General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel

I am another who surprisingly finds himself agreeing with Ray. The excessive sensitivities of moderators to the use of the word "liar" is not healthy. The penalty is applied to the person who may well be the victim of an untruth whilst the actual liar is not admonished. And of course suspending one of the participants in the altercation prevents it from being resolved.I suggest participants and moderators all grow thicker skins and some mature tolerance.

This is fascinating. The current moderator sensitivity to name calling is due to the past battles of participants concerning breeches of Rule #10: Before it seemed that moderator intervention came after tempers flared and discussion spiraled. It is very difficult dealing with posters who are venting all over the place (we aren't counselors) and oozing into other threads. When it reaches this level suspension is our virtual bucket of water.So we decided to try and catch things before they escalate. In this case a 24 hour Timeout is appropriate. (Not sure what timeframe was issued for nwr)Now when I read Message 86 by ThingsChange I saw the sparks starting. I thought about saying something, but I didn't think nwr would go the next step, unfortunately he did. As you notice the discussion now starts to become personal and not really about the subject anymore.

quote:

---

I suggest participants and moderators all grow thicker skins and some mature tolerance.

---

It isn't so much about growing thicker skin or tolerance, but how to deal with the frustration with those who mutilate what their opponents are saying. People get upset about being misquoted, taken out of context, etc., and frustration can lead to name calling. Then the battle begins.So do we give a Timeout to the spark and the flame?Not sure if misquoting is in breech of Rule #8 or not. Bottomline: We won't be able to please everyone.

The problem is that all to often it is used in blatant violation of Forum Guidelines #10, in that all to often users of the term missjudge their counterparts as to intension. Honest folks regard it as a serious matter to be labeled a liar.

I agree with you in principle, but not in practice. The problem is that you can never tell which brush fires are going to erupt into full fledged forest fires, so because it's too hard to battle forest fires you instead put out every brush fire. It's sort of like an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You are a brazen liar.How much more clearer can God be ? This is rhetorical.But we know you are a Fundamentalist....synynoym for legalist....synonym for lawyer/rhetoric artist.Look what a little worthless anonymous power does to a person ? Buzsaw will argue like atheist/Darwinists concerning the clear meaning of God's word in exchange for their approval/Admin status. Luke 22:48

​

But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?Hence christian Buzsaw ass kisses our enemies. Specifically, Buzsaw has made the Romans verse of no effect in order to support a misguided Forum rule.We have a source to call Darwinists liars and the Judas kiss, craving the approval of Percy/Caesar wins out. "We have no king but Caesar" John 19:15Buzsaw/Fundamentalists so perfectly typifies the Pharisees/established religious community in any era = the word written thousands of years ago perfectly corresponds with reality.As Romans 1:25 corresponds with THE LIE of Darwinists today (design does not correspond with Designer) so does the actions/post of AdminBuzsaw correspond with the Judas kiss = God's word corresponds with reality and it was written thousands of years ago = this is why we call it the eternal word of God.I am glad to read Arach/flaming TEist was lying concerning his support - that would have surely proven me wrong.Concerning WJ: He is an atheist (as far as I know) and he agreed with the irrefutable principle: guilt shifted to messenger from perpetrator. Dr. Scott: "My atheist professors at Stanford had more integrity in the tip of their little finger than every christian I have ever known." Hence WJ puts Buzsaw to shame and proves Dr. Scott correct.Going to try and save a little face Buzsaw by suspending me ? Having a atheist/Darwinian Mod do it has no sting since I am a OEC. The Fundies of religion and science have teamed up.As you know I have initiated boycott. Now you will undoubtedly dig in your heels. I am glad I didn't get your approval since you are a Fundamentalist, the doing so would have proven me wrong.Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical PaulinistThis message has been edited by Herepton, 04-11-2006 11:33 AM

You know better than to call a member a liar. Particularly another Fundamentalist just like you and Gene Scott. Or is this just another of your ploys in the hopes we'd forget that paper you promised us in April?

---

Is this goint to impact Ray's boycott?And ray, I am eagerly awaiting your paper This thread is discuss moderator procedures, not to debate, particularly with someone who isn't here.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-11-2006 03:55 PM

This really only indicts Darwin as a liar and only if Darwin did not believe this LIE to be true. In fact, it really only means that someone is a liar if they believe that evolution is not true but promote it as true.If a dishonest mechanic told you that your transmission needed replacement when it really didn't and then you told your wife the transmission needed replacement, would that make you a liar?On that note, how can you then call all of us, who believe evolution to be true, liars?This message has been edited by LinearAq, 04-11-2006 03:06 PM This thread is discuss moderator procedures, not to debate, particularly with someone who isn't here.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-11-2006 03:55 PM

Wow Ray has a way with words, confusing and convaluted as can be thoughso can someone explain what he is talking about? This thread is discuss moderator procedures, not to debate, particularly with someone who isn't here.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-11-2006 03:56 PM

sorry jar... I couldn't resist You admins are so mean! (hehehe, Now I'm commenting on admins)

As a matter of fact, Ray, in the Admin forum I voiced my hopes that you would be allowed to remain to contribute for the creationist side of the isle, citing as an example your participation in the Egyptian Historical stuff with Brian. Some thought otherwise as to your ever becoming a productive member of the board. I suggest you keep your nose clean hereafter, for you'll never have my support again without an apology and a sincere pledge to improve your behavior.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Why is a thread about the subjectivity of morality in the Science fora?This message has been edited by Faith, 04-12-2006 09:24 PM

The "Morality and Subjectivity" topic was placed in the science fora because it isn't looking at religious basis for morals. It is supposedly looking at logical grounds concerning morals.

Logic is not the exclusive property of science. It belongs to all of us. How about Social and Religious Issues?Besides, it's NOT about logic. As Robin said, a logic-based morality would be an OBJECTIVE morality, and that can be derived from the authority of religious revelation, which hardly belongs in the Science fora. But this thread is about SUBJECTIVE morality, which belongs in Science even less, as it is NOT based on logic according to Robin's proposition.It belongs in Social Issues.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-12-2006 10:00 PM

Robin's the originator. Discuss it with him. He hasn't complained about where it was placed. If he wishes to have it moved, I will move it.