In a message dated 10/3/2000 1:28:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, DNAunion
writes:
<< In a message dated 10/2/00 9:28:29 AM Central Daylight Time,
Huxter4441@aol.com writes:
>>Huxter: Be wary of imposters and posters using mulitple names to appear
to have support - nucacids and DNAunion appear to be the same person, and it
also
appears that 'Mike B. Gene' may be making a comeback under a different name.
DNAunion: Huxter is spewing nothing but unsupported "gossip". Where's your
evidence that Nucacids and I are the same person? Totally absent.
++++++++++++
The reasonable reader will notice that I said 'appear to be', not is. I am
now in a position to modify my previous belief - I think NucAcids is Mike
Gene, not DNAunion, especially after I read one of NucAcids posts and noticed
it was signed 'Mike'. Why he would use a different moniker is beyond me,
since he used to post here under the name 'Mike Gene'. You should at least
admit that you have posted on the Metacrock board under at least 3 different
names, did you not?
+++++++++++++
>>Huxter: The ARN discussion board was shut down in part due to the fact
that ID
advocates were posting under multiple identities ...
DNAunion: Nope, more unsupported "gossip" by Huxter. The ARN moderator
began logging IP addresses after the assertions were made and instructed
those posting that it was against the rules to post under multiple names, and
that anyone found doing so would be prevented from posted at ARN. No one was
prevented from posting there, thus, the evidence points to no one posting
under multiple names.
+++++++++++++++++
This is demonstrably false. 'Jimmy' and 'Ecko' are/were the same person.
'Ecko' admitted in an email posted on Meta's board that he has been posting
at ARN all along under a different name. Using a different computer or
internet service will alter the ISP address. By the way - did it not occur
to you that after the moderator had posted the warning that the multi-persona
posters might have been more cautious? In aqddition, the person posting as
'frank', 'tom24', bndfngr, and a few others were all the same person. I know
this for a fact since I corresponded with him on several occasions.
++++++++++++++++++++
And even if someone were to have been doing so, that single person would
have been banned (as the trouble maker Pantrog was) - the whole board
wouldn't have been shut down (you don't think things through, do you Huxter?).
+++++++++++++++++++++++
DNAunion, you don't read for comprehension, do you? You just read to find a
snippet that you can twist to prop up your self-righteous gibberish. A
competant reader would have seen that I said 'in part'. Please read for
comprehension, not sound bites.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
The ARN discussion forum was suspended mostly because of anti-IDists (like
"IAmNoOne") launching ad homs and making insuations of wrong doing (just like
you are now, Huxter). The ARN moderator instructued the posters to follow
the rules. The anti-IDists continued, and several of the pro-ID posters also
began posting ad homs and insinuations. Though some legitimate discussion
was still going on, the site in general had deteriorated into an "implication
or wrong doing" fest, and the ARN moderator shut the whole board down (note
that he/she did not shut down just the anti-IDists: so favoritism does not
apply).
++++++++++++++++++++++++
ID advocates always did consider pointing out flaws in their ideology as 'ad
hominem'. I see that will never change. I find it hilarious that DNAunion
says that some pro-IDers 'began' posting insinuations and ad homs - all one
had to do was look at the archives to see that what DNA is claiming is simply
unsupportable whining and gossip.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>Huxter: .. which, big surprise, heaped accolades on each other (which
were in fact themseves!).
DNAunion: Nope, yet more "gossip" by Huxter. I complimented Mike Gene
several times on his ability to pinpoint the flaws in his opponents'
position, and I complimented Nelson (I believe it was) for pointing out the
idiocy of someone's implication that I was a Creationist. Sorry Huxter, but
I am neither Mike Gene, Nelson, Jimmy, nor Ecko (as Pantrog and IamNoOne
incorrectly claimed at ARN), nor am I nucacids here.
>>
I find it even more amusing that you call the implication that you may be a
creationist to be 'idiocy.' I have observed your posts on several boards and
on here for some time. It is clear that you do indeed use creationist style
argumentation, whether or not you can see it.
I cannot wait until 'WWUSIAC' or 'ARNORG' or 'veutron' 'start' posting to
this list!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 03 2000 - 15:10:41 EDT