QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 21st May 2008, 9:10am)
Colloquy between Moulton and Filll on
Moulton's Talk Page...
QUOTE(Colloquy between Moulton and Filll on Moulton's Talk Page)
What do you make of dogbiscuit's response
here? —Moulton (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice guy I am sure, but it is completely wrong. Wow. Amazing how much he misunderstands.--Filll (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
DB, it would appear you and I share the same misunderstanding, per the judgment of Dr. Filll. Where did we flunk the course?
I am sure that this boils down to conviction. The ID Crowd believe they have right on their side, so every interpretation they make, they only see words which support their view.
It is a classic example of why there are policies on ownership and neutrality. Their mindset has become so fixed that they cannot re-frame their thinking to taking a neutral view.
What is really fascinating about this group is that their fundamental position is well grounded in view points the vast majority would agree with. It simply does not make sense that they need to do this massive extrapolation into fantasy. The only explanation is that they have a terror that the ID argument is so plausible to the uneducated masses that only distortion and exaggeration can defeat it. Perhaps they watch too much Jimmy Swaggart or haven't sent enough donations to the Prayer Tower.
I have no doubt at all that Filll is sincere in his beliefs, that is why it ends up being personal, because for Filll to be wrong he would now have to fundamentally question his core values.
This is a classic example of where you need an article arbcom, where people with rational judgement are empowered to determine whether a particular form of article is appropriate, and enforce that judgement through neutral administrative supervision.