Comments on 10838

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/47747#1149614
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/47030#1120643
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/46504#1100938
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/46504#1099536
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/46439#1097687
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/46439#1097533
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/46079#1082871
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/45986#1079052
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/44794#1033047
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/44624#1024246
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/44348#1014483
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42998#965325
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42780#958233
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42508#948486
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42283#941092
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42196#938057
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/41896#928142
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/41186#905273
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/41091#901071
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/41082#901068
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/41082#901013
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/40852#893699
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/40738#888774
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/40738#888586
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/40733#888795
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/40733#888633
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/40733#888532
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/40733#888472
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/40733#888389
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/40733#888308
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/40733#888292
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/40718#888283
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/40705#887682
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/40705#887499

34 self-links in 104 comments. Many of these are cut-and-paste jobs, others are exact copies of one another.

Previous discussion on bevets's abuse of MetaFilter is here.

In that thread, scarabic said: "I think the message you're gettting is that it's not going to get you banned, but it's a little self-indulgent. If you have views that you want to articulate here, then articulate them here. Linking to another site where you have the freedom to pontificate unchallenged isn't the richest way to contribute to a conversation."

In response, bevets said: "I am seeking criticism. That is how I learn."

He has not learned, he has not changed, he is unrepentant. The ratio of posts with self-links to those without has gone up recently rather than down.

Let's be clear: I am not asking that he be banned. However, others have been banned for doing the exact same thing. It is a bad precedent to have two sets of rules, one for eccentric Christian nutters and one for everyone else; further, it encourages abuse of the system by others who will see that there are apparently no penalties or rules against it.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:24 PM on December 20, 2005

Well, people have been banned for off-topic comment spamming, not for relevant self-linking. Hell, it even says in the guidelines that self-linking in comments is OK.

So your problem really is that you think the rules should be changed, not that anybody in particular is breaking them.

might I ask what prompted you to spend time doing this?
posted by Saucy Intruder at 10:36 PM on December 20, 2005

oh noes.
posted by kcm at 10:39 PM on December 20, 2005

I thought we had determined long ago that bevets is a bot. Whether or not he is an intelligently designed bot remains an easy joke I couldn't resist making.
posted by gramschmidt at 10:43 PM on December 20, 2005

I agree with your distaste for bevets. And for the same reasons. He knows the rules, and has gone against them directly and repeatedly.

I would not, however, take action carelessly on this. Bevets is a perfect example of what not to be on MeFi. More than that, he trips over himself any time he even breathes on these pages, making him stand out easily. The name is also famous beyond mefi (christianforums / fark / etc.) and is recognizable as a clear lunatic by anyone possessing even the most rudimentary ability to utilize conscious thought and critical analysis.

Put him on a pedestal. Show him off as a prize, remarking how absurd he is and how he can't follow a few basic rules. But don't give him a chance to run back to other forums and complain about censorship. That isn't the kind of publicity we need around here, and I don't want to see a flood of $5 failed apologists driving all the good MeFites away with their drivel.

Diplomacy is key. This is a constant of human nature.
posted by mystyk at 10:48 PM on December 20, 2005

It's ok to self-link in a comment when it's pertinent to the discussion. bevets' contributions are unpopular yes, but on topic. He's not comment spamming, though he's certainly ax-grinding.

So yeah, he can be tiring in that he makes the same points over and over, trolling for fights with evolutionists, but not quite ban worthy.
posted by mathowie at 10:54 PM on December 20, 2005

It's like there's a whole alternate MeFi universe next door, that I never see except when the continuum somehow merges, like in this thread. I've honestly never noticed this person before.

That said, his/her behaviour doesn't seem like something that should be encouraged, or even permitted.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:56 PM on December 20, 2005

Er, well, never mind. Numero Uno has weighed in.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:57 PM on December 20, 2005

Evolutionists? Please don't use that term... It plays right into the hands of the bad guys.
posted by drpynchon at 10:57 PM on December 20, 2005

If the guy likes to bang on the same drum, year, after year, small wonder he'll have conceived some favorite phrasings. And if he's already posted those to his website, and if he chooses to make his point by using them via links, then so be it. If he's only contributed 100 comments in nine months, and he's stayed on topic and hasn't spilled the profanity bucket, then good for him.

