational worldview dependent on the integrity of a philosophical paradigm that is essentially neo-parmenidian where empirical facts are epistomological set and absolutes are quite real, not transient or illusory.
To hold the adherents of one worldview to the proof standards of another is somewhat mind-boggling. They are both essential to the development of any culture. Perhaps ID does not belong in a science classroom; perhaps evolution does not belong in a religion, philosophy or humanities classroom.
That is a far cry from saying that either/neither ID or evolution should not be taught in school. As an ID/evolutionist I see both have a place in education. What I am not is a scientific naturalist.
November 23, 2008 at 7:55 pm
“He even ticked me off a few times when he talked about planetary scientists and astronomers as “space nuts” who “finally had a worthwhile thing to do” when tracking a replica of the Beagle floating around the ocean. I mean seriously, where’s the respect for fellow scientists?”
Is this just the toungue-in-cheek mock feud that PZ has with Phil?
November 24, 2008 at 12:30 am
“To ignore her email would show a lack of civility and be undignified.”
Supposing that were true, there’s nothing uncivil about a brief “No, thank you.” Maybe even a brief paragraph, (no more than five sentences) explaining that he doesn’t want to have a serious discussion only to be mocked.
But he didn’t. Throwing a passive aggressive temper tantrum is not more civilized than hurling insults.
November 24, 2008 at 5:35 am
gfish, that comment by PZ was a tongue in cheek one that is part of an ongoing joke rivalry between PZ and BA. If you had read the whole thread you would have seen other posters joking about how BA was likely to react to such ’slander’
for surprise surprise, many of use read both blogs religiously 
November 24, 2008 at 5:42 am
His passive aggression was an act of kindness in deference to his aim to be civil. How do you have a “serious discussion” when the ultimate aim is “to be mocked”.
They sneak around pretending to be christian school teachers, them ridicule him and then request a “serious discussion”.
“Temper tantrum is not more civilized than hurling insults”.
You’re right, under the circumstances, I would have opted for insults.
“Five sentences”? No, one sentence – “you’re a couple of cockroaches who are incapable of serious discussion so get lost”.
November 24, 2008 at 10:22 am
Gfish, my impression of Myers (not Meyers) is of an arrogant, self-rightous individual who’s mantra is “Nothing is sacred”. So, from him, I would not be looking for respect for “fellow scientists” or anybody else for that matter.
November 24, 2008 at 10:25 am
Silver Fox,
Your impression of someone you haven’t met turns out not to be accurate at all. Shocking, that.
November 24, 2008 at 10:28 am
“His passive aggression was an act of kindness in deference to his aim to be civil.”
Haha, no. But thanks for playing.
November 24, 2008 at 11:26 am
“Your impression turns out not to be accurate”
First, you don’t know that I haven’t met Myers. So, your conclusion goes well beyond your knowledge base.
But, assuming that I have never met Myers, let me put it accurately in that context: Myers comes across as a self-righteous, arrogant individual. He certainly holds that “nothing is sacred” and has said so, and some of his antics have borne that out.
So, what’s your point if you have one.
November 24, 2008 at 11:35 am
“Haha no, but thanks for playing.”
The only game here is badgering a fellow who obviously doesn’t want anything to do with disingenuous persons. So, the best thing for you to do would be to go play with the two sneaky cockroaches who went into his Institute under false pretenses.
November 24, 2008 at 11:55 am
*throwing in some more troll-bait; perhaps a nice game too?*
PZ Myers does not at all come across as self-righteous. And also not as arrogant. At least that is my impression, but would mine be of any less value than yours?
November 24, 2008 at 11:59 am
I’m wondering where on the value scale my impression ranks, given that I’ve actually had a chance to sit down for a drink and a chat with the man?
For what it’s worth, he was kind, not arrogant, not self righteous, but also not afraid to speak plainly to the point and to say what he thinks.
Also, nothing is sacred, and nothing should be.
November 24, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I’m sure you were flattered and filled with wonder and adulation at having the privilege of sitting down and having a drink with the MAN.
I’m sure that the splendor emanating from the GREAT ONE was blinding and awe inspiring.
That being the case I think your “unbiased” impression ranks low in the value scale.
November 24, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Yes, it was a nice opportunity, talking with someone whose opinion and ideas I value.
