Change in Moderation?

Like the character of the same name in that trashy horror movie years ago, I suspect we've not heard the last of JasonChin. Give it a week or two and you will be reading a post and a faint voice will echo in your mind, "heeee's baaaaaaaack"Just my attempt at prediction? prophecy? character analysis?lfen

This is to discuss AM's latest decision on my restriction.According to alltopic database:

quote:

---

10/20/2004 If the whole world could vote.... Coffee House 14-494 Lam 14 10/21/2004 Politics http://EvC Forum: If the whole world could vote....

---

It was really close to the election and others were contributing topics that both reflect their sense of humor and their political stance.

quote:

---

10/20/2004 How to base your argument on a paper or essay: BC material here. Boot Camp 28-005 Lam 6 10/20/2004 http://EvC Forum: Information

---

I thought I could show in lament's term how to support an assertion based on a paper or book. At the time, a member who was restricted to BC seemed to think that it was ok to say "my argument is the book _______. Go read the book and get back to me..."

quote:

---

10/20/2004 Democrats winning race to register voters: is this a good sign? Coffee House 14-492 Lam 1 10/20/2004 Politics http://EvC Forum: Democrats winning race to register voters: is this a good sign?

---

This was on the news and I was wondering what people thought about it. Besides, it was only a few weeks away from the election and we were all really anxious.

quote:

---

10/14/2004 How come not other scientific theories beside evolution and big bang? Proposed New Topics 25-297 Lam 4 10/14/2004 Closed http://EvC Forum: Information

---

Another admin pointed out to me that there was already another topic I could take my question to. I thanked him for it and the topic was closed with my approval.

quote:

---

10/10/2004 What will be the most likely October surprise be? Coffee House 14-282 Lam 7 10/12/2004 Politics; Iraq; Terrorism http://EvC Forum: Abstinence-Only Education Success

---

Another election topic/question.

quote:

---

10/6/2004 Question regarding dinosaurs and a fundie "theory" Short Subjects 22-133 Lam 7 10/21/2004 Dinosaurs Closed http://EvC Forum: Question regarding dinosaurs and a fundie "theory"

---

Short subject topic.

quote:

---

10/6/2004 Question for animal experts out there. Coffee House 14-477 Lam 9 10/7/2004 http://EvC Forum: Question for animal experts out there.

---

Well, it was an honest question about animal behavior.

quote:

---

10/5/2004 The vice presidencial debate Coffee House 14-476 Lam 25 10/8/2004 Politics http://EvC Forum: The vice presidencial debate

---

Thought people could share their views on the vice presidencial debate.

quote:

---

10/3/2004 Does god has free will? Faith and Belief 06-362 Lam 97 10/17/2004 Free will http://EvC Forum: Does god have free will?

---

This topic rather generated a lot of debates.

quote:

---

10/3/2004 Any chance this forum could be hacked Coffee House 14-470 Lam 3 10/3/2004 http://EvC Forum: Any chance this forum could be hacked?

---

It is true that this was more of a short subject topic than coffee house. At the time, another forum I know was hacked.

quote:

---

9/29/2004 Please read this regarding the Marriage Protection Amendment. Short Subjects 22-131 Lam 10 10/1/2004 Homosexuality http://EvC Forum: Please read this regarding the Marriage Protection Amendment.

---

What can I say, this topic is really important to me.

quote:

---

9/28/2004 Does aliens have rights? Coffee House 14-457 Lam 9 9/30/2004 http://EvC Forum: Does aliens have rights?

---

I must admit that this was a rather random topic. This is why I never responded to people that responded to me because I wanted it to die. It was a step away from apologizing for making it exist at all.

quote:

---

9/27/2004 I got hit by a car while riding my bike. Coffee House 14-454 Lam 16 10/4/2004 Short subject Closed http://EvC Forum: I got hit by a car while riding my bike.

---

Well...

quote:

---

9/25/2004 A reason why I do not like certain christian groups. Coffee House 14-452 Lam 7 9/25/2004 Closed http://EvC Forum: A reason why I do not like certain christian groups.

---

Yes, it was a rather immature and whinny topic.

quote:

---

9/24/2004 Question for you oldies about polls and elections Coffee House 14-451 Lam 3 9/24/2004 Polls; Elections http://EvC Forum: Question for you oldies about polls and elections.

---

I was rather disappointed that people didn't pay more attention to the poll results at the time, which showed that Bush was leading in almost every state. It was a tell tale... (or is it tale tell?) sign that he was going to be reelected. I thought the lefties were a little too enthusiastic about this election.

quote:

---

9/23/2004 A question that was first presented by Socrates. Faith and Belief 06-358 Lam 185 10/25/2004 Socrates http://EvC Forum: A question that was first presented by Socrates.