As I understand it, the standard is: If you have the time to browse the site, to find a thread where your self-link will be relevant, and to post it as a topical comment in that thread, then you can "earn" your self-links. I'm ambivalent about that policy; but as I understand it, that's the line. And this guy seems to be walking it.

In the grand scheme, if we're unsheathing +5 Ban Blades, does this guy constitute more of a plague than the contingent who turn every thread into a partisan sandbox? I say keep his 34 self-links, and lose a couple thousand of the amateur punditry.
posted by cribcage at 11:09 PM on December 20, 2005

I still think it is a bot, but then . . .
posted by caddis at 12:03 AM on December 21, 2005

seriously, folks, banning this guy or finding reasons to discipline him in some way plays into his martyrdom complex. leave it alone.

i know we can't all ignore him, because of the nature of axe-grinding that hard, but we can keep from contributing to his claims of "evolutionist" persecution.
posted by shmegegge at 12:05 AM on December 21, 2005

Everyone knows the proper term is evolutionismists.
posted by kindall at 12:14 AM on December 21, 2005

Special dispensation of whoop-ass is called for in event of that rare breed of internet mothefucker who not only HAS a post on the subject of any possible keyword EVER but who is willing to hang out on your own mostly human-driven site and provide ALL the necesseary links to make it a bedfellow to their aforementioned mattress of instanity.
posted by scarabic at 12:16 AM on December 21, 2005

in other words, what kcm said: please Tim this bitch
posted by scarabic at 12:17 AM on December 21, 2005

evolutremists
posted by NinjaPirate at 1:29 AM on December 21, 2005

Mattress of Insanity. That's such a wonderful expression. With your permission I'd like to say it again: Mattress of Insanity.
posted by Jofus at 1:49 AM on December 21, 2005

Was that a MtG ref. scarabic? I had a Tim deck once. Good times. Good times.

Anyone want to buy some cards?
posted by sciurus at 4:22 AM on December 21, 2005

Optimus Chyme

34 self-links in 104 comments. Many of these are cut-and-paste jobs, others are exact copies of one another.

Previous discussion on bevets's abuse of MetaFilter is here.

In that thread, scarabic said: "I think the message you're gettting is that it's not going to get you banned, but it's a little self-indulgent. If you have views that you want to articulate here, then articulate them here. Linking to another site where you have the freedom to pontificate unchallenged isn't the richest way to contribute to a conversation."

In response, bevets said: "I am seeking criticism. That is how I learn."

He has not learned, he has not changed, he is unrepentant. The ratio of posts with self-links to those without has gone up recently rather than down.

In the most recent thread, I linked to a relevant site on ID that I have NO affiliation with. I also self linked. My site is the result of several years of ongoing study and is also directly relevant to the thread. I am flattered that you have found time in your busy schedule to talk about my arguments. Many people have made dismissive comments about my arguments, few have attempted substantive responses to these arguments.
posted by bevets at 4:58 AM on December 21, 2005

No harm, no foul.
posted by ColdChef at 5:35 AM on December 21, 2005

What ColdChef said. There is not and never has been a rule, or even a consensus, against self-linking in comments; bevets is annoying, but if we banned people for that, this would be a cold and empty place. And actually, I find the guy amusing. If I were allowed to start wielding the banhammer, he'd be way down on my list.

*looks around speculatively*
posted by languagehat at 5:50 AM on December 21, 2005

few have attempted substantive responses to these arguments.

To require substantive responses your arguments would first require substance.

This isn't the time or place to discuss the substance of your arguments, rather we are discussing the form they take. I personally hate how you often enter into an argument, drop a quote and then leave, never to be seen in the post again (ex. 1, 2) I think it would be helpful for us all if you just took the time to explain or interpret your quote, and I think it would be even better if you just wrote original thoughts.

