General discussion of moderation procedures

General Krull writes Faith:

quote:

---

I'm truely baffled what your actual purpose is here.

---

She's spreading Christian love and charity. Can't you tell?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Chas, you know how it is with a persecution complex---you want to quit, but you have to keep coming back for a fix.When I tot up what Faith has contributed in 1000 posts, it comes to precious little. In the geology series, she might have made us explain sedimentation more clearly. In the Isaiah chronicles, we learned that having ONE out of 850 scrolls agreeing with the Masoretic text means that the bible is unchanged from the originals. Doesn`t seem like much when you are felling the equivalent of several electronic forests.

I think we may need to restart the "Boot Camp" for some of you.Closing this topic for a while.DON'T START ALTERNATE TOPIC!Adminnemooseus

Now you're arguing about definitions. I explained that you abandoned threads because you were intellectually defenseless. Ignorance is not a motive. Ignorance is the reason you were unable to maintain an objective tenor in discussion and so resorted to abusing your fellow members. This is the type of emotional response with which we've become so familiar when you find yourself unable to respond. My advice is to simply answer the question or explain why it isn't relevant to the issue. Giving things labels like "nitpicking" is just more unsupported assertion on your part. I think you have a chip on your shoulder. The facts are that you managed to take offense from almost everyone. Your idea of a provocation is someone expressing an opinion you disagree with. Starting when? Is this like the last 97 times you announced you were leaving? You have no shame. You have no decency. Do you even have no sense of consistency? Do you not even feel any embarassment when you fail time after time to do anything you say you're going to do? Ah, I see, reject the impertinent moralizing of others, but engage in it freely yourself. No, Faith, you are answering sense with nonsense and then abusing everyone who disagrees with you. You could have learned what you didn't understand with the goal of explaining how it is wrong, but you instead pinned labels on it and the people involved. You proved incapable of leaving your emotions out of discussion, and this combined with your lack of knowledge makes you a very inappropriate participant for this type of debate.--Percy

If you're going to post here, make it good.Adminnemooseus

From here.

No, faith didn't just make up the term.It's been in use for quite a long time here in the US.It means to have a general principle of getting in the way with the purpose to obstruct something getting done, usually referring to politics or interpersonal discussion."The Democrats' obstructionist tactics prevented the Republicans from passing the bill.Edited to fix a shameful number of typos.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-07-2005 11:28 PM

quote:

---

A LOT Of what is accepted as scientific here is truly stupid, I mean that literally, it is stupid, it is sophomoric, it is almost a parody of science but it is accepted as science while an extremely well reasoned argument from the other side of the fence is dismissed out of hand as not scientific.

---

Well, Faith, I started a thread for you to discuss this very issue regarding specific scientific claims that you made, but you never responded.I am still more than willing: Are the ToE and GTT imposed upon or products of science?edited to fix linkAdded by edit: I would be more than happy to not participate at all in the above thread if my presence is keeping you from answering the question.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-07-2005 11:39 PMThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-07-2005 11:53 PM

quote:

---

Schraf indulges in abusive interrogation tactics worthy of the KGB perhaps, or the Grand Inquisitor, or a demented adolescent version thereof, but not science, useless nitpicking with no creditable objective. She's possibly but not necessarily the worst of the lot here. The pretense that any of that has anything to do with science is the most abusive thing done here.

---

So, what does everyone else think?Do I have "Vays ov makink you talk?"

Ignoring the thinly veiled insults from Adminnemooseus, I await an answer from AdminJar:Why is it inappropriate to point out when someone is lying? When the forum guidelines make a point of maintaining integrity, not misrepresenting things, etc., why is indicating that someone has violated those standards problematic?Or is it OK to lie in this forum?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Because when you do so you WILL be sanctioned.Continuing this line of questioning will result in sanction.

---

I wonder how Faith is going to reply to all the posts you responded to her, considering that she is currently suspended.

There may be rare occations when someone is lying AND you can show that unequivicably. In those cases all you have to do is show your evidence that some statement is wrong. Others may draw conclusions that the individual was wrong in such a way they HAD to have been lying. You do not have to make the statment yourself.It will be very rare indeed that you can be sure that a person is lying rather than mistaken and/or very stupid. For this reason calling someone a liar is always a bad idea.To maintain civil discussion the policy is that you simple don't use the word but may choose to make the contrast between the statment made and the facts very clear. The intentions of the person making the statment are something each individual has to suss out.

Isn't it better to accuse a person of lying than to accuse him of being stupid?

Calling someone stupid will also not be tolerated.You are free to show where someone is in error. Dispute the content all you like. But calling someone stupid serves no useful purpose.Please do not do it.

---