|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Change in Moderation? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
otherwise we might have had to ban you, if of course, we had not already reached our quota.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to: Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures) or Thread Reopen Requests or Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum or Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6502 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:With the exception of 1 or 2 non-creationists, most of Terry's site looks like a who's who of creationists that got trounced at EvC...a place to lick their wounds and feel the consoling ignorance of Terry himself. If Terry did not start the threads, there would be no posting at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Please take into account the time it takes to compose a post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
No problem. But since I jumped on Hydarnes about staying on topic I really had to respond to you as well.
I thank you for bringing your comments here. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to: Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures) or Thread Reopen Requests or Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum or Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Actually I don't see a need. Your post discussed the situation and then stated that there would be no further discussion of the issue on that thread. It didn't single out anyone in particular.
That's fair enough. What I am saying is that I beleive that you should allow a grace period between posting and taking any further action to allow for the time it takes to compose a post. If discussion goes on too long beyond that THEN further warnings and picking out individuals may be in order.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
If you feel I singled you out, then please accept my appolgy. That was not my intent but rather to simply show that there would be no more discussion of that issue in that thread from anyone on either side.
Again, if you feel I was over harsh, I'm sorry. I will certainly consider what you've said and will try to do better in the future. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to: Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures) or Thread Reopen Requests or Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum or Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I don't think that I was intentionally singled out, but I also think that you were a bit too quick off the mark as I had had no opportunity to see your post.
I suspect that it would have been better if the whole discussion had been quickly moved away from that thread but I think you have to take that one up with Percy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4021 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Glad to see our Neddy got promoted to a threat in the Salt reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hi Admin. I have been instructed to bring my td/id problem here. I'm asking for an answer to this question. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text question from context of message 34 of Thermodynamics Thread: buz: The topic of this thread is a "Discussion of the 3 thermodynamic laws." ID creation involves the "mysterious" and "no physical imperitive that it is so." Peeper, the evolutionist has been allowed to debate/discuss the 3td laws relative to the "mysterious and that which has "no physical imperitive that it is so." i.e. the improbible. Since ID creationism involves the "mysterious" and "improbable," may I assume that I will be allowed equal opportunity to discuss/debate the 3td laws in this thread as an ID creationist, or is this thread closed to ID creationists? I will be in and out today. Thanks This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-14-2004 12:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Buzsaw,
Thank you for bringing this issue to the appropriate place. It wouldn't be appropriate to turn this thread into a discussion of thermodynamics. I'll confine myself to commenting on the process. I understand that you do not agree that there are issues with your comprehension. Perhaps this view is incorrect and it is really everyone else that isn't comprehending. But this board places a high value on constructive dialogue, and so moderators have to step in when a thread swings off-topic to instead discuss your inability to engage a subject constructively. This has happened so often that I wouldn't even venture to guess the number of times. As I said elsewhere, since you refuse to learn from others, and since you won't learn on your own, and since you will bog debate down interminably insisting that your comments make sense, moderators have no choice but to administer admonishments and/or limit your participation. I think it would be very helpful if you would address a question I've raised several times. Why do you have this passion to participate authoritatively in discussions of topics about which you know almost nothing? I can offer you no relief, though other moderators may have other opinions or ideas. My suggestion to you remains unchanged. Learn first by reading books or on-line articles, then participate. And I'll add a new suggestion. When someone tells you you're not making sense, try to get to the bottom of what doesn't make sense. Engage people in a dialogue about it . Definitely do not go into your standard defense mode of protesting ad infinitum that you were making perfect sense and that we're all just a gang of evolutionists trying to shut you up because we cannot refute your arguments. That particular objection makes no sense anyway, given that all your posts reside here unchanged and undeleted. If your arguments were really as effective as you seem to believe, wouldn't we just delete them and ban you? If it were really our desire to silence Creationists, aren't we being particularly dunderheaded strategically? Won't you please at least consider that we really don't have such an agenda, and that we really and truly perceive your posts on science topics as reflecting fundamental misunderstandings and lack of knowledge? I know it's your style to respond immediately, but I suggest you instead think about this for a while. There may be more of merit in what I'm saying than you initially believe, especially since I don't think I'm saying anything that many others do not agree with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
It wouldn't be appropriate to turn this thread into a discussion of thermodynamics. I'll confine myself to commenting on the process. I'm not asking you to discuss td with me here. The only reason I brought the text forward is to request an answer to the question in it.