Also, please stop using the term evolutionism. Many people, myself included, are going to dismiss you for the same reason we ignore those that use librul's and amerukuh.
posted by cyphill at 6:02 AM on December 21, 2005

Repeated, relevant, nondisruptive, noncommercial self-links within threads don't require official punishment. They are detrimental to a user's reputation.

And not to be steppin' to you while you're in your prime like Optimus, but: I am not asking that he be banned. However, others have been banned for doing the exact same thing.

Well... what are you asking for? Most people here, and apparently on some other internets, know the drill with bevets. His crude ax-grinding has left him with a terrible reputation, which is punishment enough. I dunno if he's done anything of late that warrants a MeTa callout.

Also, as others have said, please don't use the word "evolutionists." Evolution is not a belief system, it's a hypothesis that repeated objective inquiry suggests is accurate. There are no gravityists, and there are no evolutionists.
posted by ibmcginty at 6:25 AM on December 21, 2005

do you think the word 'evolutionist' is used because of a belief held, or is it because of a reaction gained?
posted by kcm at 6:33 AM on December 21, 2005

Also, as others have said, please don't use the word "evolutionists."

So seriously, is there a single, descriptive word for somebody who believe in evolution?
posted by SteveInMaine at 6:45 AM on December 21, 2005

"Many people have made dismissive comments about my arguments, few have attempted substantive responses to these arguments."

And no one here has refuted my belief to be the SNOW KING OF BABYLON!

That said, I like to see Optimus get wound up. Please continue, Bevets.
posted by klangklangston at 6:50 AM on December 21, 2005

Steve: Rational? Reasonable? Is there a single word to describe people who don't believe that I am the SNOW KING OF BABYLON?
posted by klangklangston at 6:51 AM on December 21, 2005

do you think the word 'evolutionist' is used because of a belief held, or is it because of a reaction gained?

It is a rhetorical device used to place the theory of evolution on the same plane as a belief in creationism or ID-- implying, falsely, that believing in the truth of evolution requires the same leap of faith as believing in ID/creationism.

They are not equivalents. Evolution has come to be accepted by scientists because of the weight of empirical evidence. ID/creationism are unverifiable empirically. ID might be worth discussing in philosophy class, but it is not science.
posted by ibmcginty at 6:52 AM on December 21, 2005

hahahahaha! optimus chump, shot down in flames.
posted by quonsar at 6:53 AM on December 21, 2005

bevets writes "Many people [who know more about science than I do] have made dismissive comments about my arguments, few have attempted substantive responses to these arguments [because most people are tired of rehashing the same arguments that were settled years ago in the real world with an opponent who refuses to admit that he is misinformed or outright incorrect]" (edits mine).

Seriously, I prefer that bevets remains unbanned. Bevets is often amusing (in an infuriating way) in the religious or evolution threads. Good practice for anyone who wishes to see how much fun it is to ~~beat your head against a wall~~ try to explain science to a person who refuses to believe anything not written in the Big Book of Jesus. Plus, this way it's easier to realize that it's bevets. I'd be unhappy if bevets was banned and we had to spend time figuring out which new member was the bevets sock puppet.

Say, anyone up for writing a Greasemonkey script that replaces any comment posted by bevets with something more interesting?
posted by caution live frogs at 6:56 AM on December 21, 2005

Bevets is an infamous troll that has been doing this for years on other sites. We can indulge in the polite fiction that he's simply trying to promote discussion and let him be, but remember that it's just that: a fiction. Bevets is not interested in discussion or debate, he is not interested in providing useful information, and he is not interested, despite protestations otherwise, in others "attempt[ing] substantive responses to [his] arguments." He often drops his copy-and-paste spam non-sequiters and then leaves. At best--or maybe I should say at worst--he sticks around in a thread to provide more copy-and-paste spam. There is no real debate, only derailing.

Whether Bevets' links to his own site constitute a technical violation of the site policy is beside the point, at least in my mind. Bevets behavior is poison, and destroys opportunities for real, worthwhile discussion. If that doesn't get you banned, I don't know what will.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:03 AM on December 21, 2005

So seriously, is there a single, descriptive word for somebody who believe in evolution? - SteveInMaine

Scientists?
posted by raedyn at 7:16 AM on December 21, 2005

So seriously, is there a single, descriptive word for somebody who believe in evolution?
Rational.
posted by darukaru at 7:24 AM on December 21, 2005

No, but close.
Rational.
posted by mystyk at 7:24 AM on December 21, 2005

Jinx
posted by mystyk at 7:25 AM on December 21, 2005

Well... what are you asking for?

