Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-20-2017 1:36 AM
348 online now:
Pressie (1 member, 347 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,127 Year: 23,733/21,208 Month: 1,698/2,468 Week: 207/822 Day: 0/82 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3132
33
3435
...
42Next
Author Topic:   Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0
Faith
Member
Posts: 26275
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 481 of 622 (783657)
05-07-2016 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 480 by jar
05-07-2016 11:44 AM


Re: thread lengths and limiting participants
I get your point but there are people on the opposing side who are just about guaranteed to give me headaches, ulcers and fits. If I don't want to be trapped with a particular opponent how about an opt-out possibility.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by jar, posted 05-07-2016 11:44 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by jar, posted 05-07-2016 12:01 PM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 482 of 622 (783658)
05-07-2016 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by Faith
05-07-2016 11:50 AM


Re: thread lengths and limiting participants
Why?

Sorry but I don't see that as at all reasonable. When in a discussion the goal is to respond to the opponents arguments, not the opponents personality.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Faith, posted 05-07-2016 11:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Faith, posted 05-07-2016 12:29 PM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26275
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 483 of 622 (783665)
05-07-2016 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by jar
05-07-2016 12:01 PM


Re: thread lengths and limiting participants
Apparently I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about their personality, I'm talking about the irrelevance or illogic or strawmanning or game-playing of their typical arguments.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by jar, posted 05-07-2016 12:01 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by jar, posted 05-07-2016 12:30 PM Faith has responded
 Message 488 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2016 6:14 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 484 of 622 (783667)
05-07-2016 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by Faith
05-07-2016 12:29 PM


Re: thread lengths and limiting participants
Again, that is simply not relevant. If they use those things then you certainly should be able to show that they are using those tactics.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Faith, posted 05-07-2016 12:29 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by Faith, posted 05-07-2016 12:33 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26275
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 485 of 622 (783668)
05-07-2016 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by jar
05-07-2016 12:30 PM


Re: thread lengths and limiting participants
You'd think so but in my experience things don't happen that way when I'm the one doing the showing. And that makes for a discussion that wanders all over the place, raises my blood pressure, and accomplishes nothing.

However, because it's probably too much to ask I'll drop this line of thought and just hope for the best.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by jar, posted 05-07-2016 12:30 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12527
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 486 of 622 (783669)
05-07-2016 12:33 PM


Participants Feature
The participants feature is planned for release 5.0 and will be under the control of moderators. It will have two modes of operation: inclusive (all members on the list can participate) and exclusive (all members on the list are excluded from participation). The default setting for all new threads will be exclusive with an empty member list.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26275
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 487 of 622 (783689)
05-07-2016 5:00 PM


wrong thread

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6149
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 488 of 622 (783731)
05-08-2016 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 483 by Faith
05-07-2016 12:29 PM


No self-reflection at all
Faith writes:

quote:
I'm talking about the irrelevance or illogic or strawmanning or game-playing of their typical arguments.

Do you truly not see that this statement applies to you?

If you don't like the responses you are getting, Faith, then improve your argumentation. From what I can tell, there isn't anybody here whom you haven't accused of those very things. Every time someone contradicts you, you accuse and demean and whine and complain.

If you don't want to have a discussion with someone, then simply don't engage with them. To artificially remove people from the discussion is nothing more than an attempt to appear "reasonable." It means you won't be seen avoiding questions and counterarguments. When you claim that others are "irrelevant, illogical, strawmanning, or game-playing," you put yourself in the position of being judged and as I'm sure you are aware, you are rarely found in the right on those matter. So it is no wonder that you seek to run away from any responsibility for your actions.

I can understand why the moderators might want to keep certain people out of certain discussions because they have shown themselves to be incapable of behaving with any sense of integrity or decency, but you are in no position to make that decision, Faith.

And I mean that not only generally (posters don't get to deny those who would respond) but also personally (there isn't a single person here whom you would let respond to you). We have a system, the Great Debate, where if there is one person you want to talk to, you can do so there. And since we also have a Peanut Gallery process for those who aren't part of the Great Debate to comment, I fail to see how there is any benefit for the poster to say who does and who doesn't get to respond. It simply means two of every thread for those who meet the poster's "standards" and everybody else.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Faith, posted 05-07-2016 12:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26275
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 489 of 622 (784928)
05-26-2016 3:29 AM


Great Debate possibility?
I'm wondering if it's possible to turn this thread,
Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity Through Mutation
http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=19167
into a Great Debate even though it's late to ask. Genomicus knows her stuff and I get more out of debating with her than anybody else there, even though sometimes she piles on the technical language too deep for me to wade through. Ideally a creationist with the same level of science would show up on my side, but if wishes were horses etc.

[By the way, I think she's a she because of a comment she made about Dawn calling everybody "Sir" but if I'm wrong she/he can correct me.]

I can still try to answer all the others up to this point but it's going to take time. But they could continue to make their points in a Peanut Gallery.


Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by Genomicus, posted 05-26-2016 6:42 AM Faith has responded

    
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


(3)
Message 490 of 622 (784931)
05-26-2016 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 489 by Faith
05-26-2016 3:29 AM


Re: Great Debate possibility?
I'm certainly game for that, and I appreciate the suggestion, especially since I've never tried that format here at EvC. It may help keep the conversation centered on the core points I intend to deliver and demonstrate.

So I guess this is something the moderators would set up? I'm all for it.

P.S. Not that this is relevant, but I'm not going to reveal my gender here, inasmuch as I've never revealed my religious/metaphysical beliefs or lack thereof. There is a reason for that, and that's that the less that is known about me personally, the more one is able to focus on any merits my arguments have. If you're comfortable calling me a "she," that's fine, and if you're more comfortable calling me a "he," that's also fine.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by Faith, posted 05-26-2016 3:29 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by Faith, posted 05-26-2016 6:52 AM Genomicus has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26275
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 491 of 622 (784932)
05-26-2016 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 490 by Genomicus
05-26-2016 6:42 AM


Re: Great Debate possibility?
Yes the moderators have to decide to set it up. There's nothing really different about it except that we'd only be talking to each other, which would take a lot of stress off me from getting piled on as so often happens. Your thread was aimed at me anyway and the others are bringing different arguments into the mix. I'm glad you like the idea.

abe: OK I'll call you she, but it probably won't be necessary to refer to you in the third person on the thread anyway.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Genomicus, posted 05-26-2016 6:42 AM Genomicus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by Admin, posted 05-26-2016 9:25 AM Faith has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12527
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 492 of 622 (784938)
05-26-2016 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 491 by Faith
05-26-2016 6:52 AM


Re: Great Debate possibility?
I can get a Great Debate going if someone creates a thread proposal for the topic over in Proposed New Topics. I have a lot going on right now, but when it appears I should be able to review it within a day.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Faith, posted 05-26-2016 6:52 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by Faith, posted 05-26-2016 11:34 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26275
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 493 of 622 (784943)
05-26-2016 11:31 AM


cancelled and answered Percy's post instead.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26275
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 494 of 622 (784944)
05-26-2016 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by Admin
05-26-2016 9:25 AM


Re: Great Debate possibility?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by Admin, posted 05-26-2016 9:25 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26275
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 495 of 622 (785971)
06-14-2016 2:13 AM


Abusive post by Dr A
    
RewPrev1
...
3132
33
3435
...
42Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017