Anyone who attempts to engage Holmes finds themselves immediately sucked off-topic, having to defend themselves and the record against a ridiculously multiplying series of Holmes' dishonest distortions of their position. It happens to me, it happens to Schraf, it happens to FliesOnly. It's impossible, by Holmes' choice, to discuss any topic with him but this.
quote:Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
Yet, the response of the admins, rather than investigate the problem, is assume that all participants are equally guilty and threaten closures and suspensions. Why is that?
Look, maybe the three of us are the crazy ones. Can I get some kind of indication that the admins have actually gone through and investigated the recent past of what I believe to be a genuine problem poster, and simply not found the consistent history of distortions and misrepresentations that, to my reading, are all but impossible to miss?
Or, as I suspect, do the admins find the minutae of such conversations far too boring to bother to get involved in, and they're just taking the easy way out?
Ahh maybe you can explain how reposting YOUR OP and closing the thread for a short time to let everyone reread the OP is a "trick?" And just how was there anything to "fall for?"
I'm mad Remember? Not stupid. Prideful yes... I confess... and in that sense stupid.
All of these 'playing dumb' questions given by you, jar, and Ringo....
...you know, I never considered that you were all just dumb, because I do not believe that. I think it is intentional. How else do you explain the silliness of it all?
For better or worse, I am finding myself once again, inferior. If you do not understand, that is ok. You don't have to for everything I just said to be true. Let's just say, there are forces at work that deceive all of us.
The tests that I must pass, are far harder than you think.
Scottness, the problem I see is that you have trouble understanding the fact that most other people don't think like you. You have a habit of posting what others have described as preachings that are off-topic even though YOU are convinced that what you've posted is completely logical and so obviously on-topic that it is plasphemy to think otherwise.
If everybody else is telling you there is something wrong with your logical progression and that your messages are off-topic, instead of being defensive about it might I suggest you take the time to EITHER look back at your posts and see where something might be confusing to others OR explain further why such and such are related to such and such. Even if others are at fault for directly and intentionally misreading and misinterpreting your messages, taking it defensively like you've done will only send the wrong messages.
Like I said, you seem frustrated probably because some of these things seem to be obvious to you but for some reason noone else is getting it. It happens to the best of us.
I'll tell you someting Taz... If what I believe is true. And if everything I have said is accurate, barring the misunderstandings, I have no idea where such information belongs in terms of communicating.
This stuff is seminary level. But I am no seminarian. And that makes for lonely! It Thought the folks at EVC would get it. But brains ain't enough when it's a foreign language.
I apologize for any brow beating.... Think I'll take a break.
First, your reason for edit (in orange text) clearly states that it was only a suggestion. I looked up "suggestion" in one of my dictionaries and it said "an offering for consideration." That is how it was received. In all fairness, I believe you created the stink. But, I'm willing to let that go.
Second, your method(s) of suggesting a change amounted to stepping all over my original post, even if it only altered the appearance of the post itself. I'm sure that there were several other methods at your disposal, which would have accomplished your aims without becoming an abuse of your authority.
Third, I can understand that titles should reflect the content of the thread. But, I'm sure you can understand that some writers actually rely upon a bit of flair and artistic license, as it were, to attract responses. When you nitpick the wording, not only do you kill the spirit of the thread as it is developing, you also undermine the value of the forum itself. If you recall, AdminPhat didn't seem to have a problem with the title. In fact, he went along with the catch. Now, I'm almost sorry he put it under bible study.
As per your request, though. I would like to suggest "Censorship at its Finest" in an attempt to characterize the nobility in the decisions that must have gone into writing Page One of Genesis with such an obvious inconsistency that careful musings would have undoubtedly been the expected result. If that isn't to your liking then I would be at a loss. But, then I would politely ask you to leave it the way it was, and kindly reopen it.
AdminNosy closed the thread Random mutations shot down on this site last evening for a "cool down". Would someone mind re-opening it? I think sufficient time has elapsed. I'd like to finish replying, but I don't know when Nosy will be back on line. My alter ego doesn't feel right about re-opening it while I'm participating.
I posted this in the Coffee House forum because I felt that it really didn't address any aspect of the debate and was more of a side topic. If, however, the admins feel that it would work better in a different forum, I would still like to discuss this. I looked back on it and realised that the topic does have the appearance of being something of a joke, but I assure you this was done with complete sincerity. I was truly interested in the reason why Creationists continue arguing the same arguments to the point of exhaustion--of those on both sides.
I would like this thread to be reopened, and if need be in a different forum, but so that initial replies do not have to be lost such as if it were posted as a new PNT.
I thank you kindly for your consideration of my request, Jonathan A.