Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Topic Proposal Issues
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 61 of 517 (194699)
03-26-2005 3:58 PM


Destintlab
I've seen that same initial post over at CreationTalk, with no followup by the author yet in evidence. It smells spammish to me, but hey, if the person wants to come talk, I can trade links - MC Hawking springs to mind......
{Note: This is a reponse to this. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-26-2005 04:47 PM

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 62 of 517 (195822)
03-31-2005 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
09-12-2004 2:26 PM


In simple's proprosed new topic thread The split, dating, and God:
Something's been bothering me about this forum for a while, and it's the use of the word (and idea) "science." It seems everybody's gotten all wrapped up in the idea that science is really important, in fact necessary. Investigation seems not to matter unless it's "science."
Well, the fact is that science is simply one method for investigation. It can only ask questions where falsification and evidential support are available. Even then, the answers are certainly not at all infallible. Domains such as mathematics, philosophy, and even things like inspiration for scientific thoeory (such as the beginnings for relativity theory) are based simply off of assumptions and logic.
Why do I bring it up?
AdminJar (in the aforementioned thread) writes:
Personally I think the thread is nonsense. Unless simple is prepared to offer some evidence that there ever was a split or that conditions such as decay rates did vary in the past I think it is a waste of time promoting it; just another gold or diamond core of the earth fiction.
Evidence is not the only way to proceed. Simple wants to see if, given a set of premises, can we logically derive an answer. There's nothing wrong with this approach. It's not scientific. Does it suddenly have to be? Is non-scientific investigation disallowed at this board?
Checking the forum guidelines,
Discussion Guideline #4 writes:
Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.
Seems that this is open enough to allow such discussion.
It's not a science board. I really hope we don't turn it into one. Science is a way to argue inductively. That's it. Life contains many things outside of it.
I'm just afraid we're getting too wrapped up in "science." When I see this kind of comment in a moderator, then I get really worried about the direction of this board.
Thanks for listening!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2004 2:26 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by tsig, posted 09-11-2005 9:43 AM Ben! has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 63 of 517 (197156)
04-06-2005 2:24 AM


I'm not trying to be a pest but is there some reason why 6 topics proposed after my 'Sex really is good for your evolution, if you're a yeast' proposal have been promoted through to forums and I haven't even got any feedback on mine?
I do appreciate the problem of new posts coming in and pushing things down the board, but if five different Admins can find time to read and comment on April Fool's 'you people are brilliant' thread, why can't a single one find time to look at mine?
TTFN,
WK

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Admin, posted 04-06-2005 4:36 AM Wounded King has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 64 of 517 (197187)
04-06-2005 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Wounded King
04-06-2005 2:24 AM


We were drawn as moths to a flame to the thread proclaiming our brilliance. Your thread has been promoted.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Wounded King, posted 04-06-2005 2:24 AM Wounded King has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 65 of 517 (197401)
04-07-2005 7:12 AM


Notice concerning backlog of unprocessed "Proposed New Topics"
I've just reviewed a bunch of yet unclosed "Proposed New Topics".
AdminPhat has just promoted one of them.
I rejected and closed one, and tentitively rejected a second (both with a bump).
Pretty much, the rest are seriously flawed, and as is, are not promotable.
I am going to make a note to re-review these topics again soon (maybe tommorrow night). If no one bumps any of them soon, I'm probably going to edit in rejection comments and close most to all of those PNT's (without a bump).
I may try to index my actions in this topic.
All are here warned of such impending action.
Adminnemooseus
ps: Of course, any rejected PNT will still be available for un-rejection and reconsideration. No rejection is absolutely terminal.

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Phat, posted 04-07-2005 7:31 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 66 of 517 (197403)
04-07-2005 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Adminnemooseus
04-07-2005 7:12 AM


Backlog of unprocessed "Proposed New Topics"
I tacked citizzzen onto the other topic which was similar to his/hers.
Percy writes:
We were drawn as moths to a flame to the thread proclaiming our brilliance.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-07-2005 11:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-07-2005 7:12 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 67 of 517 (198795)
04-12-2005 7:48 PM


I am requesting the admins to promote this topic proposal by our newest member here.
It is clear that none of the admins here can really understand what he is talking about. Why not promote it and let some of the other forum members take a stab at it (ahem Brad)? It really looks like he is making a lot of effort for his thread. I do not believe the thread itself is any kind of disruption for this forum. I say we let natural selection take over.
This message has been edited by Admin, 04-12-2005 08:05 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by AdminNosy, posted 04-12-2005 9:47 PM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 73 by Phat, posted 04-13-2005 9:11 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 68 of 517 (198799)
04-12-2005 8:32 PM


Edited - screw this...
This message has been edited by Troy, 04-12-2005 07:34 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-12-2005 8:37 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 69 of 517 (198800)
04-12-2005 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by coffee_addict
04-12-2005 8:32 PM


Lam is there a reason you seem to immediately think the worst of us?
PNTs do not just get ignored. Most of the time it is simple overlook. Topics are NOT deleted around here and you know that.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by coffee_addict, posted 04-12-2005 8:32 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by coffee_addict, posted 04-12-2005 11:55 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

