The censorship continues

Here is an excerpt from a private email I got from a EVC Forum reader:"I really, really like your new topic !Asgara has censored me in the past...."I think Asgara's censorship tactics should go (see: http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: Information ). Asgara is censoring me and other Christians for spurious reasons. It is apparent to me from the receptivity I have gotten from the new topic I tried to inroduce at this board (see: http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: Information ) and another board that readers want to read about this topic and they think it may have some merit (my initial investigation in this matter indicates to me that Mr. Jeffrey's book is well researched but I need to investigate further. Please see my comments at: TheologyWeb Campus In the meantime I think readers should examine this issue by looking at all the links and resources I have given at: TheologyWeb Campus I would also recommend they stay posted for other posts I add to this string in the future when my mild carpal tunnel subsides.I do recommend that people read the book though but they can also do web based research using the essay and link information I provided.Lastly, I ask the question if I and other Christians who post to this board perceive censorship how can EVCForum create and sustain decent debates. The answer is that it cannot and I think EVCForum could be a much better board and I hope this input here helps reform this board.Sincerely,Ken

when you first came to post on this board, did you not read the rules of conduct? If you did not like them, why did you not go elsewhere?
How many establishments let you join just so you can change their rules? And rules, Ken, are always arbitrary and manipulated by the rules-makers. A Christian in particular should be aware of the rights of others and respect them. As was Christ.

Ken,You must think no one here remembers your posting habits of six-or-so months ago. You started a bazillion threads, every one of which consisted of long lists of links and cut-and-pasted diatribes on every conceivable aspect of the creation and evolution debate. You treated everone who responded as if he had no idea what he was saying, and merely sprayed more links in everyone's face. On the rare occasion when you'd acknowledge an error in your assertions, you'd merely go back and edit each post until the threads became absolutely incoherent.Now you seem to be suffering from the bizarre delusion that there is an enormous audience here at EvC that hangs upon your every word. You start threads where you demand that everyone do required reading before you will deign to engage them in dialogue. You drop the title of a book that you expect everyone to research carefully, in readiness for the day you'll return from on high and discuss the book with us mere mortals.Personally, I don't believe you ever intended to 'sustain decent debate,' as your post here says. There are plenty of people here who've tired of trying to make you maintain focus long enough to process the rational, responsible ideas and information that have been given to you.regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 06-23-2004 01:13 PM

Dear PecosGeorgePlease tell me why the new subject in question cannot be put in the "free for all" area at a bare minimum. It appears as if at least one reader wishes to discuss the topic as can be seen in my prior post so even if I cannot in the short term it seems as if it could be debated presently. More importantly, I have provided some rebuttals to this material at another board and I have given the link: TheologyWeb Campus Now here are the rules presently for the free for all section:"Don't like moderators? Then this is the forum for you. Anything goes, no holds barred, flame-on." Notice the phrases "Anthing goes. No holds barred." Here are the rules for the other sections: Discussion GuidelinesThese are in effect at all times:
Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.1. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration. I DID THIS AT ANOTHER BOARD FOR THIS TOPIC AND I HAVE GIVEN THE LINK2. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."3. Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.4. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.5. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.6. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.7. Please do not participate as more than one ID. You can change your user ID by going to your Profile Page and creating a new alias.8. When introducing a new topic, please keep the post narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.9. Do not cut-n-paste long excerpts into message boxes. Please instead introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

TO: Mr. HambreI am not under the delusion that I have an enormous audience here that hangs on my every word. I do have a member at EVC Forum who wrote to me saying he/she thought it was unfair that my new topic was censored. More importantly, I think at this point that it is impossible for me or any other Christian to have an enourmous audience regardless of the quality of our post here at EVCFORUM due to the censorship tactics that I and others have commented on here at EVCFORUM. In short, I think that EVCForum could have a lot more traffic if it reformed itself regarding its censorship tactics.Lastly, I would say that I did significantly debate at length the proposterious notion that all matter and energy came from nothing naturally at the string you mentioned and I would have debated it farther but EVCFORUM does understandably have a policy of ending strings after so many posts have occurred.Sincerely,Ken

Hi Ken,Why do you want to start a topic off when you do not have the time to discuss it until 'september or October'?You haven't been censored at all, someone had to put the brakes on you as you were opening a topic for every thought that entered your head, then giving a score of links, and when people (especially me) went to answer a post it was barely recognisable as you had edited each one a dozen times!Oh and what does this mean from your post number 4 on the thread in question: Having an op Ken? I hear that high heels can be murder, good luck.Brian.

Well given the recent arrival of barely literate psuedo-christians that have been posting here lately, I wouldn't get too carried away Ken Brian.