That he post actual, substantive comments rather than mindlessly Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V something he wrote five years ago, then add a link to the same site he's linked to 34 times in the past.

hahahahaha! optimus chump, shot down in flames.

post a picture of an elephant about it

I'd be unhappy if bevets was banned and we had to spend time figuring out which new member was the bevets sock puppet.

That would take about three seconds.

He has never, ever, reponded in a thoughtful way to either the post itself or the questions or comments of others. There are a few okay posts in his past on non-hot button issues, but it if it's abortion or evolution, he is incapable of doing anything other than comment spamming.

But Matt says it's okay, and it's his site, so okay. Let him continue it all he wants. Go nuts. Hell, he should add some advertisements to his site while he's at it.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:27 AM on December 21, 2005

35
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:29 AM on December 21, 2005

Personally I've always thought that the whole "evilutionists are the religious nutbags" thing was just a slightly more sophisticated way of saying "I know you are but what am I?"
posted by darukaru at 7:29 AM on December 21, 2005

darukaru: "Personally I've always thought that the whole "evilutionists are the religious nutbags" thing was just a slightly more sophisticated way of saying "I know you are but what am I?""

Oh, the technique has always been one of trying to assert yourself as no less than equal. Once you have supposed equality, you can stary attacking the other guy. So creationists can't get their bull accepted as equal to evolution in a scientific context? Try claiming they're a religion then and attacking them on different turf. It's all about perception of equality, because one clearly has evidence and the other, well, lacks that quality.
posted by mystyk at 7:37 AM on December 21, 2005

Scientists?
I don't think so -- to me, that term is a job description.
Rational.
As much as I like this, there are many times when I'm not, in other areas.

Maybe it's not possible to name a person who belives in evolution in one word. Call me what you want, just don't call me late for dinner.

I had a friend who contended that science is a belief as much as religion is. Though one is provable and the other not, I don't think he was terribly off base on this.
posted by SteveInMaine at 7:39 AM on December 21, 2005

*taps two islands*
posted by sciurus at 7:45 AM on December 21, 2005

I don't think he was terribly off base on this.

When you consider that scientific beliefs are based on reason, observation, and experimentation, rather than "the Bible said so," then yeah, he was terribly off base.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:54 AM on December 21, 2005

SteveInMaine types "Maybe it's not possible to name a person who belives in evolution in one word."

Maybe because evolution is not something one "believes in". It is not a world view or philosophy but a scientific hypothesis which has graduated to the level of theory—colloquially, a fact. You may as well ask what one would call a person who believes in covalent bonding.
posted by Fezboy! at 7:59 AM on December 21, 2005

Evolutionationalists

Evolutiontologists

Evolutionarians

Evolutionistas

Evolutionites

Evolvers
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:14 AM on December 21, 2005

Fezboy!: "SteveInMaine types "Maybe it's not possible to name a person who belives in evolution in one word."

Maybe because evolution is not something one "believes in". It is not a world view or philosophy but a scientific hypothesis which has graduated to the level of theory—colloquially, a fact."

Well, I believe in evolution, in the sense that I haven't the foggiest idea how it all works, but the general consensus seems to be that it is true, and since it sounds like fairly convincing stuff, I don't see a reason to doubt it. I guess wherever bevets hangs out in the real world, the same goes for the world being a few thousand years old.
posted by jack_mo at 8:21 AM on December 21, 2005

Common sense enthusiasts?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:25 AM on December 21, 2005

Also, as others have said, please don't use the word "evolutionists."

If I had a nickel for every time I've seen "neocon" or "fundie" on this site, I could buy a Gulfstream. I've never seen "evolutionist" before; but if they're able to make y'all cough with a dose of your own medicine, that's worth a snicker.

