posted 10-25-2000 01:06 AM            

Thank you for the compliment; I hope I can live up to the standards I keep trying (and not always succeeding) in setting for myself.

I can understand your concern with some of my comments, and your question about ‘deleting’ is a valid one. I shall discuss the Carnicom site as an example, but the same arguments could apply to many similar sites. Let me give it a shot by offering two hypothetical scenarios.

1. You’re the pastor of a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible, including Old Testament views on homosexuality. I, on the other hand, am a rabid Gay Rights advocate who just as firmly believes that anyone who doesn’t jump on the full-support-for-gays bandwagon is a homophobic right-wing religious neo-nazi gun nut who should be prosecuted for ‘hatred’, ‘anti-inclusion’ and bad breath. Do you have a moral obligation to let me preach my views from your pulpit next Sunday and possibly ignite a firestorm of argument?

2. You’re the editor of the Roachspit, Texas, “Journal of Molecular Biology”. It is a peer-reviewed publication, and the peer jury, like you, are PhD’s from good universities, teach at a teaching hospital, etc. etc. Doctors and research scientists are the folks that write for you and read your articles. You’re like NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) or something equally mainstream. Your training and beliefs lead you to believe that the latest version of Big Bang, plate tectonics, evolution, etc., do the best job there is of explaining us and the universe. You are also an agnostic. I, on the other hand, am a research scientist of fairly good repute who has come up with some fascinating (and non-Biblical) data that I have collated into a theory of creationism that does a good job of explaining origins. My creationist data includes some profound work on molecular biology. You are totally against this religious mumbo-jumbo, but you have to admit…. Do you have a moral obligation to print my research in your journal and possibly ignite a firestorm of argument?

I propose that the answer for Scenario #1 is NO, and for Scenario #2 is YES. And why is that? Because the purpose of a church is to provide fellowship, salvation, and religious instruction based on a particular creed. Your letting me speak pro-gay rhetoric from your pulpit does not fulfil the reason for your church’s existence; indeed, it denigrates the very reason for your church and your faith!.

But the purpose of the Roachspit, Texas, “Journal of Molecular Biology” is to provide a forum where science works. And science works by having different people discuss their interpretations of phenomena, develop a hypothesis of that phenomena and a way to test that hypothesis. If my hypothesis is ever promoted to the stature of a theory, it must be tested against the facts.

I get to test it and have to tell you MY results. You get to test it and have to tell me YOUR results. If my test results in your hypothesis being validated, we learned something. If my test results in your hypothesis being proven wrong, we STILL learned something. If I think your hypothesis is all wet and doesn’t explain the phenomena, I tell you so, tell you why (by taking each point and dissecting it), and maybe coming up with a better hypothesis myself. Then everyone else has a chance to test MY hypothesis and data.

What’s the result? New ideas are thought up and tested against the facts. New testing methods are figured out. New facts are found. Old hypotheses get discarded, modified, or accepted, based on the refining of whatever tests we can ALL come up with. We learn more. We advance in knowledge.

So you have to ask yourself: what is Carnicom’s site? Is it to be thought of more as a church, where its job is to sustain the faithful, provide religious-type instruction, and offer fellowship for the sacerdotes? If that is the case – if Carnicom and his people look at Chemtrails as a quasi-religious belief -- then Carnicom has NO MORAL OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to let me speak my piece, any more than the Reverend Cydoniaquest has a moral obligation to let Gay-rights activist Kunz spout his BS in the pulpit on Sunday morning.

But if Carnicom’s site is to be thought of more as a scientific journal – if its purpose (explicit or implicit) is to come to a better understanding of the phenomena – if it wants to provide evidence of its beliefs to a skeptical world – then it seems only fair to me that it operate as a scientific journal, with the requirements for intellectual rigor, sound reasoning, sharing of all data and results, and – most of all – an acceptance that others will challenge your own beliefs in order to advance understanding of the phenomena.

I think that both Mr. Carnicom and many of the people there want others to consider his site as the latter. If you look at the discussions of photomicrography, the quotes from purported scientific authorities, and cross-references to various science-related sites, it should be pretty clear that the people want their site to be taken seriously and their conclusions upheld.

