Change in Moderation?

Regarding this exchange.

quote:

---

Pink: Here is a webpage that debunks various young earth arguments, including a few based on silt accumulation.

​

Perhaps you will find it helpful.

---

quote:

---

AM: Isn't that mighty close to being a bare link?

​

I think the creation side frequently gets chastised for responses of this nature. The rule applies to the evolution side also.

---

My comment was made following a link by Nosy where he suggested that techristian's comments were completely wrong, and thus techristian should do some research.I would hope the content of my reply showed that I was simply providing a resource, rather than directly countering any comments made by techristian. (In fact, the reference I provided doesn't mention his assertion).Does the "bare link" rule apply even if you are simply providing a resource?

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

In my opinion I think you need a little more sensitivity to context.A bare link is not appropriate for making an argument. Nor is it appropriate to rebut a proper argument. But when the only thing on the table is a bare assertion I don't see any need for anything more to rebut it.If you permit low content posts like techristian's then I don't think that you should complain if the responses are also low content - so long as they adequately address what little substance has actually been put forward.

TO: brianThere is a message awaiting you at: http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: InformationSincerely,Ken

mike the wiz writes here:

quote:

---

You're not a good example of evo-harmony. Nor is Hambre - he's an admin, and he's a right militant. If I mention "God" in a thread - despite someone else bringing up the issue - he complains about me rather than the person who brought it up.

---

Mike, I'm not trying to single you out for bad behavior. You're a well-liked poster here at EvC, and I know people appreciate your input. The topics in question, though, were not about God or belief.Amlodhi had posted this post in the thread on "Probability of Life Arising Calculations
" concerning probability calculations and the parsimony principle. He only mentioned the Big Magic Guy to point out how believers have to resort to post-hoc rationalizations in order to "explain why a God created inhabited world appears to follow only the laws of chaos and indifference." You proved his point by serving up a dissertation on the moral nature of God, with Christ and Satan making equally ill-advised appearances. This was in the "Is It Science?" forum, Mike, so I tried to steer you back to the topic.The other instance was in the "Homo floresiensis" thread, after Quetzal had delivered a typically cogent examination of the difference between creationist and evolutionary taxonomic categorization. Amid his lengthy argument, he pointed out that, if the fossil in question was categorized as other than Homo, "your entire worldview about humanity's privileged place in God's creation has just been obliterated." You chose to sieze on that one mention to deliver a rambling sermon on the way God created the heavens and Earth, and gave Man dominion over all the animals. Again, I didn't think invoking God in the "Human Origins" forum was particularly appropriate, and just told you to stick to the topic.In both cases, Mike, the mere mention of God did not warrant a digression into theology.I know that I've debated you at length as MrHambre, and I'm never pleased with the amount of times you ride out of trouble holding onto your convenient skyhook. Claiming that "faith" is every bit as valid a basis for knowledge as the scientific method doesn't make it so. For every time you admit that your beliefs are not based on evidence, there are quite a few times when miracles, prophecy and spurious logical constructs act as support for your assertions that naturalists ("none-believers") are jaundiced bigots.You're free to debate the way we atheists don't understand or accept "faith," but do it in the Faith & Belief forum. When you use this "faith" argument in any other context, you're taking something personal and assuming it's a fit subject for public discourse. I expect that good-faith dialogue means arguing your point in terms relevant to the discussion.Adminssimo Hambre

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

It's from "Death or Glory" off London Calling: regards,
Esteban Hambre

At WOJB (see wojb.org if you wish) I played the entire "London Calling" the week after Joe Strummer died. Never noticed the "FCC violation".Relistened to the tune now - A lot of the words are pretty slurred, but the "fuck's" is clearly there.I once aired the Pogues "Bottle of Smoke". Much more of the "great F-word", but largely so slurred it can pass without notice unless you're listening closely.But I'm now off-topic. Sorry.Moose

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

Nicolas states in the introductory paragraph: He discusses some of the main contributors to the field comparing, contrasting and summing up the leading theories. I don't have the expertise to judge the content but it makes sense to me in my ignorance. He seems to have correctly cited his sources. Of course it could be plagiarised or made up whole cloth for all I know. The net makes all that easy to do. If the paper was archived on the internet he could have posted a link to it. But taking it at face value it seems a very well researched over view of issues in the field it claims to be addressing. I was frankly wowed by it.The paper is densely annotated but that may be the necessary style when presenting scientific papers. I only get a general understanding from it. Those better educated in science might have more to say on this.It looks to me he gave a complete with citation answer to the OP. I can't find fault with that. It's rare to get such a well laid out answer on a topic. It might have been too much detail but hey, that's why we learn to skim!lfen