---

I thought it was a good discussion.And so on and so forth.Who would have thought that you'd pull up a 2 weeks old topic?Anyhow, I am indifferent about the decision, although I didn't think there were that many "lame-ass" topics.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

My two cents for what they're worth...Lam's partial suspension came off a bit harsh to me since Lam seems to be a reasonable forum member - why not simply throw a warning his way? I'm sure if simply asked to, Lam would have drastically cut down on posting new topics.

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

Then I will transfer my response to AdminHambre to this thread:

quote:

---

So are you saying that any topic related to the bible will be allowed here in future except for homosexuality, abortion and racism? I hope not.

​

If homosexuality topics are banned, will any mention of homosexuality also be banned? Will a fundie be banned if he or she brings up homosexuality in a thread about, for instance, the recent election? Or is it only gays who are expected to show restraint?

---

---

Dog is my copilot.

berberry,Note that I never said anything about topics being banned. That's not my decision to make. My conflation of the subjects of homosexuality, abortion, and racism was just to illustrate my point: these issues involve complex philosophy and deserve more nuanced and committed discussion than what they've historically received here at EvC. Discussing subjects like DNA and geology with someone who's unfamiliar with scientific theory is amusing, but perhaps educational. Engaging someone you know is an inflexible fundie in debate over such emotionally-charged issues over and over again is a sign that neither of you know when it's time to quit.Your response accuses me of siding with the fundie, ignoring the urgent need for dialogue, discriminating against gays, etc. etc. I don't think I deserve this. If you can't approach this matter with more objectivity, then you're proving my point.Adminssimo Hambre

AdminHambre writes:

quote:

---

Your response accuses me of siding with the fundie, ignoring the urgent need for dialogue, discriminating against gays, etc. etc. I don't think I deserve this. If you can't approach this matter with more objectivity, then you're proving my point.

---

That's not what I meant. You mentioned abortion and racism, I only responded. I'm sorry you seem to think I'm being unreasonable. I'm simply trying to understand what the policy is. I'm asking questions, not making statements. Is homosexuality to be a taboo topic once the current thread is closed? I agree that the arguments become repetitive, but the same happens in threads about the flood, biblical innerancy, the big bang and other issues, particularly ones that pit culture and conventional "knowledge" against either science or the bible. If (and I only mean "if") homosexuality is to be banned as a topic then I feel it would only be fair to ban other repetitive topics as well.If I'm being unreasonable, then I'm not the only one. One of the admins is tired of frivolous topics being created in the ostensibly off-topic 'Coffee House'. Rather than simply propose a new policy limiting frivolous topics, he choose to hold one of our members up to public ridicule. The fact that this was a gay member combined with the fact that it is gay topics which you admins say are becoming tiresome leaves me to believe that you might have a problem with gays. Once again, this is not a statement. You may regard it as a question or even as a challenge, but it is not a statement.

I'm probably not the best person to address your question, primarily because I haven't participated nor even read any of the threads touching on homosexuality, but I might shed some light nonetheless.A recurring problem at bulletin boards are members who tend to hijack threads to focus on their favorite topics. Peter Borger was the best at this - he turned every thread he joined into a discussion of his personal theory of evolution.I think the current concern regarding homosexuality-related discussions has similar concerns. Non-homosexuality topics are not being hijacked to address homosexual issues, but many topics touching on homosexuality in some aspect are being opened.Now, this is just fine if it reflected the interests of the general member community, but the concern is that it is primarily a reflection of the interests of just a single individual. This isn't to say that the rest of our membership, gay and otherwise, aren't interested in discussing the topics, but only that the number of topics is much greater than the general interest level would reflect, and that this is primarily due to a single individual.So, no, gays aren't being targeted or restricted in the topic choices. The concern of moderators would be the same no matter what topic area this was happening to.--Percy