And if I were inclined to defend it, by the way, I might answer that the term probably isn't intended to attack evolution, but rather a specific attitude toward it, an attitude that's remarkably similar to religious fundamentalism.
posted by cribcage at 8:28 AM on December 21, 2005

I would have to say that those (including myself) who believe in evolution are Evolutionists. We're not all rational, we're not all scientists and we're not all logical.

God could exist. I personally doubt it, but he could. And if he does, then he could certainly have laid things down as they are now. Unfortunately you can't prove that something doesn't exist, merely that you haven't found it yet. So, the creationists could be correct. In which case it is us evolutionists who are wrong. Then who looks stupid about the 'ist' ending?

That's the ultimate problem of fighting an invisible (made up) man - even if you reduce the entire universe to a single equation, the concept of an onipotent being means that that being could have created that formula.

Besides, it's a valid term. Those who believe in evolution are evolutionists.
posted by twine42 at 8:41 AM on December 21, 2005

I'm definately a covalent bondage enthusiast.
posted by kcm at 8:53 AM on December 21, 2005

So seriously, is there a single, descriptive word for somebody who believe in evolution?

Nonjustmakingstuffuptarian
posted by TimeFactor at 8:56 AM on December 21, 2005

If I had a nickel for every time I've seen "neocon" or "fundie" on this site, I could buy a Gulfstream

typical leisure-class neocon fundie. always thinking about what they can buy next. well, maybe with time-share, and rental to the CIA for extraodinary rendition, you can get that gulfstream. happy flying! (winking emoticon here intended to suggest that this portion of comment is partly in jest).

I might answer that the term probably isn't intended to attack evolution, but rather a specific attitude toward it, an attitude that's remarkably similar to religious fundamentalism

you must mean the evangelical zeal that characterizes the rational thinker. wild statements about observation, and data, and analysis... facts, if you will. so if that's what you're talking about, then you're absolutely right! why, it's just the other side of the coin from people who believe that the earth is 6000 years old, that all extant animal species were on some giant boat for 40 days, that the fossil "record" is just evidence planted by de debbil to trick us into believing the chicanery of science.
posted by Hat Maui at 9:01 AM on December 21, 2005

jack_mo: You are equivocating justified, true belief vs. belief as understood in the broader parlance. One has an evidentiary trail which you could consult, test, and verify for yourself if you chose. The other requires an act of faith.

One could argue that this just moves the act of faith up one level, and to some extent you are correct. On the other hand, one can use inductive reasoning to support this "act of faith" based on past personal experience confirming the tenets of peer-reviewed scientific research. I, for one, cannot make this same inductive conclusion based on past experience with, for lack of a better label, "Christianity-based science". Ultimately, one can assert that the distinction I am drawing is arbitrary. OTOH, by doing so we move into the realm of, what the Vienna Circle would derisively label, metaphysics. As I find myself drawn to the Logical Positivists, I would assert that if you want to go there, then there is nothing substanitive left to say.

Much the same, then, of Bevets and his cohort—insofar as one can assert they hang out "in the real world".

Further, I suppose if you really wanted to draw out some folks they would make assertions such as "evolutionary theory is proof that no deity exists." This sub-group is one you could possibly label as 'evolutionist'. Speaking as someone who vaguely identifies as a Deist, I see no inconsistency in maintaining the truth of evolutionary theory and denying the Theory is a positive proof against my system of beliefs in terms of a supernatural agent. The Theory, as I understand it, explains a great deal about development arcs but does not pretend to explain the nature of existence or how the fundamental building blocks of life came into being. It certainly lends some guidance for making further hypothesis, but these remain currently untestable for obvious reasons. I suppose an 'evolutionist' would be one who treats these further hypothesis with the same weight as the Theory.

Insofar as bevets et al want to lump the two groups together to make generalizations, I will argue against the label.
posted by Fezboy! at 9:08 AM on December 21, 2005

erm... ~~hypothesis~~ hypotheses
posted by Fezboy! at 9:10 AM on December 21, 2005

As an Evolution enthusiast I prefer to call myself Monkey Girl or Darwinophile. I call my fellow believers logical.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:26 AM on December 21, 2005

SteveInMaine: So seriously, is there a single, descriptive word for somebody who believe in evolution?