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


Message 70 of 517 (198809)
04-12-2005 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by coffee_addict
04-12-2005 7:48 PM


Come on Lam
A major reason behind the PNT is to stop nonsense topics from cluttering the place up. It is also to give us some mimimum quality to the nature of the debate.
Ptolemy doesn't show any sign that he understands his own speculations. Until he does it will only result in nonsense discussions like we have had with, for example, whatever. (and I refrain, with difficulty, from naming others).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by coffee_addict, posted 04-12-2005 7:48 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by coffee_addict, posted 04-12-2005 11:46 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 71 of 517 (198821)
04-12-2005 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by AdminNosy
04-12-2005 9:47 PM


Re: Come on Lam
AN writes:
A major reason behind the PNT is to stop nonsense topics from cluttering the place up. It is also to give us some mimimum quality to the nature of the debate.
You can always close it later.
Ptolemy doesn't show any sign that he understands his own speculations.
But you have to give it to the guy that he is trying really hard to try to get his point across. I think such effort alone should give him some chance for others in the forum to give it a try with him.
Until he does it will only result in nonsense discussions like we have had with, for example, whatever.
I don't agree that we can compare him to whatever. While Ptolemy seemed like he honestly tried to respond to you and other admins, whatever never gave any serious effort. Most of the time, whatever talked to himself rather than others.
I have been trying to read Ptolemy's stuff and I must admit to being confused. However, you can't expect perfection from someone so new. Until you promote the subject, we could never find out if anyone in the forum actually understands what he is talking about and can respond appropriately.
The reason I am pushing this is because I am curious. If he is a crackpot, he doesn't seem like your typical crackpot. Just give him a chance and see what happens. Natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by AdminNosy, posted 04-12-2005 9:47 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 72 of 517 (198822)
04-12-2005 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by AdminAsgara
04-12-2005 8:37 PM


AA writes:
Lam is there a reason you seem to immediately think the worst of us?
Yes. Some bastard sabotaged our water pipe and flooded several floors... flooded my room. I'm convinced it was the same person that set our building on fire once this semester and twice last semester. It still smell like smoke here.
Most of the time it is simple overlook.
And I also put that into consideration. However, by my count, there are currently 5 very active admins. I have noticed that while some topics get "overlooked" for a day or two, and sometimes several days, many comments are made by the same 5 admins in other threads and PNTs.
Older members might understand that you guys have your hands full already, but what about the newer members?
I am not saying that you should promote such topics right away. I am saying that if you have plans for a proposed topic but do not want to act it out right away, at least drop a line or two. Even simple words like "your topic sucks" is better than letting the person wait for several days after which some thoughts may have already gotten lost. And I'm not only referring to the OP starter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-12-2005 8:37 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 73 of 517 (198910)
04-13-2005 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by coffee_addict
04-12-2005 7:48 PM


Easy does it, Troy
Troy I have taken responsibility for this new member. Check out his webpage and you will see what type of a poster we are likely to have. I am going to promote his newest thread, but I am setting the tone of keeping the topic concise. (Check out his webpage and you will see what I mean) He is an earnest thinker...and he knows how to spell!
He is even a Sunday School teacher! You will get your chance to attempt to ridicule him soon enough!
Sorry about your waterpipe dilemma. Life will get better this upcoming week, trust me.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-13-2005 06:14 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by coffee_addict, posted 04-12-2005 7:48 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 74 of 517 (201348)
04-23-2005 2:11 AM


decisions
My topic "Artificial intelligence, the decision way"
http://EvC Forum: Artificial intelligence, the decision way -->EvC Forum: Artificial intelligence, the decision way
was rejected with the argument that it is:
Adminjar wrote:
"Same old attempt to rename chance as decision.
Forget it."
I've no idea really why this topic is rejected.
In short my reasoning is as follows:
- decision is an essential part to intelligence
- by decisions things go one way or another
- the randomness function in the computer is the only part of the computer which can go one way or another (the rest behaving according to rules of calculation)
- therefore to build an artificial intelligence on a computer, we need to use the random function as the thing by which the computer chooses
Now please tell me what wordusage for discussing this subject is allowed, that would still be understandable. Or to be more precise, what is the point at which the randomfuction chooses between 0 or 1 allowed to be called? Not "decision" apparently, but then what should it be called?
To use the word "chance" in stead of "decision" is no good obviously, because the word "chance" is already in use with another meaning (the chance of 0 is 50 percent, the chance of 1 is 50 percent). So then I would have to talk like: "the chance of 0 is chanced", which is gibberish IMO. I would in stead prefer to talk about chances being decided on, "0 is decided" / "1 is decided", which is not gibberish IMO.
The topic of intelligence is obviously relevant to Creationism (ie intelligent design theory).
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Admin, posted 04-23-2005 8:58 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 75 of 517 (201383)
04-23-2005 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Syamsu
04-23-2005 2:11 AM


Re: decisions
I read the proposal, I see no reason to reconsider.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Syamsu, posted 04-23-2005 2:11 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Syamsu, posted 04-23-2005 10:53 PM Admin has seen this message but 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