Defending Evolution from ID Distortions

Michael bans Olorin, and then Eelco


A while ago, on a post dated on June, I challenged Michael to answer certain questions about the irreducibly of the bacterial flagellum. I issued it after he banned  Olorin, a constant, critical commentator on his blog. Eelco, another commentator on the blog then took Michael to task for banning him, and I followed suit. Sometime after I published my post in which I presented my challenge, Olorin was allowed to comment again. Well and good, right? Well, not quite, since afterwards, Michael then seemed to have banned Eelco this time. — Olorin then asked him if he did ban him, to which he responded,

Why is it when certain liberals cut and paste numerous postings it’s not spam, but when someone else does it, it is…? I can ban as many IPs as it takes, I make no distinctions…

This was a question I found pretty ridiculous considering that Michael decided to wave around the “liberal” label, and claim there was a double standard. Truthfully, I found it ridiculous because I’m personally not even a “Liberal.” I am a Moderate Christian, and a Conservative leaning Libertarian. All-in-all, I’m a bit right of center. I don’t know how Olorin and Eelco stand on everything, though.

The “numerous cut and paste postings” that Michael mentions are the questions that Eelco has posed to Michael continually, not wanting him to forget them. They’re about:

(1) Blog readership numbers ?

(2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

(3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

(4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve.

My comments here come into play:

  • Question #1 is the least important, at least to me, though I have a nagging suspicion that the answer is “not much.”
  • Question #2 is the one I want most to answer of the four, but a simple reading of his blog leads me to belive that this answer is “none.”
  • Question #3 was actually one that Michael should have answered a long time ago. — On a blog post from July 31, 2009, he promised he would write a book-review of Signature in the Cell. It’s been a year since, and we are all still waiting.
  • I’ll let question #4 go for now since I don’t know what the question here is.

Anyway, Eelco constantly posted his questions to Michael who constantly pretended they weren’t there, and the more Michael ignored them, the more often they were posted. I guess Michael got tired of them, since he used the constant cut and paste as a rationale for banning him.

My bone with Michael cannot be that he banned someone per se, though it does give off the impression that he doesn’t like opposition to his views. But I did take issue with his saying that he makes “no distinctions” on the IPs he bans. I then challenged him saying,

Since you say you make no distinctions, then answer me this: Name me one Creationist/Intelligent Design proponent that you have banned from commenting.

This should be a simple thing to answer. — Oh well, I never got an answer, and I cannot base any conclusion based on that.

Eelco was able to post a couple of comments from another IP he had and predicted that he would be banned from there as well. It seems he was right, since he has not appeared on Michael’s blog since. Eelco, as far as I can see, did nothing that warrants being blocked, and I can see no reason for Michael to do it, besides the fact that Eelco (who actually has scientific credentials) spent a lot of time showing how Michael (who seemingly doesn’t) is talking about issues he doesn’t understand. Personally, I’m starting to wonder if I am next.

— Michael, if you are reading this, do yourself a favor. You can redeem yourself somewhat by lifting Eelco’s ban. Your blocking him does nothing to help your image, and it only adds to the perception that Creationists use “Stalinist” tactics on their blogs to silence dissent. Not to mention, you are cutting down your stat numbers by banning him. Also. for the love of God, just answer his questions. They’ll only go away after.

Advertisements

4 responses

  1. Eelco

    Kris, thanks for making a fuzz about the ban !
    Such a ban never works, at least not in the long run, and will only come back and haunt the banner, not the banned.

    Question #1 is not that important, indeed, and we sort of know the answer anyway, certainly because ‘Michael’ (probably not his real name) refuses to reveal this statistic (which he knows).

    Question #2 is, in my opinion, not that relevant if the arguments given were any good, but as they are not, Michael usually reveals his gross ignorance in most scientific topics in his writings (if they are his !). So we sort of know the answer here too: none.

    The last two questions are important, though, as they are about the subject matter, and are interesting in their own right. The fact that these are not answered either, not even with “I don’t know” (a perfectly fine answer !), shows that Michael does not want to discuss things at all.

    August 6, 2010 at 7:37 am

    • krissmith777

      No problem at all.

      I really wish Michael would answer the questions you posed to him. . . I do realize talking to a Creationist is like talking to a wall (at least most of the time), . . but at least some of them DO discuss . . . which is more than what Michael does.

      If he simply said “I don’t know,” then that would be absolutely fine. If he changed his mind about the book review of Signature in the Cell, that would be fine too, though it would be preferable if he said he changed his mind about it.

      August 7, 2010 at 4:58 am

      • Dale Husband

        I think it was a mistake to repeat the same questions over and over, because that would be considered harassment. I don’t do anything like that, and I would strongly advise you not to either. Just stop talking to him.

        Ironically, I once had a fanatic, also named Michael, attack my blog with NINE comments on many different subjects at once, and it felt like an attack I could not tolerate. I banned him and then explained why the very next day:

        http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/attack-of-an-obsessive-christian/

        So while I scorn the Creationism of the Michael you have been dealing with, I sort of understand why he would ban you from his blog.

        August 14, 2010 at 3:54 am

      • krissmith777

        Hay Dale,

        Your point is well taken.

        Though I also do have my suspicions that Michael did not ban Eelco because of the cut-and-pasting of the same comment. I doubt that was his reason because Eelco had been putting that comment up for several months. If that were Michael’s REAL reason, It would be logical for him to have banned him several months ago.

        But again, your point is well taken and valid. 🙂

        August 15, 2010 at 5:12 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s