Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 76 of 300 (240038)
09-02-2005 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by randman
09-02-2005 3:40 PM


Re: complete evo hypocrisy
randman writes:
As such, everything in my post was on-topic, but admittedly embarassing for evos, and so Nosey bans me ostensibly for being off-topic.
The topic was the accuracy of published research reports. As best I can tell, the study was mainly based on research using statistical hypothesis testing, such as is common in the social sciences and pharmacology.
You seemed to be using it as an excuse to attack evolutionists. It sure seemed off topic to me.
However, I apologize for responding to that post. I hadn't noticed that you would be unable to reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 3:40 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 5:19 PM nwr has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 77 of 300 (240042)
09-02-2005 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by nwr
09-02-2005 4:49 PM


Re: complete evo hypocrisy
Adminjar demanded to know the relevance of the article, which therefore necessitated a response specific to the Theory of Evolution and the debate thereof. So I showed where initial or scant studies and papers were jumped on as gospel truth among evos and touted that way to the world, and then to make sure I backed up my claims I used several specific examples of where that happened.
He and the mods know that, or should, that I was answering jar's demand. They are smart enough to see that I was responding to their requests, and yet they banned me for providing the specific and detailed type of responses they asked for.
My conclusion is they didn't like the response not because it was against the rules, but because the argument was so accurate they could not answer it rationally.
Edit to add: I even clearly referenced jar's comments and asked why they were allowed to stand to preface my comments. So what we have here is selective rules-enforcement by the mods. They demand answers that they consider off-topic and then ban me for answering their off-topic demands.
This message has been edited by randman, 09-02-2005 05:21 PM
This message has been edited by randman, 09-02-2005 05:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by nwr, posted 09-02-2005 4:49 PM nwr has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 78 of 300 (240044)
09-02-2005 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by randman
09-02-2005 3:40 PM


Re: complete evo hypocrisy
Hi Randman,
If you really believe that site moderators favor evolutionists by allowing them to get away with behavior not permitted Creationists, and by pestering Creationists who protest such treatment with curtailment of posting privileges, then there is nothing for you to do but move on.
But if you would like to take the moderator feedback to heart and begin participating in a constructive manner that allows discussions to move forward then you'll soon find your posting privileges restored. It is all really up to you.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 3:40 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 5:42 PM Admin has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 79 of 300 (240047)
09-02-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Admin
09-02-2005 5:28 PM


Re: complete evo hypocrisy
Adminjar demanded to know the relevance of the topic and did so in an insulting manner.
Highly likely it is true but...
so what? What is there here to discuss?
How is my response to this not appropiate. This is an evo/creationist/ID discussion forum, right? So I would need to show how this topic has relevance to the forum, and I did that, quite well imo.
I specified a general principle of jumping the gun based on one or few studies, and then gave a list of specific, detailed examples of where that had happened, where false concepts largely no abandoned by evos were once touted by not waiting for more papers and studies to verify the claims. One of those examples have been challenged. The rest to date have not been, but honestly I did not expect anyone to challenge things like the Neanderthal and Haeckel examples, and went on to explain how this issue could be germane in genetics and paleontology.
You tell me.
How should one answer adminjar's demands replete with unsubstantiated insults without referencing the things which I did?
I am continuing to post to perhaps enable some sort of self-recognition on your and the other mods' part that your behaviour is inconsistent and wrong, and to consider that continually banning critics of evolution here while pretending they are the ones being unreasonable is perhaps not so much that they are unreasonable, but something wrong with your sense of fairness and logic.
My reason for doing this is to move the conversation forward, but as long as incredible insults, totally unfounded such as jar's are lobbied at critics like myself and not censured, and then when one answers with a total factual post showing a clear pattern and linking that pattern to the OP topic, and THUS SHOWING THE RELEVANCE, well, then you are not going to have anything more than an intellectualized evo circle-jerk here at the forum BECAUSE THERE IS NO DISCUSSION, but rather evos making unfounded claims, unreasonable demands, and then banning any critics who dare stand up to such.
There's a reason you don't see too many anti-evos posting here, and it's not because they are unreasonable, unintelligent, etc,...That's wishful and deluded thinking on some folk's part here.
This message has been edited by randman, 09-02-2005 05:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Admin, posted 09-02-2005 5:28 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Admin, posted 09-03-2005 3:50 PM randman has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 80 of 300 (240280)
09-03-2005 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by randman
09-02-2005 5:42 PM