I understand that you do not agree that there are issues with your comprehension. Perhaps this view is incorrect and it is really everyone else that isn't comprehending. My IQ tests well above average and I have no problem comprehending the td laws.
As I said elsewhere, since you refuse to learn from others, and since you won't learn on your own, and since you will bog debate down interminably insisting that your comments make sense, moderators have no choice but to administer admonishments and/or limit your participation. That's just not true, Percy. I have learned a whole lot since I came here and continue to learn from you people, the internet, books and elsewhere. Certainly I am aware that most of my counterparts are a lot more knowledgeable on science than I am. For this reason, I do my homework and limit my posts to that level of knowledge that I do have. This is what I did in my td thread, and am willing to be shown otherwise. You and others make no effort to show me anything. You just keep on keeping on making these insultive, degrading, generalized, and unsubstantiated accusations about my stubbornness, lack of the ability to comprehend, et al.
I think it would be very helpful if you would address a question I've raised several times. Why do you have this passion to participate authoritatively in discussions of topics about which you know almost nothing? I continually called for counterparts to refute my op and other statements. How about a great debate, with a volunteer counterpart going back and bringing up all the effective and sound refutations that were posted by my counterparts on my td thread? Ask for a volunteer and I'll gladly take them on, so long as it isn't mike. Mike badly needed moderating in that thread, imo. All he did was heckle with insolent off topic yada. Had he been a creo insulting an evo, no doubt he'd have been admonished. I would also want to be able to bring up specific posts which were not effectively refuted.
When someone tells you you're not making sense, try to get to the bottom of what doesn't make sense. Of course they're going to tell me I don't make sense. I'm an ID creo. I tell them to go to my op and show where I messed up. Neither they nor you do it. You all simply go at me for talking nonsense/ID creationism.
Engage people in a dialogue about it. Definitely do not go into your standard defense mode of protesting ad infinitum that you were making perfect sense and that we're all just a gang of evolutionists trying to shut you up because we cannot refute your arguments. Percy, we dialoged for ten pages about it. Again, if you can show where I messed up, please educate me by cutting and pasting specific messups and talking about them. They and you refuse to do that though. Why? The only reason I can think of is that they/you can't do it. Like I said, I challenge anyone to a great debate on specific posts they consider to have been effectively refuted in that thread.
That particular objection makes no sense anyway, given that all your posts reside here unchanged and undeleted. If your arguments were really as effective as you seem to believe, wouldn't we just delete them and ban you? If it were really our desire to silence Creationists, aren't we being particularly dunderheaded strategically? That would be real dumb strategy. You'd not only loose what credibility you have here with creos, but you'd have even fewer bonafide creos willing to put up with the bias practiced here. Please tell me this, Percy. How many active, I say active bonafide ID supernaturalist Biblical creos who have stayed any significant length of time do we have here? I count one, based on the threads I've read and participated in. Me. Hopefully Anti-climacus will prove to be another, but, imo, if he gets talking ID science he'll get plenty of biased static. Have I missed some/someone? Nearly all of the 'creos' here are not ID creos, but evolutionists who you people get along with fine. Why shouldn't you, when origin wise, there's only about a nickles worth of difference in their ideology and yours. You made a big deal about my fellow creos siding against me in my td thread. Of course. Why shouldn't they? They're evolutionists, like the rest of you. Herein lies the problem. ID supernaturalist Biblical creationists who debate ID and the supernatural are in effect, disallowed participation in science threads, which brings us back to the question at hand as put forth in the ongoing td rhread which I desire to participate in. buz: The topic of this thread is a "Discussion of the 3 thermodynamic laws." ID creation involves the "mysterious" and "no physical imperitive that it is so." Peeper, the evolutionist has been allowed to debate/discuss the 3td laws relative to the "mysterious and that which has "no physical imperitive that it is so." i.e. the improbible. Since ID creationism involves the "mysterious" and "improbable," may I assume that I will be allowed equal opportunity to discuss/debate the 3td laws in this thread as an ID creationist, or is this thread closed to ID creationists? Again, I'm not asking you to discuss td law here. I'm only asking you to specifically address the question in bold print.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Buzz,
While your requests for elucidation and clarification seem reasonable, we must be mindful of history. You've been here a long time, and after many, many attempts to engage you we've all found it impossible. The dialogue inevitably bogs down amongst your innumerable and determined protestations that what you said made sense. A sure sign of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect something different to happen, so I won't be traveling such paths with you anymore. I'm afraid you must sleep in the bed you have made yourself. If you don't like it, I suggest you begin work on a different one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
So rather than do the noble and right thing which would be to address my post, you've decided to cop out and ignore the points of my defense with this insolent statement. I pray that God will convict you of this injustice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Let me point out that Percy's response is largely shaped by your own recent thermodynamics thread which clearly showed that you had failed to do your homework, did not understand what you were talking about and refused to learn.