I don’t believe you can have it both ways. If you take a quasi-religious view towards differences of opinion (which is perfectly fine in a church), you simply won’t be taken seriously by people in the scientific community, because you have ignored the rules. If Mr. Carnicom wants to stifle dissent, he is following a typical ecclesiastic approach, and his base of followers, like those of Jim Jones, Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa, or the Reverend Al Sharpton, will be his through FAITH.

And if you want to convince skeptical people, faith doesn’t work that well.

But even if Mr. Carnicom might have a moral obligation to allow free discussion (and I think he does), he certainly has no LEGAL obligation to provide anyone with any opportunities to talk at all. Hey, it’s his website, not yours or mine!

It’s his call, of course.

Regards,

posted 10-25-2000 11:47 PM            

Clifford carnicom....you say Christy ?

He is a very vengeful man and banned me for saying "...well cliff from what you posted it looks like you believe" won't go into the rest of it but that got me the boot...

Banned goldrush for asking a question, you know petersen and the 10k which is now 6k....

Do you know cliff has invented the banmaster 2000....not really but has ceratinly set the pattern for closed minded thinking....

Duncan's posts' , although I don't care for his pias ramblings he does have a point...

ack !

posted 10-26-2000 01:46 AM            

I read your post with interest, and would like to respond to your points as best I can. Your comments in “quotes”; mine in [brackets].

“Duncan, you write really well and I enjoy reading your posts.”

[Thank you. I enjoy writing them.]

“Cliff Carnicom's board is not a church. It's a Chemtrail forum that has members. It was pretty lame to try to show a relation.”

[I did not mean to imply that Mr. Carnicom’s board was a church. I was pointing out that, if you want to convince people of the validity of your beliefs (and I think you’d agree that Mr. Carnicom’s people want to convince others), then you will get better results if you allow science and reason to work. If Mr. Carnicom and his forum members choose to disallow other opinions (as a church might), then his own views will probably not be taken seriously by others in the mainstream. And that, of course, is his choice. It is his board; he can set his own rules.]

“ But let's get down to the bottom of the barrel for a second. Some posters, such as Jay (we'll use him as an example) not only is closed minded with what other observe and report, but will want a battle, resorting to insults and cut-downs.”

[Here are five examples from today’s (10/25) posts on the Carnicom board. The three individuals who were posting were, in most cases, addressing a colleague, Ms. Chickie Deb, who was merely asking for evidence and not using anything but courtesy in her comments.]

[Chem11: “If it is your intention to cram detestable lies and religious dogma down people's throats then I suggest you apply with the Israeli Security Services or the Palestinian Authority….”]

[Chem11: “your brand of disinformation is far more subtle and damaging…”]

[Skippyroo: “personally, i think she needs to remove her head from her rectum.”]

[Skippyroo: “first, i just want to say its a waste of time to talk to you.”]

[Bunker: “You are the guy in the crowd that urges the jumper to jump because you are that way. . . Are you paid by the keystroke?”]

[It seems to me that there is plenty of invective going around on this subject. I am sure that many of the negative comments, such as the examples I’ve given above, are not limited to chemtrail proponents. Regardless, I would be willing to bet that if anyone gets banned from the Carnicom board in the near future, it would be Ms. Deb rather than the three individuals mentioned above.]

Regards,

posted 10-26-2000 02:38 AM            

They are just playing crucify the non-believer.....

This may contrdict my previous post but I would not allow "gang" ups on posters who are just posting....

sorry lot.....

This is class....
http://pub8.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessage?topicID=3499.topic

Chickie Deb
Registered User
(10/25/00 4:53:49 am)
Research

>To this comment I say, dear newbie, what have you done in the area of research? Where is your documentation? It's best not to say anything when you don't know what you are talking about- My intention is to present my portion of research and the truth it presents. The truth is, most don't want to take the time to find it and would rather believe any BS that someone passes along on the internet. You should be one to talk about "like-minded individuals."<

BTW, elvis the above is how you present text...verified....

link

user

text

you hump.....