|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
This is not a debate thread! This thread is provided for the general membership to present and discuss comments or concerns dealing with moderator procedures/actions or the need for moderator action. Anyone disrupting this process will lose access to this forum until the situation is resolved. Admins who have links to the "General Discussion..." topic in their signatures need to change the link. The previous versions, from first to last:
Change in Moderation?General discussion of moderation procedures General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7 General discussion of moderation procedures - Part General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0 General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0 General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0 General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 12.0 General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0 Edited by AdminPD, : Wording
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2668 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Re: your recent ruling.
Okay, Dubya's cheerleader, what is your plan? Furthermore, do you believe you are even remotely acting like an adult? Care to explain your seemingly INSANE position? From OB, Message 181. Trash talk? If not, please define trash talk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
molbio, my reaction to reading that thread was, "wow, what's gotten into her."
like it or not, there will always be some degree of trash-talk here, and two of those three are pretty much under the radar. but you lost your cool. try not to let stupid things people say on the internet get to you too much. PD's warning was at both of you, and looks entirely fair to me. it's just a warning to behave, not a suspension. edit: though it does look like he kept it going... Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
It is best not to make requests to a specific admin, but to allow any admin to respond. In any case, I responded.
I have suspended obvious Child for 24 hours, consistent with the warning of Message 178. Had it not been for that specific warning, I would not have given the suspension. It seems to me that there were two people goading each other. However, only one continued after the warning, so the penalty in the warning has been applied. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5855 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Dear Admin board,
I would like to make a complaint about AdminModulous who on my opinion is preventing my new topic about descent of testicles to be released. My opinion is that it is due to the fact that my post contradicts neodarwinian explanation of the phenomena and AdminModulous wants to stop it. Is there any unprejudiced institute or board here that could solve the problem of my post? I would like - if possible - to hear also an opinion from an admin who is not a neodarwinist. Thank you. My detained post: http://EvC Forum: Descent of testicles. -->EvC Forum: Descent of testicles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I read your post and AM's responses. He is simply asking you to flesh your OP out. This is standard operating procedure. If you are unwilling to work on your OP why should anyone think you will be willing to put a good effort into the discussion itself.
The requests are not terribly onerous. If this is such an important point why are you not willing to flesh the OP out with material that will be needed early on in the discussion anyway? It will just save a bit of time and stop using up some of the 300 posts getting to the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPaul Inactive Member |
I have read the exchange of posts, and also the original blog argument.
In my opinion AdminModulus was too generous. Your argument is inadequately developed and as it stands does not constitute a valid challenge to accepted ideas. More work is required before I would consider it for promotion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2890 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
Please, somebody, promote this NPT. It is very interesting, even for people like me who would not be able to comment.
MartinV, wasn't AdminModulous finally ready to accept the opening post,(OP) with a couple of citations supporting 1) and 2)? I think the confusion with the translation from German was a simple misunderstanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5855 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
I think that Modulous knows very well that I will defend my opinion in open discussion. You know it too. At the discussion about mimicry I used arguments from many prominent antidarwinian sources that have never been transalted into English and you never heard about them.
I suppose it was you who forced me to rewrite OP about "German idealistic morphology" several times and there were no discussion to the topic afterwards. I addresed my critic to your post also here: http://EvC Forum: Descent of testicles. -->EvC Forum: Descent of testicles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5855 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Have I to copy&paste sentences from doctor Myers article? And then I should translate passages from Adolf Portmanns "Dualitat der Geschlechter"? But I think it is against EvC rules. We should use here our own words, not copy/paste/translate, or am I wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5855 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Thank you for your support. I am fed up with neodarwinian admins here. They promote their neodarwinian stuff without hesitation. Or when you ask some stupid question a la 15 years old creationist they will open new thread immediately to show how stupid creationists are.
In the case they have no answer they will chicane you. The forum is obviously biased. I haven't read an admin opinion "Hello VMartin, I am admin and ID proponent, I think Behe and Davison are right, but I think that Modulous is right too and your post should be rewritten".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPaul Inactive Member |
There is no rule against quoting - only a rule about relying on quotes to make your argument (rather than providing supporting evidence).
Since the problem is that your argument has not been adequately made, further quotes would not address the issue. And in fact the blog entry does not provide support for your argument - indeed it raises difficulties which it would be good to address in your OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5855 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
And in fact the blog entry does not provide support for your argument - indeed it raises difficulties which it would be good to address in your OP.
I didn't claim it supports my argument. I claimed neodarwinism has no plausible explanation of the phenomena. Thats all. I don't need to address all neodarwinian explanation of phenomena, because dr. Myers have already done it in "the blog". All I needed was to address is the old "cooling spermatozoa" explanation. Do you think that arguments like: 1) moving testicles outside body is very dangerous solution for species2) many mammalian species do not need to cool their spermatozoa 3) birds with much more higher temperature as mammals do not cool their spermatozoa either 4) darwinists themselves admit that "cooling spermatozoa" explanation is - I quote the research - untestable!!! are not sufficient arguments for opening a thread for further discussion? What other arguments you would like me to bring?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPaul Inactive Member |
In the light of the information given in the blog post, I would like you to show that your points 2 and 3 have any relevance. At present you have offered no reason to think that they have. Testability is important but it does not impact the plausibility of the explanation, thus your point 4 is moot. And your first point - the only one left - is not sufficient as it stands to carry your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5855 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
The points 2) and 3) are very clear and easy to underestand. I really don't know how is it possible that they have no relevance on your opinion. Obviously spermatozoa could survive also in environment with higher temperature if they are forced to do so by environment. If testicles are outside the body then spermatozoa adapted to lower temperature and probably higher temperature would kill them - but I don't know. For instance many female species with hidden gravitidy - roe for instatnce - keep males spermatozoa inside their bodies several months before fertilization. For instance they mate in september but fertilization with spared sperms take effect at november or december. I don't know if sperms of deers are cooled inside roes, but I doubt about it. So this is the another argument for open discussion, don't you think so?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024