TrueCreation writes:
I am just saying that it appears unfair that Randy can make assertions in his first post that are not on his own topic and let them go unrefuted because it would be off topic to refute them.
Clearly I was not saying that, and I don't believe you really thought that's what I was saying.
I'm going to explain it one more time, but I'm also going to suspend you for 24 hours to make clear that the responsibility for contributing productively to discussion lies with you and is not mitigated by the amount of energy you're willing to devote to obfuscation. And also to make clear that I was serious when I requested you take moderation issues to the appropriate thread.
Since you'll probably claim I misunderstood you, let me also say that if you insist on jousting with moderators about the
Forum Guidelines then it is incumbent upon you to ensure you make your point very clearly. We don't have infinite time and we're not perfect. We attempt to run the site for the benefit of all, and those who begin to attract too large a percentage of moderator time often find themselves with frequent temporary suspensions. It might not even be something the member is consciously aware of, but the moderator team cannot possibly accomodate themselves to the wide variety of idiosyncracies of the member population. While many of the moderators stand willing and ready to explain things in detail to those who ask, the history of such attempts is that mostly only the permanently and incorrigibly disgruntled and/or bewildered ask. And so we have come to the point where those who can't get with the program are encouraged to find other venues.
The question that is the topic of this thread is posed to Creationist scenarios that require water to be added to the total volume of water already on earth. The question wouldn't even come up if these scenarios did not exist. It isn't that you're not permitted to mention that there are scenarios that don't require added water. That's a very interesting and relevant point to raise in this thread. But educating us about such scenarios does not address the thread's question.
If Randy made an error of fact or logic in his opening post then you're certainly permitted to rebut or correct it, but that doesn't change the nature of the question he asked, or the lack of relevance of your scenario to his question. Alternatively, perhaps you can show he asked the wrong question. Or perhaps there are other aspects of his question that deserve consideration that haven't yet been recognized.
Bottom line: I want straight talk here, not a run-around, and certainly not charges that I'm prohibiting rebuttal when I'm trying to keep a thread on-topic. New threads can always be proposed. Any viewpoint is permitted as long as you follow the
Forum Guidelines, and number 1 is to follow moderator requests. This didn't even used to be a rule, but too many times moderators were treated like potted plants, or even worse, like someone else to debate, only with the topic being the
Forum Guidelines. Gee, just like now!
It isn't the moderators' job to convince someone they're wrong before taking action. It is the members' job to follow moderator requests, and if they really don't like them and think they're unfair then there are plenty of other venues out there.
You're a good kid, Chris, extremely bright and likable, but don't bullshit me.
| -- | Percy |
| | EvC Forum Director |
™ Version 4.2