Re: complete evo hypocrisy
Hi Randman,
Moderators are busy people doing the best they can in the time available. I'm sorry you're unhappy with the way the site is managed, but I've responded to you a number of times giving you the bottom line. Since you've decided to not accept the suggestions but instead to continue sopping up moderator time, your posting privileges are completely and permanently suspended.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 5:42 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by wj, posted 09-03-2005 7:11 PM Admin has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 300 (240305)
09-03-2005 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Admin
09-03-2005 3:50 PM


Re: complete evo hypocrisy
Feel the hypocrisy. Randman raises questions of evolutionists which they are unable to answer truthfully and then they call on moderators to lock randman out so that the dishonesty and propoganda of evolution can be protected. Its all a conspiracy against randman and the truth (interchangeable terms). And there should be more transitional fossils. There are no transitional forms. The fossil record is complete, all the fossils have been found. Pakicetus was not a whale!!!!!!!!!!!!
Missing him already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Admin, posted 09-03-2005 3:50 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by nwr, posted 09-04-2005 1:49 AM wj has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 82 of 300 (240335)
09-04-2005 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by wj
09-03-2005 7:11 PM


Setting the record straight.
I probably shouldn't be posting here, so I'll keep this short (and I won't debate it further).
wj writes:
Randman raises questions of evolutionists which they are unable to answer truthfully and then they call on moderators to lock randman out so that the dishonesty and propoganda of evolution can be protected.
Randman's questions have been answered many times. Yet he kept bringing them up, and ignoring the answers already given. Often he brought them up in threads where they were off-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by wj, posted 09-03-2005 7:11 PM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by wj, posted 09-04-2005 4:41 AM nwr has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 300 (240343)
09-04-2005 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by nwr
09-04-2005 1:49 AM


Re: Setting the record straight.
Who said yanks were sarcasm challenged?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by nwr, posted 09-04-2005 1:49 AM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by DBlevins, posted 09-04-2005 7:24 AM wj has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 84 of 300 (240348)
09-04-2005 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by wj
09-04-2005 4:41 AM


Re: Setting the record straight.
Naw, we just take everything literally.
This message has been edited by DBlevins, 09-04-2005 07:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by wj, posted 09-04-2005 4:41 AM wj has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 300 (240507)
09-05-2005 7:07 AM


Omnivorous ban
Adminben's indefinite suspension of Omnivorous is excessive.

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by arachnophilia, posted 09-05-2005 7:33 AM wj has not replied
 Message 91 by Michael, posted 09-05-2005 8:36 AM wj has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 86 of 300 (240510)
09-05-2005 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by wj
09-05-2005 7:07 AM


Re: Omnivorous ban
what exactly did he do? (adminben, a link would be nice...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by wj, posted 09-05-2005 7:07 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2005 7:39 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 89 by Michael, posted 09-05-2005 7:53 AM arachnophilia has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 87 of 300 (240513)
09-05-2005 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by arachnophilia
09-05-2005 7:33 AM


Re: Omnivorous ban
http://EvC Forum: Hurricane Katrina -->EvC Forum: Hurricane Katrina
Omnivorous directed some (not undeserved) abuse against Faith. And, by my reading, asked to be banned.
This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-05-2005 07:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by arachnophilia, posted 09-05-2005 7:33 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by arachnophilia, posted 09-05-2005 7:52 AM PaulK has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 88 of 300 (240516)
09-05-2005 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by PaulK
09-05-2005 7:39 AM


Re: Omnivorous ban
oh, i see. yeah, that would do it.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2005 7:39 AM PaulK has not replied

Michael
Member (Idle past 4638 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 89 of 300 (240517)
09-05-2005 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by arachnophilia
09-05-2005 7:33 AM


Re: Omnivorous ban
Message 273 of the Katrina Hurrican thread.
His/her response to Faith was way over the top--the worst I've seen from anyone here. IMO, the suspension is more than justified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by arachnophilia, posted 09-05-2005 7:33 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by arachnophilia, posted 09-05-2005 7:58 AM Michael has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 90 of 300 (240518)
09-05-2005 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Michael
09-05-2005 7:53 AM


Re: Omnivorous ban
(no further comment)
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 09-05-2005 07:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Michael, posted 09-05-2005 7:53 AM Michael has 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