Monkeyfuckers.
posted by kosem at 10:03 AM on December 21, 2005

Or as Stephen Colbert might put it, you can call us evolutionists: "fact checkers out there in the factosphere."
posted by kosem at 10:06 AM on December 21, 2005

*casts Channel/Fireball on thread*
posted by sciurus at 10:23 AM on December 21, 2005

Besides, it's a valid term. Those who believe in evolution are evolutionists.

No. "Evolutionism" is a term of art in anthropology and biology, and refers to the idea that the cultures or life forms being studied are intrinsically bound to evolve to a particular form, as opposed to more modern theories of natural selection. Modern evolutionary theory is not evolutionism and those who study it are not evolutionists. The term, as it's used by IDers and creationists, is a political term used to label their opponents.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:31 AM on December 21, 2005

Personally I've always thought that the whole "evilutionists are the religious nutbags" thing was just a slightly more sophisticated way of saying "I know you are but what am I?"

Roughly 85% of the debate on this site is a slightly more sophisticated way of saying "I know you are but what am I," dude.
posted by jonmc at 10:56 AM on December 21, 2005

So...if people like bevets are in it just to provoke us...aren't we giving him what he wants most, right now?
posted by lodurr at 12:19 PM on December 21, 2005

Touché.
posted by darukaru at 12:19 PM on December 21, 2005

... and further, if what he wants to do is provoke us, isn't it likely that the thing that will annoy him most is for people to respond in a civil and intelligent manner?
posted by lodurr at 12:20 PM on December 21, 2005

No, that gives him the attention he craves. What would annoy him the most is for everyone to ignore him, but people are clearly incapable of doing that.
posted by languagehat at 12:25 PM on December 21, 2005

What would it be like, if we just, kinda, y'know, ignored him? Like the slightly dishevelled and odoriferous vagrant at a corner table in your favourite cafe. He's there all the time, but you don't respond to him, just get with - and enjoy - the conversation at your table.

Would that work?
posted by dash_slot- at 12:43 PM on December 21, 2005

So seriously, is there a single, descriptive word for somebody who believe in evolution? - SteveInMaine

Scientists?
posted by raedyn at 7:16 AM PST on December 21

Classic.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:44 PM on December 21, 2005

What do you call people who believe in gravity?

Those bastards really piss me off. Always trying to pull a brother down.
posted by nixerman at 2:07 PM on December 21, 2005

Flags this comment as fantastic.

Monju's correct and Matt is wrong. Bevets isn't here to debate or to add to the quality of the site, he's here to shit on the thread. That's not how things work here and any encouragement of this kind of behaviour from Matt is a bad sign. That bit about "no-one has responded to my comments" made me laugh: plenty of people have done so in the past. Bevets has, on every single occasion, ignored them or posted a single link in response.

And the "several years of ongoing study" part is a hoot, in the light of his admission that he doesn't actually read the articles he posts...
posted by blag at 3:00 PM on December 21, 2005

This may or may not be on topic-ish, but...

I just recently figured out why theories such as ID ever gain a foothold.

Hot Chicks.

*ducking*
posted by FlamingBore at 3:02 PM on December 21, 2005

And the "several years of ongoing study" part is a hoot, in the light of his admission that he doesn't actually read the articles he posts...

This is an important point that no one will pay attention to, blag.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:47 PM on December 21, 2005

Ah! Wrath of God!

*destroys all creatures in play*
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 4:23 PM on December 21, 2005

Optimus Chyme writes 'This is an important point that no one will pay attention to, blag.'

Story of my life, dear fellow.