The still relatively new guidelines for beginning new topics may be a bit confusing. It is only the Main Topic forums where topics must be approved. All the other forums listed under the Side Orders heading on the Forums Summary page allow new topics to be started by anyone at any time. If your new topic is having trouble making it out of [forum=-25], you could instead post it to [forum=-15] or [forum=-16], or even [forum=-14].The procedures for beginning new topics in the Main Topic forums were not put in place to filter any topics. Sites like this one thrive on controversy, so the more controversial the better. We like increased traffic.But this is a debate site, and so we do try to ensure that new topics fulfill a few basic criteria. They must be clear, well-enough written, and focused. They must show the potential for generating discussion.That being said, I don't think your current new topic proposal is being judged strictly on the merits by moderators, and so your complaint is not inaccurate. But the concerns expressed by moderators are legitimate. Your history indicates that you'd prefer to treat this site as a Ken DeMyer information dissemination center rather than a debate board. From my perspective, their reluctance to release your proposal to the Main Topic forums seems well grounded.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

TO: BrianFirst, the board member who sent me the email is one who has posted to EVCFORUM for some time. I will not tell you who he/she is however. That remains anonymous unless the board member wishes to disclose his/her identity.Secondly, at TheologyWeb which does not censor inappropriately Christians or skeptics they have continued to allow me to use a edit function. At that Forum I changed the word "bust" to "busy". You will notice that the "t" and "y" letters on your keyboard are very close to one another.TO: PERCYThank you for giving me the helpful information. I like you the best of all skeptics here. I think some of your moderators though could use some swift kicks in the butt. Please give Brian a particular hard one not because he overly censors but just because he is a wiseass.Sincerely,Ken

Personally, I didn't release Ken's topic because he said he would not be back to debate it for several months. Why in hell would someone be so adamant that a topic be released that he has expressly stated that he will not be participating in for some time?Ken has ranted in several topics concerning my "censorship" of him and has asked forum members to ask me to release his topic or lift his restrictions. Guess what?? No one has. Ken has done everything but attempt to start a dialog with me concerning this.I bent over backwards to work with Ken when he first started to post here. I gave him suggestions and hints, I repeatedly told him how to use forum features such as the personal reply button and the preview feature. He ignored me repeatedly except to complain when I finally took matters into my own hands and removed some of his privileges. I gave Ken my email address to contact me to discuss these issues and he has refused this also.Contrary to Ken's usual diatribes, I have no issue with Christian posters here or their ideas. Some of my closest friends here are Christians. I like debate, unfortunately replying in any of Ken's topics bears no resemblance to it.If any one else here has issues with my moderating style I would like to hear it. Ken's assertions of some anonymous member agreeing with him do not count. If my style is not working, I will gladly step down.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Hang in there AA. You be doing great. We'll tell you when you get outta line.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

you have upset the apple cart somewhere.
However, and as it is, you seem to be on your way. So, I wish you good luck with your 'readership', hope you achieve your goals. Let go of the chip.....tally ho, and all that stuff.
George

---

Cactus and Scrub
and yellow grass

TO: BrianThe reason I posted it now rather than later is given in my "Important addendum" at: http://EvC Forum: FASCINATING CORROBORATION OF ALL BIBLE PROPHECY -->EvC Forum: FASCINATING CORROBORATION OF ALL BIBLE PROPHECYI do not have any proof you collaborated with Asgara in the Jonah string censorship. Given the fact you did give land some very minor and inconsequential blows in that debate but where laying on the mat by post #142 I suspect collusion (see: http://EvC Forum: Jonah and the whale - It happened! -->EvC Forum: Jonah and the whale - It happened! . Perhaps a Scottish judge in my shoes would say "not proved" (see: http://onin.com/fp/htm/wwwboard/messages/58.html ). I believe you should appeal your "Not Proven" verdict in my eyes by opening up the Jonah string.TO: AsgaraI hope that among the close Christian friends you believe you have at this board it is not the one who has posted here for a long while and who wrote me that email. Perhaps, some of your Christian friends are not as close as you think! And given your censorship practice I doubt that you have many close Christian friends of the Theologically conservative bent at least at EVCFORUM!! I hold no malice or hatred towards you but on the other hand I have never been reticient to comment on your censorship practices.TO: PercyThanks again for your help.Sincerely,Ken

TO: ALLI will not temporarily take a respite from EVCFORUM for the reasons I have given.It will be interesting to see if anyone does any further research. I plan on doing some further research as time allows.Sincerely,Ken

TO: ALLIn my zeal to overtrun Asgara's censorship and post in the free for all section I forget to stick by my non-posting until September. I regret my zeal overcame my memory of my previous comment about not posting until September. I know there is no possible way I will do this again zeal or no zeal!Sincerely,Ken