You say you're not the best person to answer my questions, Percy, but you've given me the most lucid explanation so far. I don't mean to criticize AdminHambre because I think he means well, but he didn't state the case quite so clearly.I don't want to get bogged down in the same pro and con arguments any more than anyone else does, but I really think it might be the subject matter of the homosexuality topics that bothers people more than the repetition. There's been lots of gnashing of teeth over the endless reruns of other topics like the ones I've mentioned earlier. ALL of the repetitive topics tend to result in the exit of one or more fundie members of these boards, at least from what I've seen. There's nothing unique about the gay topics except that they deal with a subject that understandably makes some people uncomfortable and/or weary.For what it's worth, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to limit social-issue topics to one thread at a time. Unless I'm mistaken, it's already necessary to use the PNT forum when creating a continuation thread of a 300+ post closed topic, so the admins already have a chance to close down a topic that's overly repetitive (if that's not true, then perhaps the 'Coffee House' could be declared off-limits for starting continuation threads). But I would feel better if the admins would agree to treat these topics more liberally when a new angle to the issue is brought up. That will no doubt be the case over the next few years, particularly regarding the homosexuality topics. The issue will be front-and-center in the news for some time to come.And when a spurious anti-gay remark is made off-topic, I should hope that we would have the right to refute it on-the-spot.EDIT: I want to thank all of you who've responded and tried to make me understand your position. I do feel better that there isn't any ant-gay bias going on. The simple fact that you've responded reasonably and that you seem to insist on putting the interests of the message board itself above that of any single topic speaks well of you.This message has been edited by berberry, 11-10-2004 03:49 AM

---

Dog is my copilot.

I understand your point about the very low likelihood of someone changing their mind on these social issues, but I like to believe that some positive change has come of it.There was a thread started by someone who vehemently stated for 100 posts or so that homosexuality was wrong because sex without the possibility of procreation was immoral. When countered with the example of infertile heterosexual couples, he admitted he had a vasectomy - and I read into his posts that he began to rethink his previously immobile stance upon the comparison.It seems to me the chances of educating an "inflexible fundie" on abiogenesis or evolution is about the same as educating them on homosexuality. That doesn't mean it isn't worth trying.Importantly, Lam repeatedly tries to maintain his threads as Biblically-oriented, so at least the originator is attempting to maintain a Biblical context. Likewise, homosexuality seems to intuitively fly in the face of evolution, and thus the biology of homosexuality has produced some rather interesting (and educational) discussion.

quote:

---

Lam repeatedly tries to maintain his threads as Biblically-oriented, so at least the originator is attempting to maintain a Biblical context. Likewise, homosexuality seems to intuitively fly in the face of evolution, and thus the biology of homosexuality has produced some rather interesting (and educational) discussion.

---

You're talking about two completely different things here.Examining the cultural context, genetic basis, or psychology of certain phenomena is a far cry from poring over the Bible and trying to locate passages that support your position. I'm not a believer, and I don't honestly give two shits what someone can make the Bible say about species evolution, homosexuality, swearing, masturbation, cotton-wool clothing, or anything else. I deplore the fact that fundies have made the Bible part of every discussion, as if we're supposed to apply the wisdom of ancient xenophobic nomads to contemporary issues they couldn't conceivably understand. More to the point, I find it reprehensible that non-believers initiate discussions on Biblical literalism (thereby validating use of the Bible as a basis for societal discourse) and then act surprised when the fundies cling to their cherished myths.Note that Lam even started this thread by pointing out Bible passages that condemn homosexuality. He started this thread by asking for Biblical support as well. No talk of civil rights precedents, the 14th amendment, or any other matter that modern citizens see as relevant to the debate. This makes it clear that the debate has to be centered on the Bible, what we interpret the Bible to say, and the importance of Biblical exegesis to contemporary society. The subject under discussion becomes superfluous, and it becomes a shit-flinging match between two camps determined to paint the other as evil. I assert that this strategy is only intended to welcome abuse from the fundies, and allow anyone with a smidgen of tolerance to ridicule them for fanatical adherence to the Biblical tenets that we already expect fundies to accept blindly.I didn't get involved in those threads, and I'm not going to ban any discussions. However, let's not pretend those debates were rational examinations of the issue of sexual identity, or of the tolerance that a free society demands. I don't appreciate being painted as a discriminator and a homophobe for pointing out that Biblical discussions have jack shit to do with contemporary realities. If you want to talk about the real world, fine.Adminssimo Hambre

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

I'm about as anti-Bush as anyone here, but I do think that it's perhaps time to stop the flood of new U.S. politics topics.Moose (not in the admin-mode)

I'm confused. Did you think I was calling you a discriminator and a homophobe? I wasn't, and I'm sorry that you took it that way.Biblical discussions do have to do with reality, since that is what apparently a majority of Americans base their views of homosexuality upon. You seem to state that is fine to examine cultural context but not Biblical context of homosexuality, yet the foundation of the cultural context is the Biblical context.I'm hopeful. I like to think some people have gained a little wisdom in the homosexuality threads. Sometimes this happens in the midst of a shit-flinging match, admittedly...