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

Aren't you ignoring the title? After all, the reason this thread exists is because the OP asked the question in the title in a thread in which the question was off topic.

We were off topic, IMO, and I normally don't agree with AdminPD about these things.The issue of whether Lutherans were Protestants was raised in response to a comment regarding Protestants and not their canon. It eventually turned out that you intended Protestant to refer to a particular group of evangelicals all of whom use the same Bible that Lutherans and other major Protestant groups use.

If Chaoticskunk is really Artemis, then his claims to not know the rules because he just got here were all lies. He has claimed not to know how summary mode worked, not to understand the policy on name calling when name calling is something Artemis frequently did, and not to know the posters in the forum.I engaged Mr. Skunk's arguments in good faith, and now feel foolish for having bitten on a 55 message troll scheme.

quote:

---

Another handicap I have in debating with most folks on here is that everyone seems to have immersed themselves in the "progressive" "socialist" talking points.

---

I don't know what to make of this part of your post. I can understand the point about the frustrations of being in the minority, but if I remove the dismissive, name calling rhethoric from the above, what remains is a complaint that your debating opponents know the subject matter better than you, or at least are more successful at researching the subject than you.So how would we solve something like that?You seem to be utterly convinced that left leaners are idiots. And that opinion comes through loud and strong in your posts, including this one.

"This is extremely frustrating for an inarticulate guy like me who knows instinctually what he believes but cannot put it succinctly into words." Reads more like a tautology to me.

I think the Creationist get some extra leeway because they are, by and large, incapable of defending themselves properly in the science forum. They must evade, miss the point (deliberately or helplessly) use bad arguments, and insist that they are misunderstood. The result ought to be that Creationists function as a foil for those providing proper arguments. It is the rare creationist that is not easy pickings even when the topic is history or the Bible.But then we screw that up by acting badly ourselves. We make bad arguments, call each other names, and generally make it difficult to defend the proposition that Creation Science makes no case. I'm as guilty as anyone else of jumping the shark. This statement of Phat's however is just flat out wrong. If everyone had the same standard for participation, the arguments would quickly get to the point. Nobody's mind would change, but the core areas of difference would be identified. Interesting example. But, yes I've been pretty tough on some non Creationists. Maybe I should have let go of Tangle a bit more quickly.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Wasn't trying to be patronizing. If I told you that you were still wrong about Popper's position would that help? Is that patronizing enough?

When creationist resort to that, it is as close as they are going to come to acknowledging defeat. It can be frustrating, but few people ever admit defeat on the internet. At least that's been my experience since the early nineties.

Her disagreements seem quite purposeful to me.Sure has been quiet here over the last 24 hours.

I don't like to criticize moderation in public. This may be my first time doing so here.From Message 435I understand what you are getting at, but isn't such a rule going to crush discussion in several of the forums? It is important to be able to cite the Bible in the Accuracy and Inerrancy forum of course. But also we need freedom to do that in the Geology and the Great Flood forum, and the Origin of Life forum.In at least those forums, the relevancy of what is discussed in the Bible is obvious, but I'm hard pressed to think of any of the science forum where a citation of the Bible would not be relevant. If you look at the descriptions below each forum title, most of the science forums talk about a debate between Biblical and scientific versions of the truth.I'd recommend either limiting your rule to a single thread, or using a more complicated rule about when Bible references are allowed. But your current rule seems to be born out of frustration, and it is surely not meant to be followed literally.

Right, admin. And I certainly agree that Faith was over the line in the forum in which you gave your warning.However telling people not to bring up Bible topics is hardly the same thing as your long standing rule against using the Bible to support a scientific argument. A perfectly acceptable post in say, the Accuracy and Inerrancy topic would be one that described a Biblical topic and explain why it did or did not happen as described. A rebuttal that claimed that the Bible did not actually say that would also seem to be allowable. Your statement to " avoid references to Biblical topics ... in any thread' would seem to rule out the entire discussion. It seems quite likely that you don't actually mean you you said.I don't expect you to acknowledge that you crossed the line with your warning. It's pretty clear that we can continue to discuss things like how many allele's can be present in a species if the Bible is correct in an appropriate thread in the scientific forum, regardless of what you recently posted.

Methyl mercury vs. ethyl mercury? Both you and Faith have something to say about this with you providing most of the facts and Faith just allusions to the movie without any hard facts. Perhaps some cites to the scientific literature on this topic.

There is no point to taking his post as anything more than a peek into a particular creationists thought processes. No substantive response to his post is necessary.

Percy hasn't posted to EvC in about two weeks. Perhaps he is vacationing?

Assuming this to be correct, an incorrect argument is still not an off topic argument.