“Personally, I hadn’t gotten to a point where I felt that GWW had crossed a threshold of offensiveness”

I was trying really really hard. ;)

“The description Nick gave was of a comment that posited Phillip Johnson in various sexual positions.”

Oh geez. Someone’s imagination has gotten the better of him.

Or perhaps the titillating metaphor is dead. Is it no longer appropriate to write that two entities are “in bed with each other”? That a pandering article is akin to “pillow talk” between the article’s writer and the subject. What about being a “suck up”? Or a “bootlicker”? A “back massager”? Blowing sunshine up one’s arse?

That’s the sort of “obscenity” we’re talking about here.

I’d give me left, er, pinkie to have the post back because it was a superb effort on my part, if I do say so myself. :) I touched on some aspects of the article that were not explored in the now-derailed thread.

Sigh.

As I alluded to above, I have occasion to mingle with Nick in other forums and I’ll plead my case to him in person.

I don’t think that suggesting “clearly and repeatedly that fundamentalism lies at the core of the Kansas nonsense” had anything to do with GWW’s banning, though. Nor would a consistently negative tone taken toward anti-science advocates. It’s that stridency thing, which all too easily can give offense. Personally, I hadn’t gotten to a point where I felt that GWW had crossed a threshold of offensiveness, but then I didn’t see that last comment, either. The description Nick gave was of a comment that posited Phillip Johnson in various sexual positions. If that was accurate, yes, I probably would have found that offensive beyond what I want to be delivered via one of my web sites.

There’s nothing mysterious about the PT crew, though.

Perhaps this is a reasonable place to express my disappointment over Nick Matske’s banning me from Panda’s Thumb earlier this week.

Did you read my “obscene” comment that led to the ban, Wesley? Can you explain to me what was “obscene” about the comment? Can you explain to me how, as Ian Musgrave suggested, my comment — among all the other comments on the blog — would have caused Pandas Thumb to be marked prohibited by “Nanny” software at “hundreds” of “educational institutions”?

I will inevitably confront Nick about his decision in person. I think it was an asinine indefensible and cowardly move. Habitual liars are allowed to comment on the blog indefinitely. They are allowed to spew their nonsense over and over and over again.

But adopting a consistent and stridently negative tone towards them? And daring to suggest clearly and repeatedly that fundamentalism lies at the core of the Kansas nonsense? How dare you, says Nick Matzke on behalf of the mysterious PT crew which includes members who, on their own time, express their desire to see human beings buried alive (e.g., Ed Brayton).

The most troubling aspect of the ban is simply that there was no justification for it. I had been warned. And I had heeded the warning. What the hell else am I supposed to do, Wesley?

With respect to a “matter of record.”

Thank you so much for reproducing, for a discriminating reader, some of my more penetrating observations on the Darwinian myth. Any publicity is good publicity don’t you know. Thanks again.

As to Davison’s behavior on PT, that is a matter of record.

“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein