quote:Those are good points, but if Buzz isn't going to post to the thread there seems little point in keeping it open.
Again, we have a "gang" of evo's, versus a lone creationist. I see no point in cornering Buz in an alley, and beating an admission of wrongness out of him.
quote:Not to take a position on whether Buzz is right or wrong, but whether Buzz admits it or not, whether he recognizes it himself or not, Buzz's lack of knowledge on scientific topics reveals itself in almost every post.
Buz certainly does seem to be having trouble grasping the methodology of geological studies (minnemooseus non-admin side comment?), but he does seem to be making an effort. Once again, we must realize that it is the creationist side that drives the coversation at this forum. Let's not "squash the Buz".
quote:Neither Buzz nor anyone else is required to agree with the information contained in science books and at science websites, but the determination with which he maintains ignorance of this information combined with a matching determination to discuss these topics despite his ignorance is, in the view of this administrator, regrettable.
Again, my impression is that Buz does not so much have a "determination to maintain ignorance" etc. as he is having trouble relating to the ways of science. I like Buz. Let's try to be nice to him.
I think you are being overly generous to Buzsaw. He gives an assertion as part of the proof for his belief in a conopy theory of Noah's flood etc. He is asked to give evidence for that specific assertion. He fails to provide anything remotely resembling supprting evidence. He then refuses to address the matter further whilst still ingulding in giving his opinion in other thrreads.
He is at the least being disingenuous in a discussion, at worst trolling. At the very least Buzsaw should be warned that his behaviour in the "Frozen Tropical Animals" thread is unacceptable and repeating such behaviour would warrant banning.
Much of my previous commentary regarding Buz was probibly strongly influenced by his participation in the "radiometric" topic.
Indeed, much of Buz's input is erratic (confused?), but he seems to be one of the last of an endangered species here - the creationist side of the debate. I'm not inclined to punish him for his participation (or lack of participation?), however flawed it might be. It is being a stimulus to discussion, however wacky that discussion might be.
Admin/Percy said much in message 10 of this topic. I tried to get him to spin that message off, as a topic of its own, but nothing happened.
I encourage you to re-read the material upstring.
Well, probibly not much of an answer, but it seems to be the best I have in me, at the moment.
You closed the thread "1 piece of evidence to disprove evolution.." in the forum "Evolution". This discussion may have gotten off-topic, but it was a very interesting discussion, and the originator, Zealot, was really trying to engage the evolutionists, and doing a good job too. If the originator, the 'owner' of the topic so to speak, sees no problem in topic change, then would it not be a good idea to leave the discussion open? Maybe the originator could be given the possibility of adjusting the topic title?
I second this. It was rather unnerving to find a reply that I had carefully written to Zealot being slammed against the firewall of a "You are trying to reply to a closed thread" message - said closure happening while I was actually composing the response.
Gotta do it when you have the time. Tonight I've had time, as my e-mail system attempts to keep up with the %*^@ virus generated e-mail. *%@#$%& thing is drowning out my spam deliveries.
Still AMoose after all these years
ps - We had ~225 messages this past day - maybe I'm just trying to get people (hint - Frog) to slow down a bit.
pps - You did notice that the topic was reopened?
EDIT ADDITION - I neglected to enter the new message totals for that one hyperactive topic. That ~225 above should have been ~315. From checkpoint to checkpoint, we had 329 messages in 25 hrs 22 min. That's 316.90 messages per 24 hour day.
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-21-2003]
We had ~225 messages this past day - maybe I'm just trying to get people (hint - Frog) to slow down a bit.
Sorry about that. Honestly I was having a good deal of fun talking with MessenJah. There probably would have been a lot less messages in the thread if the average message length had been longer on all sides.
That, and I think DC85, MessenJah, and I had a pretty good feeling you were going to close the thread as soon as you saw it, so we sort of rushed to get out thoughts out there before they were disrupted by the change to a new topic, which may very well never occur. (I've noticed that the request to go to a new topic seems to often have a chilling effect on discussions with creationists.)
Basically DC85 and I were probably kind of excited we had kept a creationist talking for so long, and didn't exactly relish the thought of some of the more... verbose posters burying MessenJah in so much scientific research that we never heard from again.
Anyway, the topic is closed, and I guess I support that, but it was a good debate for the participants, I feel, and didn't seem to be in danger of spilling into the more worthwhile threads. Also I predict that MessenJah will claim victory in the debate by virtue of a killer response he was about to post before you closed the thread.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-20-2003]
Especially since things had gone way off-topic, I think that's a lot of babble.
