Group action vs afdave

Statement: We have decided not to participate with afdave in online discussions until he starts to participate honestly.

Explanation:

Examples:

Participants: Black5,

afdave honesty check: 2008/02/02 [day 47: honest days 1, absent days 1]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

afdave says “You DO believe that diatoms are still blooming and settling (I agree), but you have not yet provided a multi-year test which demonstrates the reality of the 1:1 correspondence.“

As improvius says “This has been clearly “demonstrated” via C14 measurements“. Data which afdave also ignores. These are the curves afdave can and will not provide an answer for.

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: cowardly avoidance + afdave law #4

afdave honesty check: 2008/02/01 [day 46: honest days 1, absent days 1]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

afdave says “Lasting Damage’s claim is that 6mm laminae–some as deep as 162cm (400 years old by your “clock”)–will somehow get compressed to 1mm or less over the next 20,000 or so years. But there is no support for this idea.” Note he is still avoiding the article ‘Pressure and Compaction in the Rock Physics Space‘ Occam’s Aftershave provided yesterday.

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: cowardly avoidance

afdave honesty check: 2008/01/31 [day 45: honest days 1, absent days 1]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

afdave says “Also, where do we get this idea that sediments under water are compressible in the first place? We’re talking about fairly incompressible materials here … Clay particles, sand, silt, diatoms, etc. Are we to believe that the 3-6mm layers discussed by Kato are compressed 5-10 fold? Not very believeable. Sounds like story telling.“

After some semantics, dodging and ignoring common sense examples afdave says “You guys are just story telling and story telling and story telling. You can’t get a 6mm layer to compress down to 1mm by compression and water removal. This argument is dead. And it leaves you with quite a conundrum for your supposedly reliable Lake Suigetsu ‘clock.’“

Here’s an example of the posts afdave ignores while continuing to make his claim on sediment incompressibility:

• Seven Popes willing to bet afdave $1,000 that he can do this with clay and demonstrate it over a webcast.
• Occam’s Aftershave finding thousands of papers and articles on sediment compressibility (it is critical to the petroleum industry) with a 30 second google search. Including this one on ‘Pressure and Compaction in Rock Physics Space‘.

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: cowardly avoidance + afdave law #1 & 4

afdave honesty check: 2008/01/30 [day 44: honest days 1, absent days 1]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

afdave says “This was obviously a case of Lasting Damage making stuff up“.

After getting raked over the coals by many other users for saying this afdave retracts his initial statement saying “OK LD … So you didn’t make anything up.“

Making a retraction is actually an honest thing and I’ll give afdave some credit for that. However, I think his retraction is disingenuous. For someone who very rarely admits error despite evidence, logic and common sense countering his claims and who NEVER provides evidence for his claims for afdave to tell Lasting Damage “It would sure be nice if you would admit error sometimes … Might help me think you are not just making things up.” is hypocrisy at its best.

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: being a hypocrite.

afdave honesty check: 2008/01/29 [day 43: honest days 1, absent days 1]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

afdave claims to have missed the answer to ‘why do the cores disagree’. Note his post comes immediately after Lasting Damage’s post explaining why the cores disagree. afdave mentions that he is on a blackberry and might miss some posts but additionally he is “trying to pay particularly close attention to LD’s posts“.

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: cowardly avoidance

afdave honesty check: 2008/01/28 [day 42: honest days 1, absent days 1]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

afdave says “I have been asked many times “Why do the curves agree?” and I am investigating this and I am closer to an answer than I was 6 months ago.” and when asked for an approximate ETA on this investigation he says “6 more months? Hopefully less.”

Now considering that many people have asked afdave many times over the last 6 months and longer why do the curves agree and afdave hasn’t provided or even acknowledged the question until now I think these statements count as dishonest. If afdave ever comes back with an answer which he can back with evidence, logic and common sense I will retract this daily dishonest note for afdave.

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: cowardly avoidance + afdave law #2

afdave honesty check: 2008/01/27 [day 41: honest days 1, absent days 1]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

Responding to Lasting Damage’s comment “still, it will be interesting to see how* he supports his claim that all the leaves in the Suigetsu study had multiple dates thousands of years apart and how the lab managed to fudge the dates so precisely that they correlated with numerous other features, many of which hadn’t even been studied yet. *if he does.” afdave replies “Wait, LD, my precise scientific friend … Did I claim that? Or did I suggest it as a not-very-likely possibility?“

Is afdave being honest? No, because regarding the leaves in the Suigetsu study afdave originally said “Well … I haven’t ruled out “manipulation” of 200 data points, though I think it’s unlikely. I do think it is possible the lab tekkies could have taken these 200 leaves (they were mostly leaves weighing roughly 1000 mg each), tested a 2 mg bit of leaf #1, seen that it was way too far from the “expected age” and scrapped it, got another 2mg bit of the same leaf, and so on until they got a date which was in the ballpark of the “expected age” and proceeded in this manner through all 200 samples. I mean really … what safeguards are in place to prevent this from occurring? After all, the labs want to know what age they are shooting for. We’ve established that already. And we know they scrap results that are “off” and chalk it up to “contamination” … so why is this scenario not a possibility?” As Lasting Damage points out “This doesn’t look very ‘not likely’ to me!”

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: invoking the great global atheist scientist conspiracy

afdave honesty check: 2008/01/26 [day 40: honest days 1, absent days 1]

I could not find any posts by afdave. This counts as an absent day.