Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 151 of 683 (601214)
01-19-2011 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Huntard
01-19-2011 7:57 AM


Re: Spam
Can you click on "Back", then click on the "reload/refresh" button, then try again? Let me know if that helps.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2011 7:57 AM Huntard has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 152 of 683 (601224)
01-19-2011 10:03 AM


Test
Test
Now it works. Not ideal to do that everytime though.
Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Admin, posted 01-19-2011 10:21 AM Huntard has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 153 of 683 (601227)
01-19-2011 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Huntard
01-19-2011 10:03 AM


Re: Test
Huntard writes:
Now it works. Not ideal to do that everytime though.
Glad it worked!
If you do find you have to do it every time then let me know, because that means the problem isn't what I think it is. What I think happened is that the first time you visited EvC after starting IE that something interrupted the loading of that first webpage, and somehow the JavaScript file never loaded. Browsers only load a website's JavaScript files once the first time the website is accessed, so from that point on you were working without benefit of EvC's JavaScript code, which is only needed for a certain subset of functions, button clicking being one of them.
I think I'll add a suggestion to that message to try clicking "reload/refresh." Thanks for the info!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2011 10:03 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Panda, posted 01-20-2011 6:23 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 154 of 683 (601378)
01-20-2011 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Admin
01-19-2011 10:21 AM


Re: Test
chenchen21621 is a spammer.
See message Message 88.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Admin, posted 01-19-2011 10:21 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 155 of 683 (601514)
01-20-2011 10:57 PM


spammer
new user finalsky is a spammer
{Fixed - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 156 of 683 (601680)
01-23-2011 12:26 AM


He's back
He's back.
Message 1
Post numbers seem messed up though.

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Huntard, posted 01-23-2011 2:54 AM Coyote has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 157 of 683 (601685)
01-23-2011 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Coyote
01-23-2011 12:26 AM


Re: He's back
Also, this seems to be Theodoric's promoted thread Rapture May 21, 2011 from the "proposed new topics" forum, which now bear's Dennis's normally used title. Something went rather wrong here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Coyote, posted 01-23-2011 12:26 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Admin, posted 01-23-2011 8:50 AM Huntard has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 158 of 683 (601694)
01-23-2011 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Huntard
01-23-2011 2:54 AM


Re: He's back
I introduced a bug with yesterday's update, now fixed. I expect AdminPD will try to promote Theodoric's thread again next time she's here.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Huntard, posted 01-23-2011 2:54 AM Huntard has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 159 of 683 (602840)
02-01-2011 4:02 AM


percy's late of action
What I know is that you seem to have a blind spot for your own snark, and that despite the many times I have advised you to refrain from responding in kind so that a moderator can take action that you never do that.
If you focus on the topic and follow the Forum Guidelines then the moderators will be on your side. Moderators don't care about the position, they care about whether a participant is contributing or hindering discussion, and the Forum Guidelines are our guide in this respect. One of our moderators, slevesque, is a creationist. I've CC'd him. The relevant message is Message 711, you'll have to click on "peek" to see the content, the prior message is Message 703.
-- Percy
EvC Forum Director
Percy, I gave you a list of more than 10 posts in one thread alone, including these gems, of which you have taken absolutely no action:
Dr. A to
post:
"The fact that someone more knowledgeable than you finds your gibberish downright embarrassing to read ... supports your position?
Perhaps you could explain why. Or perhaps you could post more gibberish. Only time will tell, although I believe that I can guess. "
and this:
"You are, of course, wrong. (that was his entire post!)
and this:
"So you are unable or unwilling to produce any argument that might even appear to support your gibberish.
Yeah, well, you are a creationist. "
and
"The prediction that any attempt to defend creationism will be ignorant, stupid, dishonest, or all three simultaneously is once again confirmed. " (Again his entire post! This is contributing to the discussion????)
and finally this:
"No, apparently there is a third option. You could gibber out dishonest equivocations on the word "random", and we could laugh at you.
You silly little man. " (once again, this is all he had to add to the forum! unbelievable!)
Cavediver wrote:
"I'm sorry, but even if he does explain himself, Shapiro is still an idiot for using the term "non-random" in this context. But then, BD has made it quite clear that he only wants to use idiot-speak, so probably best if you don't mention big words like "distribution" and "probability" as they will only upset him.
Theodoric wrote:
"To Shadow, Bolder and their ilk it is not important want Shapiro meant. What matters is how the can manipulate the language of what he said to meet their needs. Honesty and integrity means nothing."
Now are you telling me that all of these posts are an acceptable standard to use of this forum? Are they content worthy, on topic and respectful?
Because you sure as heck have not taken any action whatsoever for these posts, so one can only assume that this is acceptable?
And then you send a private message to me, saying that the problem is all mine?
So give a straight answer this time instead of always trying to direct the blame to me. Are these other posts acceptable or not? YES or NO?
Did you take any action at all regarding any of these posts? So I can use their standard in the future since you have not repudiated these posts?
Claiming your moderation is applied equally doesn't make it so Percy. Does it get any more obvious than this?
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Admin, posted 02-01-2011 8:53 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 164 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-10-2011 7:27 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 160 of 683 (602847)
02-01-2011 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Bolder-dash
02-01-2011 4:02 AM


