General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution

quote:

---

both belief paradigms

---

That thread has been pure science for about 200 posts - are you saying the geolgy is a "belief"?It's a nonsense for faith to debate science and then be able to retreat into "well this is the faith forum and I don't have to defend myself".

The brits will understand this better than the rest of you - what a grass.

quote:

---

because what nuggin said was nothing compared to what I have been tempted to say.

---

Hum.. I did make a comment to faith before about how people are holding their tongues but it seems I was talking "trash".http://EvC Forum: Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish? -->EvC Forum: Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?

It is this post:http://EvC Forum: A Closer Look at Pat Robertson -->EvC Forum: A Closer Look at Pat Robertsonyes I found this attack very hurtful:

quote:

---

What a bunch of irrelevant trash. I'm obviously not talking about inadvertent or unconscious communications. I'm talking about civility. You generally exhibit very little of that, which may explain your inability to get the point.

---

and look how rude she is to Deerbreh:

quote:

---

YOur personal attacks are offensive in the extreme and you are a lousy psychoanalyst if you think frustration with your false needling insinuations is some sort of proof of your puerile theories about my motives. That's the most primitive stupid kind of psychologizing there is.

---

and

quote:

---

What a smug self-satisfied piece of BS.

---

IMHO Faith needs an attitude adjustment and must learn to better control her temper if she is to interact well with others.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 27-Aug-2005 06:32 PM

quote:

---

Uh huh, well, all you self-righteous perfect pure people who give yourselves the right to trash others, it works both ways. I don't trash you, you don't trash me. The Forum Guidelines prohibit personal attacks. You are SOOOOOOOOO sure of your moral superiority and my sinfulness but fortunately there are laws that protect people from that kind of judgmentalness you enforce with abusive language. Nuggin deserves a suspension and if that kind of abusiveness is not punished the place will only deteriorate.

---

Faith I'm not even sure what you are actually getting at? What is this suppose to mean?

quote:

---

fortunately there are laws that protect people from that kind of judgmentalness you enforce with abusive language

---

As for sinfulness - I'm an atheist that terms doesn't mean anything to me.

quote:

---

Explain what is wrong with this post. Am I out of line saying what is true. Why does Faith get a free ride? Faith can attack and criticize with no retribution, but I explain in clear coherent terms why this is unjust and I am proclaimed the bad guy???? What is up with that?

---

It is like this - Faith IS held to a different standard to the rest of us and I think it because of the sheer number of posts she does. This means that she fulfills the role of multiple creationists and stop it being a load of evos mumbling at each other. This means she can lie, abuse people and basically go "NANANANANAN CANNOT HEAR YOU" to evidence and explaination long beyond the rest of us.The only other explaination is frankly not that pleasant for faith (and is in fact downright insulting) - it is that she is being treated like the special ed students in schools - not expected to hold to the same level of behaviour and reason because they are considered incapable.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Aug-2005 02:51 AM

But the point is - I'm actually DEFENDING Faith with that post - I'm not suggesting faith is "special education", I'm suggesting that is how the moderators are treating her by expecting lower/different standards of behaviour. So the question has to be "why?"The only reasonable explanation is that they don't feel she is capable of adjusting her behaviour and interaction with other posters - maybe she is not - but that's NOT a decision for the moderators to take - it's demeaning to her and this site.Yes sometimes I am too blunt but I perfer that to pleasant half-truths.

That reply is a dodge.Many members of this group feel Faith get special or different treatment from the rest of us:1) Is there a policy to give Faith special or different treatment to the rest of us?2) If the answer to 1 is yes - then the next logical question is why?If the answer is no, then we need to understand why that perception has arisen (but that's not an issue we need to tackle on this thread because it's not directly related to moderation).Look I know that moderation can be a pain in the ass and a drain on time (I do it on a number of boards) but if you step up, then..em.. you step up.

Well if that's your attitude then I just want to say that...oh you answered my questions fully.Thanks for clearing that up.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Aug-2005 12:40 PM

Even with the lower standards that we expect from creationists, Iano is quite clearly taking the piss in the way he is quote-mining me and my line of enquiry in the Abortion thread.It starts here:http://EvC Forum: Abortion -->EvC Forum: Abortion

You said

quote:

---

You never clearly asked iano to support that assertion and provide the details of the incident.

---

In the thread I asked:

quote:

---

I cannot find any evidence for the example you have provided from the first book, so can you show us your example actually happened?

---

I also asked:

quote:

---

Yes and I found the reference but I cannot find any supporting evidence that the example presented is real. So I'm asking YOU to support your example (which is how we work here) - so do you have the name of the doctor who provided this "experiment"? The context in which it was performed? Any evidence at all that it happened?

​

The name of a doctor? a hospital? a study?

---

How is asking for the name of the doctor involved in the study or the location of the study or the name of the actual study being "unclear"?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Aug-2005 01:15 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Aug-2005 01:16 PM

What you seem to be insinuating is that Iano is slightly retarded and that we should all take into account.I have no idea what has happened to this site but it is being increasingly clear that something has happened behind the scenes in regards to moderation.I can see however that I am flogging a dead horse and will leave it there.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Aug-2005 01:26 PM

This really had gone beyond a joke - he is now just straight out and out making up statements from me.I guess he read this thread and you were "not clear" and he thought you were giving him a license to tell lies.

I must confess that I'll slightly baffled to find myself making this post but my basic sense of fairness pushes me to...Randman's banning from the science forums seems slightly vague - I am not suggesting that it is not deserved and I am not suggested a detailed breakdown of why must be presented, but it may be useful to at least reference a couple of threads so that other posters can get a better concept of why the ban has occured.

Thanks for the swift response.