There must be some problem, when I got on at 8:05 this morning neither post was there, a few minutes later I left EvC and checked my E-mail, then got back on at ~8:10 and both were there. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
alaninnont has proposed a topic, responding specifically to my challenge that he present evidence contrary to what he calls the atheist and evolutionist point of view. AdminNosy (who recently posted an excellent piece that I nominated as a POTM) has suggested revisions in the interest of focus.
I would like to claim personal privilege, in as much as it was me he was quoting and because, in particular, I assured him (her?) that no points would be ignored.
I fully recognize the chaos that would ensue if the thread were opened for general participation as is. Therefore, I request, if it would be acceptable to alaninnont, that it be opened as a Great Debate topic for his and my participation only. I think limiting the participants would tend to keep the focus closer. What's more, since I threw down the gauntlet, I feel it appropriate that I be allowed the opportunity to meet alaninnont on the field of battle that I implicitly defined.
I am confident that the wise and fair AdminNosy, a recent POTM nominee, will consider my humble and respectful request and make a just decision.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
Re: Regarding "Points for a creator" by alaninnont
A "Great Debate" sure sounds like the way to go. That proposed topic is so bloated that I don't see refining it down as being practice. A whole new PNT would be the way to go.
I'm enough of a jerk to be willing to bypass AdminNosy and promote the topic myself. I, however, would strongly suggest you not do a one person "pile on the creationist". Try handling the subtopic in small bites. Also, let's keep the attitudes thoroughly on the "Minnesota Nice" plane of things.
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source
As I look it the web pages more closely, I see that the webp ages and the post are just 3 different versions of the the PRATTs.
I am assuming, or hoping, our new member is Josh Greenburger himself.
quote:A computer consultant for over two decades, companies included Fortune 500. His literary works have appeared in The New York Post, New York Daily News, Village Voice, Jewish Press and others. Topics ranged from humor to scientific to topical events. Wrote a book disproving Evolution. Has also written several screenplays.
If not there maybe some plagiarizing issues.
Gee he wrote a book disproving evolution. Damn I never heard about when he won the Nobel Prize.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
New member Hopecrawford's proposed topics, three of them and representing his first three posts, all seem both hugely underdeveloped and mostly redundant.
Maybe someone can suggest to him he take part in some of the ongoing discussions before starting his own.
I wonder if it would be worth having a minimal post number requirement before being allowed to propose new topics/open new threads. It wouldn't need to be dozens or hundreds, maybe only 10 or so might be enough to give people some grounding, might this not also help to alleviate some spam?
If someone did make a first post to a topic that was genuinely worthy of discussion but off topic for the thread in question there is no reason someone else couldn't use it as the basis for a PNT.