Re: percy's late of action
Hi Bolder-dash,
First I want to thank you for finally using the proper venue for bringing discussion issues to the attention of moderators.
Before seeing this post I posted some hopefully helpful information over at the Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution thread, see Message 723. The main point is that I'm not moderating that thread. That's why I sent you PMs instead of posting to the thread, at least until I realized you hadn't seen the PMs.
My advice has not changed. Focus on the topic and follow the Forum Guidelines and everything will go fine for you. Do not respond in kind, as you've proudly boasted you're so good at. As I've said before, once a thread has become prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell who, if anyone, started it. Usually it's a gradual escalation with no clear line of demarcation. Moderators have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
Here's a simple analogy that might help you see how things look to moderators. Say you're driving on the highway and a driver forces you out of your lane, so you respond and force him out of his lane. A policeman sees all this and pulls you both over. You'll both get tickets. In other words, being transgressed upon is not a free ticket for committing your own transgressions. Plus you may have been in the other driver's blind spot, and while he most certainly should have been more careful, his offense was likely inadvertent, while yours was premeditated and purposeful.
This kind of tit-for-tat escalation is common at discussion boards. It seems to be an inherent property of the format.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-01-2011 4:02 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 161 of 683 (602871)
02-01-2011 12:30 PM


Incompetent signature spammer
Message 111

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 683 (604026)
02-09-2011 4:49 PM


Uneven Playing Field
Debate in Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? has become a venture into futility, in that the one against the pack, quarterbacked by Admin constitute an uneven playing field.
This sort of "riding herd" on the scanty creationist constituency here at EvC, Admin, actively debating the opposition PoV in debate on the topic is a new dimension of moderating, so far as I am aware. Is that what we are to expect in the debates where a lot is at stake, ideologically for both sides of the debate here at at EvC (Evolution vs Creationism)?
In Admin's last admonition, I'm even singled out for my spelling of "empirically," because I got one letter wrong in the word.
I've been doing spell check throughout the thread, clicking "ignore" for the numerous spelling mistakes of some of the pack. I'm no more empirically correct in spelling than others in the pack who occasionally miss spell check. Certainly there's not enough spelling errors in this thread to be singled out for a mistake.
Not one iota of my cited evidence has been deemed even a tad bit supportive to the Exodus event when, in fact, my counterparts frequently debated strawment evidence for their own positions.
Of course, I fully understand what's at stake in this thread for the pack. All it would take to topple their secularist mindset is one itty bitty bonafide Biblical miracle.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 163 of 683 (604038)
02-09-2011 7:00 PM


I originally posted this in the"Peanut Gallery", but having thought it over I think that it belongs here rather than there:
Petrophysics, who declares himself a deist, wishes to debate RAZD, also a deist.
Fair enough.
But in his OP petrophysics does not quarrel with anything at all that RAZD has ever said. Instead, petrophyiscs says:
* "the atheists here, who have no evidence for their position"
* "strong or absolute atheists are hidding behind their keyboard"
* "I have looked for months here where the atheists could present no evidence."
If he has a beef with atheists, then he should man up and pick an intellectual fight with atheists. Instead, he has used the "Great Debate" forum as a way to hit at atheists where we are not allowed to answer back.
And having hidden behind the forum rules, he tops this off by accusing atheists of "hidding behind their keyboard".
This is an abuse of the "Great Debate" format.
Suppose that Straggler and I asked for a "Great Debate" where we should discuss whether creationists are knaves or fools. Suppose that you allowed that. I think that the moderators should not allow that, but even if they did it would be an abuse of that privilege for me to say that creationists were "hiding behind their keyboards" because they did not answer me on a thread on which the moderators forbade them to answer me.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 164 of 683 (604135)
02-10-2011 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Bolder-dash
02-01-2011 4:02 AM


Ode To People Who Can Dish It Out But Can't Take It
Off-topic poem hidden. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Hide content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-01-2011 4:02 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 165 of 683 (604634)
02-13-2011 4:51 PM


Monsterspaghettiflying is a snot sucking spammer
Monsterspaghettiflying is a lower than whale snot spammer.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024