Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

(sorry admn, I couldn't help myself)Edited by dronester, : No reason given.

Laugh if you like, but as you'll recall, you actually did say what I claimed you said, and I proved it from your own posts.When flat-out asked what you actually did mean to say, you evaded the question, proving it even further.

Just FYI, and for the record, you've come off exactly as someone who misunderstood somebody, got corrected on it, and refused to correct yourself.On multiple occasions....Like Rrhain and Holmes used to do...Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

When that genuinely happens, I do correct myself. I've provided an example of doing it. Obviously it can be embarrassing to admit error but I try to be someone who does it anyway. And I get a lot of practice!Probably nobody at EvC has admitted to being wrong more than I have. Of course, nobody believes that, because it doesn't fit in with the established popular conception of Crashfrog as an arrogant jerkoff, but it's true. I've not admitted to being wrong when I'm not wrong, but in those situations there's no reason for me to do so. I'm not wrong just because another person disagrees with me, and many times people have attempted to exploit my "admit when you're wrong" philosophy just to get me to cede the debate.The problem, here, is that you're taking Dronester and PurpleDawn at face-value when they say I've misinterpreted them, but its wrong to do so. There's no reason to privilege their own explanations about their own words over anybody else's. People say things that they later regret, and one way to try to avoid the embarrassment of having done so is to pretend that it's everybody else who made a mistake.But why should we allow them to do that? Especially since the forum guidelines disallow "any form of misrepresentation"? Nobody has ever been able to answer that question.I've never refused to correct myself when I was actually wrong. Not even once.

Not where I've seen it. The embassy thing and the latest one with Purpledawn, you were wrong about what they meant and have yet to admit it. You also have more posts that almost everybody. You're also just mean. But having admitted that you were wrong before doesn't mean that you're not arrogant and not a jerkoff, nor does it mean that for some situations you are unable to admit you were wrong.Hell, we could have a YEC that admits it every time they've spelled a word wrong be making the same claims as you are and going all: "See, I do admit when I'm wrong a lot!" I don't think so. For one, its implied in the rules here. Too, all we have is the words they type and in this limited medium, you're just gonna have to take people at face-value.The problem I have with you, and Rrhain and Holmes, is that you think that you can better understand what somebody meant from a few lines of text they've pecked out onto a forum better than they can know what they meant themselves.Since you can't read minds, what you think you're capable of is impossible. The reason is that they are the ones who wrote them and they are the only person that could possibly know what was going through their mind when they typed it and know what the really meant. That's what I see you doing. The medium is limited. You can't read minds. If they say that what you thought they meant is not really what they did mean, then you just have to accept that because there's no way for anybody else to know otherwise. You're also supposed to argue the position and not the person. When you start talking about what people really meant when they typed something, then you're arguing the person. You have with the embassy issue and with the latest one with Purpledawn. In these cases, we actually have the people who wrote the text telling you that what you thought they meant is not what they meant, and we also have other people uninolved in the discussion going back and rereading it all and see where you've made your mistake and how you misinterpreted it, and you still refuse to admit it.You can' t get much more adamant about refusing to admit error than that.

or indeed, a crashfrog witch hunt.The discussion problem is reported, who is to blame is not the topic of debate.

I'm discussing the problem, not the personalities, in compliance with Mod's request. And I've explained why I don't believe them. And we also have yet other people who agree with my interpretation and that Dronester was engaged in a misrepresentation.If I had actually been wrong, I would have admitted it. But I wasn't wrong. Dronester actually said what he said; I quoted it a substantial number of times. PD's simply given up trying to argue that she was "misinterpreted."

I've said what I wanted... I'd rather go agree with you about how shitty the cops are instead.

I appreciate your input.

Hi all!This thread is for bringing discussion problems to the attention of moderators, and that's been done. If anyone would like to continue the discussion they could start a Coffee House thread - no proposal is needed for that forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Never mindEdited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

The Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant? thread is no longer discussing the topic and should be considered for closure.--Percy

Could a mod please let Robert Byers know that he is off topic in the Creationist response to cetacean femur, leg atavism, and limb bud. thread? He is not adding anything of value to the conversation. He appears to be arguing that whale limb remnants are indeed proof of a terrestrial ancestry... but that this isn't evolution. This is along with a lot of essentially random noise. It's inane even by the standards of creationism and it's cluttering up Aaron's nice thread.Thanks.Mutate and Survive

New poster run amok: Message 45

He called Buzsaw an atheist!?
Message 93