Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Change in Moderation?
entwine
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 303 (127640)
07-26-2004 3:37 AM


Go to moderation
So what do I do now??

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by AdminNosy, posted 07-26-2004 3:53 AM entwine has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 198 of 303 (127641)
07-26-2004 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by entwine
07-26-2004 3:37 AM


what do you want to do?
Welcome aboard, entwine
I'd suggest reading the forum guidelines and browsing some threads for a bit. Then dive in.
There is a real chance to learn here and I hope you can also contribute something.
No matter what side you are on it is almost always better to ask more questions than it is to make assertions. You need to understand what the other guy is saying even if, sometimes, they don't.
(added by edit)
Ah, I see. You disagree with my comments and warning to whatever.
You should review the past postings of whatever. He has rarely contributed anything but unfounded rants and shows an decided lack of ability to read.
I think if you review the opening post and then go over whatever's post you might see that there isn't any real connection within the scope of the thread. If you disagree I'd like to see what you have to say.
The interest, as I understand it, is to look at the actual extra-biblical history of Christianity. Going on about Adam and Eve doesn't contribute anything to that at all. So far I stand by the warning and will suspend whatever if he tries it again.
That is heavily based on whatever's past history.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 07-26-2004 02:58 AM
{Footnote from Adminnemooseus - This all refers to AdminNosy's warning given at http://EvC Forum: The Origins of Christianity. See above and below also}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-26-2004 03:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by entwine, posted 07-26-2004 3:37 AM entwine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by entwine, posted 07-26-2004 4:43 AM AdminNosy has not replied

entwine
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 303 (127647)
07-26-2004 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by AdminNosy
07-26-2004 3:53 AM


Re: what do you want to do?
Thanks for the edit reply. Nice to talk to a human and not a bot. I wasn't aware of Whatever's apparent zeal. But it takes all kinds to make the universe jiggle. Disagree? yes, the link was very informative to me. Another take on the Adam and Eve thing, the very heart of Christianity. Can't have Christ without A and E. There are swine that bear pearls, loath the swine and lose the pearls.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by AdminNosy, posted 07-26-2004 3:53 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-26-2004 5:17 AM entwine has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 200 of 303 (127659)
07-26-2004 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by entwine
07-26-2004 4:43 AM


Re: what do you want to do?
I must defer to AdminNosy's opinion on the matter, as he is far more up the the situation than I am.
That said, the The Reluctant Messenger book and the related website looks to have good potential of being its own topic.
Perhaps you would like to start the "The Reluctant Messenger" topic in the "Book Nook" forum?
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by entwine, posted 07-26-2004 4:43 AM entwine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by entwine, posted 07-26-2004 5:42 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

entwine
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 303 (127665)
07-26-2004 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Adminnemooseus
07-26-2004 5:17 AM


Re: what do you want to do?
Hai, domo aregato kudasai. I've never read the material but I'm here to learn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-26-2004 5:17 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 202 of 303 (127679)
07-26-2004 6:48 AM


Relevance
Greetings all,
Over in this post -
EvC Forum: The Origins of Christianity
a discussion ensued in which -
DC85 asked for info,
whatever replied with a sermon,
Admin warned whatever,
I strongly agreed with Admin,
entwine disagreed,
and now, on with the saga ...
entwine : "Ban yourself, you closed-minded person (sorry don't know your sex). As I said, I believe it was a good faith (but entirely too expansive) response to a question."
Firstly, I am sorry if my blunt-ness put you off. I recognise you think you are defending free-speech, I commend you for expressing your disagreement politely.
Now,
consider the OP - a request for information about "The Origins of Christianity"
but
whatever's post did NOT say anything about origins,
whatever's link did NOT mention origins of Christianity,
whatever did NOT say why he thought it was relevant to origins.
Instead,
he preached about prophesy and quoted slabs of irrelevant scripture.
"I doubt you even looked at the link that was given."
Wrong.
I checked the link.
I know the document.
I have a copy of my own.
It is completely irrelevent.
"At first I too thought it was a biblical reference, but its not. I was ready to trash it as another bible thumping rampage, but its not. Its some other book thumping rampage. It is surely not a biblical reference."
You seem to think the issue is whether it is a bible passage or not,
but
Admin's warning was not about it being a bible passage,
my post did not touch on it being a bible passage.
The issue is NOT whether it is from the bible,
the issue IS whether the post is ON TOPIC - it's not.
That's twice you read incorrectly - first you got the name wrong, then you mis-understood the issue. Perhaps more careful checking before you post would be helpful.
Iasion

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 203 of 303 (127708)
07-26-2004 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by coffee_addict
07-26-2004 3:29 AM


Re: Less tolerance please
Greetings Lam,
Thanks for your response :-)
Maybe I was a bit harsh, but lately there seems to have been an awful lot of crackpot posts.
Now,
I'm all for different views and open-minded-ness etc.
but I think there are certain precedents of knowledge which do not need to be re-visited.
Yes,
we need to hear varying opinions,
but no,
the debate about creationism e.g. is over.
Considering the range of posters here,
I don't think this board could ever get boring,
even if all the creationists faded away :-)
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by coffee_addict, posted 07-26-2004 3:29 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 204 of 303 (132654)
08-11-2004 2:13 AM


The many short postings vs. a single large posting question
JT, at message 199 of the The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science" topic:
JT writes:
I have a question for anybody. Ever since Jar requested that I "use the little red button," my post count has increased dramatically and the topic's activity meter has spiked (both of which I think are cool), but I was wondering if the numerous small posts are annoying? Thanks.
Much of this question is, as I see it, a "symptom" (for lack of a better term) of the creationist vs. evolutionist imbalance here at . One creationist posting results in multiple evolutionist member responses. How does the creationist handle it?
This is a question with no easy answer. Personally, I'm inclined to favor the large unified message instead of fragmenting things into mini-messages.
To do this, however, one should probably use the "General Reply" button, which does not connect the response to any specific message. Unless (I guess) the primary message responded to can be selected.
If the creationist's gung-ho were up to it, s/he could list the individual message names and numbers as s/he responds to multiple message by one message.
Comments from others?
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by jt, posted 08-14-2004 9:37 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 205 of 303 (133944)
08-14-2004 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Adminnemooseus
08-11-2004 2:13 AM


Re: The many short postings vs. a single large posting question
s/he could list the individual message names and numbers as s/he responds to multiple message by one message.
I like that idea, thanks for the advice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-11-2004 2:13 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-15-2004 4:18 PM jt has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 206 of 303 (134104)
08-15-2004 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by jt
08-14-2004 9:37 PM


Re: The many short postings vs. a single large posting question
I note that JT has used the "reply to many in 1 message method" here.
I know that this is (more or less) what I suggested above, but seeing it in reality, I see that there is no advantage to having done the individual messages, and there is the disadvantage that the message links are lost.
I recomend that the individual message method be gone back to.
Perhaps further comments from me later.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by jt, posted 08-14-2004 9:37 PM jt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by lfen, posted 08-17-2004 12:11 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 207 of 303 (134679)
08-17-2004 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Adminnemooseus
08-15-2004 4:18 PM


Re: The many short postings vs. a single large posting question
Not just the links, the notifications!
JT had included a reply to me and I didn't get back to that thread until much later and just stumbled across his reply. It is very helpful to me to recieve email notification.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-15-2004 4:18 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 208 of 303 (139186)
09-02-2004 1:34 PM


Comic book topic location

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 209 of 303 (140929)
09-08-2004 10:53 AM


BUMP - This topic is the place to discuss moderation issues
In my signature I include a link to this topic (as below). Members seem to rarely make use of that link.
I would truly prefer that responses to the moderator interjections (by their nature off-topic) at the various debate topics, not be responded to (more off-topic) at those topics.
Please bring the moderation issue discussion (with a link to the message in question) to this topic. This will reduce the topic disruption at the other topics, and will unify discussion of moderation issues into one location.
Thanks,
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 303 (144502)
09-24-2004 4:58 PM


From Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?
Am I missing something between posts 155-160?
They result in a warning to those who respond to Willowtree?
Huh?
(ETA: Okay, while I was posting this, #161 came along. But still... huh?)
This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 09-24-2004 04:00 PM

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Admin, posted 09-24-2004 5:53 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 211 of 303 (144537)
09-24-2004 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Dan Carroll
09-24-2004 4:58 PM


Because if I have to restrict WillowTree's posting privileges, I don't want him to be able to say that others were also not following the Forum Guidelines.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-24-2004 4:58 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024