I'm waiting for the day when he (and I don't know why I'm assuming Bevets is a chap) posts an article which he thinks supports his creationist-junk-science and yet actually argues for evolution. Given how little he actually understands about the subject, it's bound to happen someday.
posted by blag at 4:42 PM on December 21, 2005

blag - his name is Steve B. That's a man, baby.
posted by mzurer at 5:17 PM on December 21, 2005

Matt is all cool with the users who actively seek to destroy MetaFilter. Even when someone explicitly states that their primary goal is to disrupt and harm the site -- as PP did a while back -- Matt just goes along with them. Other users, not so lucky.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:03 PM on December 21, 2005

Would somebody who 'believes' in gravity be a Gravitationist? Or a Newtonian?
How about Pauli's Exclusion Principle? An Exclusionist? Principalist? Paulist?
Hey kids! You can play at home!
posted by signal at 6:35 PM on December 21, 2005

Many people have made dismissive comments about my arguments, few have attempted substantive responses to these arguments.

monju_bosatsu

Bevets is an infamous troll that has been doing this for years on other sites. We can indulge in the polite fiction that he's simply trying to promote discussion and let him be, but remember that it's just that: a fiction. Bevets is not interested in discussion or debate, he is not interested in providing useful information, and he is not interested, despite protestations otherwise, in others "attempt[ing] substantive responses to [his] arguments." He often drops his copy-and-paste spam non-sequiters and then leaves. At best--or maybe I should say at worst--he sticks around in a thread to provide more copy-and-paste spam. There is no real debate, only derailing.

Whether Bevets' links to his own site constitute a technical violation of the site policy is beside the point, at least in my mind. Bevets behavior is poison, and destroys opportunities for real, worthwhile discussion. If that doesn't get you banned, I don't know what will.

Do you have a specific criticism of one of my posts?

When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. ~ Cicero
posted by bevets at 6:56 PM on December 21, 2005

OK, I'll play along. Here is an excellent example of someone attempting a substantive response to your arguments:

Act 1: caddis posts 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense to a MeFi thread.

Act 2: bevets, by way of reply and in an effort to further the debate, posts a link to 15 Answers to Scientific American nonsense.

Act 3: kyrademon reads the article posted by bevets and, in a fantastic piece of work, sits down and composes a point-by-point refutation of every single argument raised in the article. LarryC suggested that it was such an amazing effort that it should be archived somewhere, so I posted it to the wiki.

Act 4: bevets' response. Here it is:

You have more time than me -- I gave up after a couple paragraphs.

Here is another article -- knock yourself out.

That was it. Seriously. After all the effort put in by kyrademon, his response was to sniff disdainfully that he hadn't actually read the article and then move on to something else.

Bevets: can you see why people are reluctant to engage with you? Because whenever they put the effort into responding to your random links, you refuse them the same courtesy in return.

Maybe you will interpret this as me abusing you and proving your point but please take note: I am not abusing you because of your beliefs, nor because of your ideas about creationism. You are a man totally without manners and I am appalled at the way in which you behave.
posted by blag at 7:25 PM on December 21, 2005 [1 favorite]

Do you have a specific criticism of one of my posts?

Oh, I have plenty of criticisms, but I don't view MetaFilter as my personal shooting range. Target practice with a troll of your ilk is a waste of time and energy. I'm interested in having a real discussion about the real controversial aspects of evolutionary theory, but no, you have to spew your moronic cut-and-paste nonsequiters and other members feel like they have to fire back. And when that happens, you win, end of discussion.

I know why you're here. Your purpose is not to discuss the issues, to have a real intellectual exchange about competing theories of origins and evolution. Your purpose is not even to proselytize, because you'll never convince anyone of anything with the tactics you use. No, your purpose here is solely to derail conversation, to agitate those you don't like, and above all, to stand in the spotlight as the center of attention. Well, you've certainly succeeded there.

But make no mistake. You are an infection, a disease, a cancer on MetaFilter. You destroy conversation and community, and every comment you post makes MetaFilter a less worthy place. Matt has made a mistake by allowing you to stay. I refuse to engage in any debate with you on any topic, and I hope others follow suit.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:29 PM on December 21, 2005

I feel for you Optimus. I've just come to ignore him. Most of the time I don't even notice he's here.
posted by furtive at 7:59 PM on December 21, 2005

$ /bvtsbt.exe
posted by the bevets bot at 8:02 PM on December 21, 2005

WTF?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:06 PM on December 21, 2005

30 RUN STOP
40 GOTO 20

That was it. Seriously. After all the effort put in by kyrademon, his response was to sniff disdainfully that he hadn't actually read the article and then move on to something else.