Hi,my apologies if my post has created some confusion. The paper is not plagiarised, it was graded as a first class dissertation that I submitted as part of my Cambridge degree - they are extremely strict on the issue of plagiarism and I had to sign papers to declare that I had not plagiarised the work of others. I also had the fortune to consult directly with several of the authors I referenced since they work in the department I am attached to. Only parts in quotation marks are directly taken form other articles or books. I used several diagrams from Vinicius and Lahr because they are the only authors to have produced such diagrams to illustrate visually some of the expectations of the various theories. I included those mainly for the benefit of the biological anthropologists assessing my paper, since (inevitably) they would know less about the subject that I do, given that I researched it for about 2 months. It is not a published paper (although Cambridge University can do whatever they want with it) and they take about 1 year to be published anyway. I posted it in unaltered form.The nature of work that is based on drawing on the research of others and then critically evaluating all the differing opinions and results, means that you are expected to back up assumptions or claims by referencing authors that can support it. So for example, in this section:....somatic retardation generally requires a weakening of growth allometries confirming that all trait growth allometries should converge toward isometry (i.e. no shape or brain/body size ratio change) (Shea 1989; Godfrey & Sutherland 1996; Williams et al 2002)....When I reference Shea, Godfrey and Williams, I do so only to point out that they too have indicated in their work that somatic retardation would result in a convergence towards isometric growth. With multiple sources independently arriving at the same conclusion, it adds extra weight to that point. If I had not done this then there would be no evidence to back-up my claim. My dissertation is actually relatively free of these citationsWhen I read the original post by a student being taught about neoteny in humans, I instantly recognised what he was talking about. I'd been really interested in these theories aswell and thought neoteny made partial sense. But my extended research into the subject completely changed my mind, and so I felt this person would be interested in reading about my opinions of it.Finally, I could not find any webspace for me to upload this paper to, as I realised having 6000 words in a forum post would be undesirable. However, I also noticed that noone had replied to that topic for months and so thought it would just appeal to the topic starter if he came across it, I wasn't expecting anyone else to show much interest. If I have anything to post in the future I will try and host it somewhere as you've asked. Thank youNicolasThis message has been edited by Nicolas Gallagher, 11-27-2004 07:48 AM

NicholasI think this has gotten blown out of proportion.My initial suggestion was only meant to make your post more accessable to many of our members. For example, in this latest post you say: That is a clear and succinct statement of you position, but it is only here that you finally made it. A shorter statement, particularly if it was followed by a short bulleted list of your key objections would have had more impact.If someone then questioned or challenged one or more of those points, that would have been the time bring in the big guns.Anyway, I'm glad you're here and I really hope to learn much from you in the future.

Thanks, Nicolas, that was an awesome paper!
And welcome to the forum lfen

Since the Forum Guidelines say not to cut-n-paste long excerpts into message boxes, it's a violation. He describes it as a dissertation, but it is extremely brief for this genre, and it seems more a survey than a dissertation. Nonetheless, it's extremely long for a message. He should summarize his main point in a paragraph or three, then provide a link to his paper. We can make his paper available as a link at EvC Forum if he has no web resources of his own.--Percy

I have already linked it to web space now following the complaints of others. This is not a thesis, it was my dissertation, the first dissertation must be around 6000 words and the second no more than 10000...although I'm not sure why people should presume the requirements of my degree course or essentially imply that calling it a "dissertation" is a lie.I assume that you have little knowledge of this area of scientific research and so it seems odd that you feel qualified to label it merely a "survey" of the topic or "extremely brief". Suggestions that I cut-and-paste this from somewhere or have just fabricated aspects of my argument, based on people skim-reading, are also quite surprising. I would never think of making those kinds of comments about something that I had not bothered to look at in detail. I did not post for any reason other than to provide relevant information for the topic starter, in a seemingly abandoned topic. If I'd know it would become a centre for debate about forum violations or claims of plagiarism then I would have thought again.all the bestNicolas Gallagher