A letter to GilDodgen, responding to this:
I, Hermagoras, am banned at Uncommon Descent but apparently still discussion-worthy. Indeed, a whole post devoted to refuting someone (me) who is not allowed to respond. You guys are certainly committed to fair debate!*[Update, not in letter to GilDodgen: amazingly, I now find that this comment made it through. I could have sworn it was in the moderation queue when I got banned.]
I was trying to make a fairly simple point, which I would have thought IDers agree with: that all observations and all "facts" are theory-laden. It's simple enough. I elaborated it in a post which Dembski apparently thought was off-topic and led him [to] ban me in precisely the terms I previously discussed on my blog. Hilarious. Then continued discussion (again I can't respond) about how I'm trying to be the clever one.
Nothing in my banned posts was
wereinflammatory, although I was annoyed at that ass Jehu for insulting my education. Perhaps I got a little to[o] technical on some rhetorical issues. In another comment that may have led to the banning, I disagreed with scordova on equivocation. (Shallitt and Ellsberry were not equivocating.)*
Frankly, I don't know why I was banned. I'm just guessing. Your leader never gives a reason. Instead he waves his hand [and] notes that I'm "no longer with us." Well, I guess I'm with the terrorists then.
Anyway, I'll avoid the lesson in rhetoric and just quote your own writing:these facts certainly do speak for themselves, and they say that
Please read that a couple of times slowly. Let me know when the contradiction becomes apparent.
Further Update: Edited for various typos in my letter. Should have proofread; measure twice, cut once and all that. Changes marked with [brackets] and