Bevets: can you see why people are reluctant to engage with you? Because whenever they put the effort into responding to your random links, you refuse them the same courtesy in return.

Maybe you will interpret this as me abusing you and proving your point but please take note: I am not abusing you because of your beliefs, nor because of your ideas about creationism. You are a man totally without manners and I am appalled at the way in which you behave.
posted by blag at 7:25 PM PST on December 21 [!]

Do you have a specific criticism of one of my posts?

Oh, I have plenty of criticisms, but I don't view MetaFilter as my personal shooting range. Target practice with a troll of your ilk is a waste of time and energy. I'm interested in having a real discussion about the real controversial aspects of evolutionary theory, but no, you have to spew your moronic cut-and-paste nonsequiters and other members feel like they have to fire back. And when that happens, you win, end of discussion.

I know why you're here. Your purpose is not to discuss the issues, to have a real intellectual exchange about competing theories of origins and evolution. Your purpose is not even to proselytize, because you'll never convince anyone of anything with the tactics you use. No, your purpose here is solely to derail conversation, to agitate those you don't like, and above all, to stand in the spotlight as the center of attention. Well, you've certainly succeeded there.

But make no mistake. You are an infection, a disease, a cancer on MetaFilter. You destroy conversation and community, and every comment you post makes MetaFilter a less worthy place. Matt has made a mistake by allowing you to stay. I refuse to engage in any debate with you on any topic, and I hope others follow suit.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:29 PM PST on December 21 [!]

The developer should not be held hostage to the company's (Eagle Water) current difficulties in remedying identified system deficiencies and its failure to timely address Hillview’s request for service. ~ The Idaho Public Utilities Commission
posted by the bevets bot at 8:06 PM on December 21, 2005

blag

OK, I'll play along. Here is an excellent example of someone attempting a substantive response to your arguments:

Act 1: caddis posts 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense to a MeFi thread.

Act 2: bevets, by way of reply and in an effort to further the debate, posts a link to 15 Answers to Scientific American nonsense.

Act 3: kyrademon reads the article posted by bevets and, in a fantastic piece of work, sits down and composes a point-by-point refutation of every single argument raised in the article. LarryC suggested that it was such an amazing effort that it should be archived somewhere, so I posted it to the wiki.

Act 4: bevets' response. Here it is:

You have more time than me -- I gave up after a couple paragraphs.

Here is another article -- knock yourself out.

That was it. Seriously. After all the effort put in by kyrademon, his response was to sniff disdainfully that he hadn't actually read the article and then move on to something else.

Bevets: can you see why people are reluctant to engage with you? Because whenever they put the effort into responding to your random links, you refuse them the same courtesy in return.

You forgot this:

Bevets

You miss the point. The point is not that '15 Creationism Answers' is the final word. The point is that '15 Evolutionim Answers' is NOT the final word (as implied by caddis). The article I cited happens to be authored by 2 PhDs. Surely 2 PhDs are worthy of challenging John Rennie even though he has a Bachelors degree in Science. I suspect if the authors were here to defend themselves they would withstand the onslought of Kyrademon. Perhaps they would wish to clarify or even concede some minor points. Perhaps not. The point is that Creationists are capable of intelligent discussion. People who assume that creationists must be clueless are, themselves, not terribly well informed.

Kyrademon

I begin to suspect your main goal is actually merely to deliberately waste our time anyway.

Bevets

The link was not addressed to you. It was addressed to caddis. My impression of people who post the SciAm article and run is that they probably havent trudged through the tedious SciAm article either. I did not request a point for point rebuttal on the link from you. You chose to do this on your own. My objective for the link was very limited. I also posted two other links in my first post. These links refer directly to the oringinal MeFi article and they have been ignored.
posted by bevets at 8:33 PM on December 21, 2005

December 20, 2005 10:24 PM Subscribe

December 20, 2005
10:24 PM Subscribe