Percy cannot offer any guarantee that you would be allowed to introduce such a thread again since it was rightly closed and should probably never have been approved in the first place. Percy is in a position where neither a "yes" or "no" answer is good. Yhere is nothing forbidding anyone from discussing thermodynamics provided they can do so in line with the forum rules and guidelines. Yet a "no" answer would contradict that. However there is no doubt in my mind that you would take a "yes" answer as indicating that your thread was wrongly closed even though the reasons for doing so were clear and do not relate to your question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
buzsaw writes: So rather than do the noble and right thing which would be to address my post... As I just said, we have traveled this path before and gotten nowhere. Before engaging in such an exercise I would need to be somehow persuaded that it would be different this time. You do not actually need my help to improve your fortunes here, for it is well within your power to change things. The next time you find yourself writing, "Just show me where I'm wrong," or "What I wrote was actually correct," or anything along these lines (hopefully you can recognize the pattern by now), try and catch yourself and seek some alternative approach. As I said earlier, when threads shift from the main topic to instead address whether you know what you're talking about, then we'll be limiting participation through privilege modification or closing down the thread as appropriate. All you need do is recognize the danger signs before such topic shifts occur. I haven't gotten any measure of other's opinions, but my own opinion about the quality of posts here since the suspension of WillowTree, Kendemyer, John Paul and others is that it is way up. Time and effort that previously had been exerted trying to bring rationality to their threads is now being spent on productive discussion. Each moderator runs his own show (within the moderator guidelines), but I'm encouraging the moderator crew to be proactive in combating nonsense threads and irrational discussions. The reason this approach is important is because bad debate pushes out and replaces good debate. Combined with the simple fact that few can resist the temptation of correcting irrationality and nonsense (some, like James Randi and Michael Shermer, make a career of it), nonsense threads quickly suck up much time that would otherwise be spent productively. If you'd like to take another stab at it let me know and I'll reopen your God/thermo thread. If it helps, let me describe what I found the biggest problem in your approach. There are other legitimate perspectives, I'm sure, but for me the biggest problem was that you were trying to bring together the highly quantitative science of thermodynamics with the completely unknown and unknowable nature of God. You then began assigning scientific axioms to the nature of God (e.g., he has infinite energy) with no evidential support, and so the journey into Alice-in-Wonderland and Mad Hatter science was begun. That being said, I do think it would be a fascinating discussion (but not in your God/thermo thread) to speculate what would be the implications on the universe if a God of certain proposed qualities (including infinite energy) actually existed. You *can* legitimately ask the question whether a God of infinite energy could reside within our universe given physical laws as we currently understand them. But you can't simply declare that a God of infinite energy resides within our universe. If you do want your God/thermo thread reopened, I think it would be best to keep the focus tightly on the 2nd law and the nature of the energy flow between Jesus and the woman. This gathered the most attention, and it seems the most concrete and easily discussed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024