What, an off-topic discussion can't be a worthwhile one? Maybe we just need a way to change the topic, then. The discussion was spirited, yes. But was it really that objectionable?
In my perusing of the various topics, his avatar stands out as showing up a lot.
Also note the number of messages (1200+) in less than six months. That's an average of 6+ messages a day, every day.
Well, I work nights. Nothing to do all day while the wife is out. And I don't personally know any creationists, but I love the debate. (To tell the truth my friends and I all agree on practically every imaginable topic so I almost never get to really argue IRL.) What's a frog to do?
I can't help think that we're getting into a quantity rather than quality situation.
Well, I guess I'll try and bite my tongue (fingers?). I had hoped that I was contributing something vagely worthwhile but perhaps I was mistaken?
One thing though - if you're trying to assess quantity vs. quality, and all you're looking at is quantity, aren't you stacking the deck a little bit?
Am I about to become the next evolutionist to be made an example of, simply because I enjoy a spirited debate?
I think pointy-haired, er, Adminnemooseus is trying to tie a couple different points together. He's justifying the closing of a thread by noting that it had not only detoured off-topic, but had also turned into a series of brief comments rather than a discussion, and it had resisted administrative attempts to encourage discussion. And he's tying that to the possibility that at an individual level many brief posts may possbily indicate a tendency to make drive-by comments rather than engage in discussion. I think you were just a handy example of many posts, not a convicted culprit of thread diversion, and your distinctive avatar makes your posts stand out and be noticed.
While we try to encourage serious discussion in the threads reserved for that purpose, we don't want to ruin the fun when something else enjoyable happens. Spontaneity is important, too. I don't think it was so much that the thread had veered off course as it was that during administrative attempts to adjust things back on course the veering seemed to accelerate. While the administrators and moderators shouldn't be viewed as Gestapo troopers, neither are they potted plants.
That being said, we not only appreciate and understand the feedback, but think it makes some very important points, and I'm sure I'm speaking for all the admins and moderators when I say we will definitely try to incorporate it into our future efforts.
quote:I think pointy-haired, er, Adminnemooseus is trying to tie a couple different points together.
My avatar changes from time to time. At the moment, I was using the Pointy-Haired Boss from the Dilbert cartoon.
quote:He's justifying the closing of a thread by noting that it had not only detoured off-topic, but had also turned into a series of brief comments rather than a discussion, and it had resisted administrative attempts to encourage discussion.
Essentially, the topic had turned into a chat line. God forbid, that a message of great substance be posted - for it is doomed to be badly buried before the general public would have a chance to see it.
The topic was running so fast that any moderation input was impossible.
quote:And he's tying that to the possibility that at an individual level many brief posts may possbily indicate a tendency to make drive-by comments rather than engage in discussion.
Like I said above - The topics was functioning as a chat line. Perhaps such a thing needed to be in the "Short Term…" forum. Despite the forum title and guidelines, the topics there are persisting in the available record. At least until we hit a server storage space crisis.
quote:I think you were just a handy example of many posts, not a convicted culprit of thread diversion, and your distinctive avatar makes your posts stand out and be noticed.
Absolutely correct. It was also intended to be a comment extending beyond the individual topic. I look for members of the evolution side to be figures of restraint. A "lead by example" type thing.
quote:While we try to encourage serious discussion in the threads reserved for that purpose, we don't want to ruin the fun when something else enjoyable happens. Spontaneity is important, too. I don't think it was so much that the thread had veered off course as it was that during administrative attempts to adjust things back on course the veering seemed to accelerate.
I guess I could have moved the "Giants" topic to the "Free For All" forum, and totally wrote it off as not being worth following. I still have a hard time figuring out how it was an "Evolution" topic in the first place. Likewise, for the new "Giants" topic.
quote:While the administrators and moderators shouldn't be viewed as Gestapo troopers, neither are they potted plants.
Hmmm. An idea for a new avatarr. The potted plant, that is.
quote:That being said, we not only appreciate and understand the feedback, but think it makes some very important points, and I'm sure I'm speaking for all the admins and moderators when I say we will definitely try to incorporate it into our future efforts.
I hope that all the members follow these administrative procedure topics. These topics are the place for such things. Doing the discussions in the individual topics would also be a substantial off-topic disruption.
In summary, I think my efforts are, to try to get the daily total number of messages down to a level that I and the other members can actually keep up with reading that that is worthy of being read. Also, I'm assuming that Percy/Admin (who is the one paying the bills) does not wish to support the cost of ever increasing server storage space needs, if a lot of the content is, dare I say, trite.