Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0

I thought maybe we could just turn the existing thread into a Great Debate but maybe it's too far along for that. If so, then Genomicus should propose the Great Debate. I wonder if we should preserve our exchange to this point by copying our respective posts into the new thread, or start with a new OP and go from there. This is a question, I'm not sure what the best approach would be. The more new posts get added to the existing thread the more swamped I'm getting.I'm not going to be able to participate for a few hours now anyway. ABE: (Plans seem to have changed for now, so maybe I'll try answering some of the posts on the existing thread) Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Abusive post by Dr A

Here's another charmer from Dr. A who really should get more than a wrist slap for doing this to so many of us so frequently. This isn't debate. Perhaps it should be called hate speech.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm debating as honestly as I can and Dr. A's typical insults are distracting and offensive: Message 30 (I responded to him in Message 31.)Also it appears I used the wrong thread for my last objections to insults. They should have been on this thread. That's 836 and 837 on the Discuss Moderation thread.Thanks.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I routinely put up with PaulK's snarling venom-dripping personal attacks, but I don't see why I should. He seems incapable of making a point about the topic without accusing me of something. I'm finally complaining about this latest one.Thanks for your attention.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Wish to register a complaint about dwise here

I suppose I should have a tougher hide by now but it seems to be getting thinner rather than tougher. For that reason I don't really expect anything to be done about my complaints, but it makes me feel better to register them.In this case, Dwise at message 126 on the OEC-YEC thread for his last two sentences which in my opinion step over the line into personal attack. PaulK's message 125 right above it deserves a dishonorable mention for unfair debate tactics. And NoNukes has been way over the line just in attitude in many posts on the thread, though he seems to have had a change of heart in his latest.Thanks for your ear.

Here's one that's nothing but assertion, insinuation, accusation and foul language by jar

Phat closed the Gay Marriage thread. I'm not exactly complaining about that but I've been having a terrific problem with LamarkNewAge on that thread for days that I was finally taking on and THEN the thread gets closed. NO, I don't want it reopened but I'd like to try to describe what's been going on there.In message 1016 he said What question? He never explains what he means.{He often says I'm "ignoring" this or that as if I have some reason to ignore it, that is, he ACCUSES me of this as some kind of misbehavior, when if I DID ignore it the reason would be that I can't make sense of most of what he says. Then he objects to THAT as if it isn't really true. True, but what he did say was that somehow Alabama/Wallace represent my point of view about "Christian civilization." He directly misrepresented me as having the following opinion: "the "Christian civilization" that you feel the south superbly represents." It is a straight-out lie to say I "feel" anything of the sort. I've said NOTHING about the South at all, NOTHING, let alone that I think it "superbly represents" Christian civilization. LNA makes it all up. This has gone on for days now.Finally Moose at least commented (in message 1007) that LNA isn't making much sense, but I've been having to endure days of his saying I said things I've never said.He goes on with another bizarre statement: I searched "California" to see if there's anything I did say that he could have read this way. I found a post on another thread -- not even one mention on the Gay Marriage thread -- where I say I have liberal family who live in California, which, being a liberal state, explains why they are all liberal. I don't know if this is what he has in mind or not, but it's far from his statement that I "keep talking about how bad California is compared to the red states." What?Then another incomprehensible misrepresentation: He doesn't quote me, doesn't give a link, but these are not words I recall using. "Anti-democracy ideologies?" MAYBE I said something that vaguely fits the notion but he just says it flat out, implying I used those very words, and I haven't a clue what he means, but if I say that I'll get accused of something like not wanting to know.This has to be the most crazy-making experience I've ever had with a debater. It's some kind of weird nightmare.Then: Lemme see. This COULD reflect comments I've made about how unpopular Christianity is these days? How popular gay marriage is? But is there a single statement anywhere that I've made that is fairly characterized as that I "keep saying how brave {I am to defend [my] rights?" What does he mean by my "loaded premises?" I have NO clue. WHAT "loaded premises. And I don't even know what he means that I keep making arguments and he keeps asking questions. What questions? What "prerequisites? But not a clue what those premises might be. I'm supposed to be a mind reader? What? What? Did I? Maybe I did, the problem is it's impossible to follow any of it.It's hard to describe what this is that LNA does, that's why I'm quoting him directly. I don't know what to call this problem, it's just getting hard to take his imputing things to me I've never said or thought and accusing me of things I' don't recognize at all.There is no way to have a conversation with LNA that I see. But whether I ignore him or try patiently to answer him the problem never stops.I know comments here are to be brief but I don't know how to convey anything about this weird situation without doing it this way.Is there any way to stop this?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In case it was misunderstood, Message 530 was about a discussion problem, not a moderation problem. it may be taken care of now but getting it described wasn't easy so I hope someone will at least read it. Thanks.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'd suspect that Dr. Adequate gets away with more rules-breaking than anyone else on this forum. (jar is a close second). I just got pushed past my tolerance level with this post from the Evolution is a Racist Doctrine thread: You are a silly little liar, aren't you? For a while he was pretty much confining himself to accusing everybody of "making stuff up." He may believe this but I haven't seen any truth in any of it myself, and it's tiresome to click on a post title to encounter this kind of drivel (to use another of his favorite terms). I personally have a lot of problems just making sense out of Davidjay's posts, and I think he makes quite a few errors of fact, but being a liar isn't something I'd accuse him of.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Jar did it again. A post that's nothing but a slur on his opponent. Plus the usual statement of his own opinion as if it were fact. Everybody does this once in a while, I certainly have done it (though I've been really good for a while now) but for jar it's just about his M.O. and this one was one of those last straws for me: Being called willfully ignorant and dishonest over and over gets VERY wearing, not to mention that it's against the rules.ABE: And in Message 185 We find him calling me a liar again, based only on his different opinion that is the subject of the debate.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Jar will not stop calling me a liar and ignorant. If you will not suspend him and if he doesn't stop I'm going to keep throwing it back at him because he deserves it. I'll happily take a suspension myself for my Message 331 (and others) if you'll give him the LENGTHY suspension he so richly deserves for his Message 329(actually this sequence starts at 325) and his ongoing offenses of the same type. This little side trip continues through message 339, I hope that's the end of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Pressie also has a bad habit of making personal comments. To a post of mine on a book about the Grand Canyon he replied with a personal comment. He very rarely ever comments on the content of anything. Message 356 on the True History of the FloodThank you for your attention to this and to the jar problem; if he stops it we'll be fine. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I am VERY tired of being called a liar. In this case it's Taq doing it:
EvC Forum: The TRVE history of the Flood...
EvC Forum: The TRVE history of the Flood...
EvC Forum: Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?
EvC Forum: Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?SORRY I can't seem to get the right links. I'll have to come back to this.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.