General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')

Who are these 'others' and can you link examples of them stalking you?

Message 283Message 286

I guessmaybe you need to look up the word "stalk'. I don't think you understand the meaning.

See belowEdited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

I guess I would say that actually trying to get a straight answer out of someone is at least as productive and respectful as replying to direct questions with a series of ever-changing but nicely formatted charts, and tables.I would also like to take this opportunity to point out your own relentless proclivity to mischaracterise the arguments of others by translating what is said to you into pure IF THEN type deductive logical arguments.This is particularly inappropriate and arguably dishonest when your opponents have explicitly stated that they are NOT relying on such deductions (e.g. when they are applying inductive reasoning).Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggles Even when you inject it into a new thread where it is unrelated to the topic? When you are more concerned with nailing someone than discussing the topic?You don't just try to get a straight answer on a thread where it is the topic, you take it to extremes, posting it in unrelated threads and making disparaging comments. That is where the stalking comes in.You can't keep to a topic because you are more interested in attacking people than the issues. And when you mock someone in the process you are not really asking them for help are you? Certainly you don't think mockery is respectful approach to getting an answer do you?So you don't really want an answer with that kind of approach, you want to discredit them.You do realize that your approach invites disrespect in return don't you? Thus, as predicted, even when you get an answer to your question you mock it. Of course YOUR position is always consistent and never-changing ... Because you don't really want an answer with that kind of approach, you want to discredit them. That address the issue on the topicBut it's okay if you do it? But it does address\discuss the issues rather than mock the person.Inductive reasoning is your latest gambit to sound technical and scientific. Mix it in with a bunch of jumbled together scientific sounding words like "objectively detectable" and you can impress some people.Inductive reasoning is guessing. Inductive reasoning gets you as far as an hypothesis in science, so if ALL you are using is inductive reasoning then all you are doing is posing hypothetical questions. If you claim to have a theory then you necessarily need to have moved from inductive guessing of the hypothesis to deduction and testing -- a theory is a tested hypothesis.So do you want a venting session or do you want to get in a piss and dis fight with people or do you want to discuss topics .... you need to make up your mind Straggles.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : No reason given.Edited by Zen Deist, : No reason given.

I'm asking for reconsideration of the banning of my science and PNT privileges. Where evidence is required I supply it. The problem is that I delve into the real creationist kind of events that nobody else will tackle, that which involves the supernatural.The type of evidence I cite is real physical evidence in the threads which I participate in. The fact is that there is not an evolutionist here who would admit to anything I cite as evidence, no matter how empirical it would be.
For that reason, I maintain that the people here should see what some of the different creationist arguments are, whether they agree or not.A perfect example is the fulfilled prophecies. I've cited a number of fulfilled prophecies whether anyone admits to it or not that no one else touches. Prophecy is not taught in the seminaries to any extent. What I have to show, whether agreed to or not is interesting, not only to the membership, but to lurkers who've never even been apprised of them in most of the church pulpits.There are flood arguments, the Exodus, evolution and other science topics which creationists like me who may have some unusual perspectives can contribute interesting input.For example, a number of years ago I did establish that if the sun were created relatively suddenly it would have had to appear beyond the protostar stage, having the appearance of age.Another is the unique manner in which I debunk the YEC myth Biblically.I believe I could contribute some reasonable canopy atmosphere arguments, were I given the opportunity to delve further into that hypothesis.Buzsaw

Complaining that people won't accept your evidence isn't at all the same thing as actually citing it.

This is not a discussion topic but I will just comment that if you want the restrictions to be lifted it is a good idea to indicate that you will not continue to engage in the same behaviour that got the restrictions imposed. Indicating that you WILL go on in the same way is a very bad idea. And that is exactly what you have done.Until you make a good faith effort to understand WHY your "evidence" is being rejected I very much doubt that you will be let back into the Science forums.As for the PNT forum, twice in a row you scrapped a topic rather than construct a decent proposal, wasting moderator time. I suspect that you won't get that privilege back either until the moderator team see signs of good faith from you. Displays of bad faith, like the above message are not going to help your case.

I scrapped because Admin demands empirical evidence from me. None other need apply, whereas evolutionists and BBists are permitted to debate theoretical non-physically visible notions such as the singularity and multi-verses.There's a thread going now in the science forum about studying the supernatural. I can't participate. The evolutionists there are arguing that the supernatural can't be physically observed. Well, la-de-da, neither can multi-verse theory.More physical evidence by me has been cited, supportive to the supernatural than Cavediver, et al has cited (none) for the multi-verse science fiction myth. Your side can tout your non-evidenced theories til the cows come home. Edited by Buzsaw, : Changed wording for clarification.

It's very simple Buz. You were banned from the science forums because you were unable to understand why your evidence was rejected. And so long as your idea of discussing it is to slander all the people who showed that your evidence wasn't any good you are not going to be let back in.If you actually bother to look back at your scrapped PNT's you will see that your real problem was that all you wrote was a long-winded intro that hardly touched on the actual topic. And you aren't going to get your privileges back in PNT until Percy is convinced you'll make a good faith effort to change that too.

Nobody could show that my evidence was no good because it could not be debated. Your all the people was not all of the people. It was a few of you more vindictive secularistic non-creationist people who think evidence of stuff like multi-verses (none) is really, really good, to be touted while researched physical evidence at Aqaba, along with corroborating land evidence is not even supportive evidence.Tell me, PaulK. Be honest. Which evidence is more physical, falsifyable and observable, the Exodus or Multi-Verse theory?

If your evidence was so good, or even real, you wouldn't need to build up strawman arguments about subjects you know nothing about (anything related to cosmology) that have rarely, if ever, been debated at length at EvC. You arguments should stand on there own, not rely on what you hope to be a failing of another branch of science.This is precisly why you are banned from the sub-forums that you are.... not to mention that you don't even realize it even though every single member tells you the exact same thing.