However, (as I’m sure you’re aware) the characterization of people such as PZ and Richard Dawkins etc as “great ones” or people who emanate splendor is done only by anti-science religiots such as yourself. Rational minded people who actually learned how to think critically don’t typically engage in worship behaviors or thinking towards anyone, real or imagined.
November 24, 2008 at 12:52 pm
“At least that is my impression, but would mine be of any less value than yours”?.
Probably yes, yours would be of less value. You’re a minion, a sycophant, a toady; I’m not.
You have a brief to carry; I don’t.
You let the MASTER do your thinking for you: I don’t. you worship (metaphor) at the foot of the oracle (metaphor, because you don’t believe in gods or oracles): I don’t.
So, yes I think your impression is jaundiced.
November 24, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Holy shit, troll-man. Are you off your meds? If not, please, up the dose.
Again, in case you missed it. The only people who I have EVER heard refer to PZ or anyone else in the field of science as “the master” “the great one” or any similar nonsense are people like yourself, religious nuts attempting to pretend to be unbiased and failing miserably.
Has it just not fucking occurred to you that just because a person agrees with the ideas that someone else espouses doesn’t mean that they worship them?
Is that honestly something you’re too crazy or stupid to have thought of?
November 24, 2008 at 1:09 pm
“mean that they worship them”.
Well, maybe worship is too strong a word. How about “suck up to”? Would that be more palatable to your sensitivities?
November 24, 2008 at 1:12 pm
It sure wouldn’t. You’re still stating that agreeing with a lot of someone’s ideas, and having respect for their ideas and accomplishments, means that you’re sucking up to them.
Which isn’t the case.
November 24, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Silver Fox: You’re an idiot, either too far lost in non-thinking to understand the difference between your religiotic worshipping and valueing someones opinion, or you’re so happy trolling that you just pretend to be that ignorant. Or both.
Either way, you’re a pathetic little troll, not even worth feeding. But hey, what the heck, I just presented you with another tasty snack, didn’t I?
Ah well, Tiana, that is what the fame of being referred to on Pharyngula brings you: eternal (oh, oh) glory, hallelujah! … and trolls.
But I guess that is a fitting respons on a topic about a letter from Luskin that essentialy makes a lot of noice and says nothing
November 24, 2008 at 1:56 pm
He may be an idiot, but he makes for good sport.
Speaking of which:
“The only game here is badgering a fellow who obviously doesn’t want anything to do with disingenuous persons.”
And Luskin decided to play along, did he not? I would point out that your continued replies are indicative of YOUR desire to play along as well.
November 24, 2008 at 3:37 pm
“Rational-minded people who think critically”
Give me a break!! You wouldn’t recognize a rational idea or a critically thought if you saw one walking down the street.
Luskin did not decide to play along. He did the best he could trying not to be too offensive to a couple of sneaky cockroaches. They should just apologize to the man, move on and get a life if that’s possible.
November 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm
OK, Tony.
“Fuck Gaspar Gomez! And fuck the fuckin’ Diaz brothers! Fuck ‘em all! I bury those cockroaches!”
November 24, 2008 at 5:09 pm
What’s a critically? Do they walk down streets? Is it somehow related to the cockroach family?
Also, is there a difference between “you” and “they?” Is grammar wacky?
November 24, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Casey (and Silver Fox) do have a point: there is a subculture of people who think they can score “points” by treating ID proponents to incivility and mockery.
I’m part of that subculture, so I say: score one for the ladies!!
Don’t you picture Luskin sweating a little as he typed that? I bet he had to wipe his hands on his handkerchief about 5 times. And then he hit the “send” button with a satisfied little nod: “There. Let’s see how they take THAT.”
November 25, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Sweaty hands?
Satisfied nod?
Take that?
This is a classic example of individuals overestimating their importance. Do you really think Luskin is so emotionally invested in a couple of sneaky slugs that this is how he would react.
Luskin is a highly educated competent individual. A Master’s in Earth Science (he worked as a geologist for a time – isn’t that a science). He is an attorney. The point being he is a busy man. So, it must have been painful for him to construct a lengthy, civil reply to a couple of creeps.
Instead of hitting the send button and saying “let’s see how they take that”, he probably said “thank heaven that’s done and hopefully I’m finished with those wackaloons”.
January 1, 2009 at 2:05 pm
To some people – Luskin included, it seems – it is a worse crime to be uncivil than to lie. So his lying is perfectly OK, because he says it with a smile on his face and doesn’t use any four letter words.