Posted: Oct 06, 2010 1:47 am
I think this is an important issue to bring up, and it explains why so many comments have been deleted on his blog lately.
When you go to his blog: evillusion.net, and click on article 1A on the side menu, he lists his rules for engagement and they're probably the most one-sided rules that I've ever come across.
But it's a few that really annoy me. Rule #1 for example:
This is an outright lie. He doesn't try to substantiate this claim in his entire blog, nor does he show the expected level of professionalism in anything he writes or says.
This is the most hypocritical rule in the list because I've seen the way he treats critics on his blog. He'd much rather attack people than address anything and this rule is his excuse. It's his way or the highway.
I've read all of those debates and the ones where he's up against the PHD people are the most memorable because he doesn't address anything or show the slightest sign of interest in what the professors are saying.
His blog also gives him an excuse to vandalize what opponents say by tossing in some red or orange text commentary that reflects nothing more than his personal spin on the topic.
To me the last sentence is the most ludicrous. But I digress.
He's admitting to the use of censorship which is extremely dishonest because it prevents anyone from being able to substantiate their arguments against him and this is crucial in an open debate. It's likely that he recognizes the importance of source-sighting and he probably knows that he can't go head to head against professional biologists so he thinks that giving critics a serious handicap will help him.
My guess is that he did this update to the rules page quite recently which may explain why so many comments from users Unicron and HellaStyle were either deleted or edited without them knowing until later. I had the good fortune to read them before that happened and the comments were clearly well thought out but Steve just didn't want to deal with them in any kind of polite manner.
HellaStyle pointed out that claiming a decades-long education and not showing the expected professionalism made Steve an open target for all kinds of criticisms. Steve edited that part out, possibly because he knew he couldn't counteract it.
Unicron got most of his recent corrective comments deleted under the dubious grounds that they were repetitive and he was "indoctrinated"; Steve's favorite manta. Unicron also had some comments that were well researched and sighted, they all got deleted.
Another reason I bring this up is because it may make engaging him in the future a more difficult endeavor because he won't let anyone address anything properly. It's clear right now that he doesn't want honesty nor does he want to learn anything. He just wants to irritate people he doesn't like.
When you go to his blog: evillusion.net, and click on article 1A on the side menu, he lists his rules for engagement and they're probably the most one-sided rules that I've ever come across.
But it's a few that really annoy me. Rule #1 for example:
1. Get an education, read a biology book………my education was far more adequate than that required for a Masters in Biological Science degree.
This is an outright lie. He doesn't try to substantiate this claim in his entire blog, nor does he show the expected level of professionalism in anything he writes or says.
8. Any kind of personal demeaning, name calling. I go by the same rules as a major pro-evolution site: www.rationalskepticism.org. You can say anything you want about a comment, but not the commenter.
This is the most hypocritical rule in the list because I've seen the way he treats critics on his blog. He'd much rather attack people than address anything and this rule is his excuse. It's his way or the highway.
11. Don’t leave links to YouTube vids by evo-gurus such as potholer54, AronRa, cdk007, donexodus or the like. I have debated with these people, and some of the debates are copied on this blog. p.23 I am VERY familiar with what they have to say, and I have watched most of their videos. I have debated with PhD molecular biologist, PZ Meyers group, university biology instructors, richarddawkins.net, rationalskepticism.org…..a great sampling of the most intelligent evolutionauts I could find.
I've read all of those debates and the ones where he's up against the PHD people are the most memorable because he doesn't address anything or show the slightest sign of interest in what the professors are saying.
His blog also gives him an excuse to vandalize what opponents say by tossing in some red or orange text commentary that reflects nothing more than his personal spin on the topic.
12. Don’t leave links to other sites that “know the truth”: They don’t. No one does. I have reviewed just about every major evolution site on the net.
To me the last sentence is the most ludicrous. But I digress.
He's admitting to the use of censorship which is extremely dishonest because it prevents anyone from being able to substantiate their arguments against him and this is crucial in an open debate. It's likely that he recognizes the importance of source-sighting and he probably knows that he can't go head to head against professional biologists so he thinks that giving critics a serious handicap will help him.
My guess is that he did this update to the rules page quite recently which may explain why so many comments from users Unicron and HellaStyle were either deleted or edited without them knowing until later. I had the good fortune to read them before that happened and the comments were clearly well thought out but Steve just didn't want to deal with them in any kind of polite manner.
HellaStyle pointed out that claiming a decades-long education and not showing the expected professionalism made Steve an open target for all kinds of criticisms. Steve edited that part out, possibly because he knew he couldn't counteract it.
Unicron got most of his recent corrective comments deleted under the dubious grounds that they were repetitive and he was "indoctrinated"; Steve's favorite manta. Unicron also had some comments that were well researched and sighted, they all got deleted.
Another reason I bring this up is because it may make engaging him in the future a more difficult endeavor because he won't let anyone address anything properly. It's clear right now that he doesn't want honesty nor does he want to learn anything. He just wants to irritate people he doesn't like.