Personal privilege


So, if you check the comments over at Neil Simpson’s blog, somebody asked about the post Simpson deleted, and Simpson answered:

  1. Hey, wasn’t there some environmentalist’s post here earlier? Someone defending Carson’s position? What happened?

  2. That might have been the comment I deleted. I didn’t read the whole thing. The guy must have changed his email address, because my filter usually blocks him. He was the first guy I ever had to block for repeated inane arguments and personal attacks. I gave him a lot of chances but in the end he was just not worth the time to discuss anything with.

Didn’t read the thing? Heh. Figures. The comment reveals the depths of moral difficulty of the anti-Rachel Carson position — the position Simpson takes in the blog. Simpson can’t answer any of the criticisms.  No, I didn’t change my e-mail address — Simpson’s blog was just more loving of correcting dissent than Simpson.

Personal attacks? Bullbleep. Simpson thinks any correction is “a personal attack.” If one is chronically in error about the facts, and chronically belligerent about dealing with data, one gets a lot of corrections.

Here’s a challenge to Simpson: This blog is open. I’ll edit out only your profanities if you use them. But I’ll wager you can’t defend your position. I won’t go Joe Stalin on you the way you did on me.

Neil, you’re in error about Carson’s book. You’re wrong. You have a Christian duty to fix the errors. Bet you won’t.

Marshall Art, if you’re interested, you can read the remarks Simpson won’t read, here. Now you know why, in my opinion, he’s afraid to read them.  The comment isn’t even snarky, though heaven knows there’d be a right.

7 Responses to Personal privilege

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Another liar who lies about lying. That’s not much of a shocker at Ed’s place.

    All bluster, no substance. “When the God is with you, thank Him. When God is against your excellent case for compassion, argue with God, as Abraham did. When God is against you and you have no case, YELL.”

    You got lungs, Neil. So far, we’ve seen no case.

    Like

  2. Neil says:

    Mike, I wish you would have told me what “lie” you were talking about. That post was quite straight forward. You just tried to equivocate on the term “human.” Most people don’t have that much trouble with it.

    Another liar who lies about lying. That’s not much of a shocker at Ed’s place.

    Like

  3. Neil says:

    Hey, found this when searching for more Stalin links on Ed’s site.

    Mike, what a fool you are. Uh, yeah, you owned me all right. You and your awful wife. Ick. You are just like Ed, with your anti-science views on abortion. I’m too pro-science to be pro-life.

    Like

  4. Mike says:

    Poor old Neil… He is prone to embarrassing acts of random stupidity. He likes to mistakenly fling the names of fallacies around and then claim victory over his opponent.

    As to his hatred of being embarrassed on his own blog… Well, after I pwned him at my place I caught him in a lie at his. I commented on the lie, which later disappeared. Shocker, right?

    Like

  5. eyeingtenure says:

    I left another comment to the effect that the substance was all in the blue links that looked like pound signs. It got deleted.

    For my own record, here’s what my next comment had said, just in case he deletes it, too:

    What happened to the comment? I wasn’t snarky or anything. Just ‘splaining where the content was found, in case you had missed it. In any case, the purpose of having the link was to refute your source — which it did — leaving the substance of your claim without a leg to stand on.

    You’re right — nets do work. You’re also right — the proper use of DDT could prevent countless deaths.

    Unfortunately, DDT — unlike nets — works only until the mosquitos adapt to it. By the time people stopped using DDT to kill mosquitos, the little buggers had already become more-or-less immune to it, leaving only the marginal-to-fatal side effects on all the other life in the area.

    Like

  6. Ed Darrell says:

    Simpson says he didn’t see any substance. Sometimes, wit is too subtle for those who argue with axes.

    Simpson doesn’t want to engage me, especially, in any argument about science. He’s no science fan, and there’s a lot he doesn’t know.

    But he also hates to be embarrassed on his own blog. He’d much rather everybody sing Kum Bayah in the key he selects.

    I saw your comment, and I thought it wonderfully humorous, but way too subtle for Simpson to pick up on. Sure enough, he didn’t.

    But thanks for trying.

    Like

  7. eyeingtenure says:

    On your behalf I left the following comment:

    I searched Google for “steve forbes” and “ddt” and came up with DDT Bingo. Check it out.

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: