Change in Moderation?

We need to spin this off as a new topic somewhere, sometime.The non-admin mode is not up to it right now - Perhaps Willowtree would like to start "Geology - Not a "Respectful" Science" and/or "Paleontology - Not a "Respectful" Science". I would prefer that the two topics be kept as seperate as possible.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: Geology and paleontology are intertwined. But the bulk of geology is independent of paleontology, while paleontology is a sub-science of geology and biology. In other words, you can discuss geology without paleontology, but you can't discuss paleontology without geology.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-10-2004 02:28 PM

You learned how to use one variety of the quote box.I think that was all AdminAsgara was shooting for.Now use the quote boxes where needed in your other postings.Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

...why not simply throw a warning his way?

---

Warning messages tend to get missed, lost, ignored, and in general don't seem to make much impressions on people. I think a tap up side the head with a digital two-by-four is more effective.I think I made my point - The Lam no new topic restriction has been lifted. It will be noted in the record keeping topic soon (will probably just add an edit).Cheers,Adminnemooseus ReferenceThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-09-2004 02:30 AM

berberry said here:

quote:

---

I'm still wondering why it is that certain admins are getting tired of hearing about homosexuality. One has even warned against starting another homosexuality topic after this one dies. I want to know why it is that they feel this topic is done with when in fact it's just getting started. Our nation is taking steps to marginalize us and it seems that some admins feel that we shouldn't even be allowed to complain about it. The idea seems to be that when some eristic, ignorant fundie brings up more sophistry against gays, we gays are supposed to keep our mouths shut. I'm not willing to accept that.

​

If it's only because the issue keeps resurfacing with the same pro and con arguments, then fairness should dictate that the same standard be applied to all other recurring topics, of which there are dozens on these boards.

---

There have been two responses to this message at that topic: Mr Jack said:

quote:

---

Because this board's expressed purpose is a discussion of evolution and creationism?

---

And AdminHambre said:

quote:

---

I think your second point is the most relevant. The subject is the moral equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel, and it just becomes a flamewar between the ignorant and the ones who like to bait and goad them. The rhetoric is far too emotional on either side. Everyone here has his or her mind made up on the subject already, and I despair of ever hearing a new argument raised in the debate. Worst of all, discussing the subject doesn't bring out the best in either camp. People I consider intelligent and objective end up sounding strident and dogmatic. As Daniel Dennett once said (or was it Leo Berg?), "There's nothing worse than hearing a position you agree with, stated badly."

​

I think the subject of abortion has the same qualities that make it an impossible issue for a constructive debate. It only lends itself to hysteria, polarization, and scrambling for the moral high ground. I've personally been involved in absolutely futile exchanges of invective disguised as discussions on the question of abortion, and I don't intend to enter into any more.

​

I'd have the same reaction if we kept having threads started on the subject of racism. It's a valid matter for discussion, but how far would we get before the debate degenerated into name-calling, self-righteousness, and emotionalism?

​

Adminssimo Hambre

---

I have little additional comment right now, but I do wish to try to divert such discussion out of that topic into this topic.I will say that I find the subject matter to be at best on the fringes of the core theme of this forum (as stated by Mr Jack, above). We have had (titles approximated) "Homosexuality vs. Bible I", "Homosexuality vs. Bible II", and are currently in "Homosexuality vs. Bible III". I strongly suspect that these topics are largely redundant to each other, and I certainly see no point in the starting of "Homosexuality vs. Bible IV" when version III reaches the 300 message cut-off.Adminnemooseus

The content of Lam's message 1 of the Homosexuality and the bible yet again topic (the second topic cited by AdminHambre in the previous message):

quote:

---

Despite so many freaking threads in the past that have repeatedly shown that the bible does not condemn homosexuality or homosexuals, we still find gay bashers here and there ahem *paisano* cough cough. Here is your chance. Show us all why I am going straight to hell after I die. Show us, directly from the bible, why it's a sin.

​

This should be good.

---

I added the bolds.Even Lam recognizes the number of homosexuality topics that have happened.My following of the various new topics tend to lag behind the times. I often first see the opening messages when I'm updating the all-topic database I keep, and the updates are based on the Sunday end of day all-topic index page.In keeping this database I've noticed that Lam starts a lot of topics, a lot of "Coffee House" topics, and a lot of homosexual issues topics. I have taken exception to the quality of some of the "Coffee House" topics, and to the number of homosexuality themed topics.I was especially iritated when I discovered that Lam had started yet another homosexuality vs. Bible topic (above quoted) while his previous one was still very active. And I don't think the quality of that opening message was very good. I would have rejected it as a new topic, even if it hadn't been redundant.I don't think the non-admin mode had taken much part in the homosexuality themed topics, but he is a supporter of homosexuality rights, including some variety of marriage.Currently my time available to participate at this forum has been restricted because I have been helping a friend (who happens to be gay) work on his projects.Adminnemooseus

You got the right topic number, but the wrong topic (this topic) in that first link.Your message 4, which you quoted, is here.First of all, I'll say that NosyNed's message 3 wasn't really that strong. I guess he should have supplied the link you did. I now also see that his message combined with your link collectively makes a satifactory message, albeit still not that strong.What jumped out at me was that your message 4 was much reminiscent of a creationist posting something like: where the webpage is a link to some Answers in Genesis page.In that situation, someone, quite possibly an admin, would probably have jumped the creationist for posting a bare link as an argument.The bottom line is that, even combined, NosyNed's and your messages were still a rather feeble reply. Bottom line #2 - I don't want evolutionists getting away with something a creationist wouldn't be allowed to get away with.Now for the standard disclaimer: "Or something like that".Adminnemooseus

As not to do further "off-topic" there -From message 56, which was a reply to my message 55

quote:

---

Moose,

​

It's just some Clash lyrics, TheClashFan knows this. There's no offense, unless were getting snooty at some rude words.

​

Mark

---

OK, that explains a LOT. I'm a modest and limited Clash fan, and I certainly am not aquainted with all their lyrics. Where is the lyric pulled from?Adminnemooseus

Nicolas Gallagher has posted a long message at the Neotony in the development of H. sapiens topic.Offhand (my feeble mind hasn't given it great study) it seems to be 1 or more cut and pastes (properly credited).There, there was some controvery over whether this message was within forum guidelines. I think this question needs to be pursued further.I do think that Nicolas does need more paragraph breaks, with blank lines between the paragraphs.Feedback please. Perhaps this situation calls for it's own "Suggestions and Questions" topic.Adminnemooseus

I certainly didn't intend to imply you did any plagerism.I just try to be sensitive about massive postings comming from the evolution side, because the creation side tends to get dumped on for doing things reminisent of such.Such a large single message is difficult for the membership to digest, especially those (the majority) not having an extensive biology education. The context of this forum is not that of a technical journal. Breaking your message down into smaller servings would better serve you, as far as getting your message read and understood.Bill Birkeland tends to do (at least vaguely) simular type messages, concerning geology subjects. I don't know if the general membership has problems following and digesting Bill's messages. I have the atvantage in that I have a geology degree in my background.That's my impression of things. I may be wrong.Adminnemooseus