General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution

If I am not welcome here, I will leave, but you will only encounter the same old same old with any YEC who shows up. If EvC doesn't mind sending them all away, that's up to EvC, but on the face of it EvC appears to want YECs to fit in here. IDers usually stick around a little longer because they are willing to let go of some Biblical premises that YECs aren't, but YECs are the quintessential opponents of evolutionism so it makes no sense to keep the place as unfriendly as it is to YECs. Any site that seriously expects to discuss these questions is going to have to make room for YEC assumptions.

You want to go toe-to-toe on that one? Post your links.

I was away for a while but intended to come back and answer the many posts to me that are still there unanswered. In my absence Nosy moved the thread.

What a non-list of abusive remarks. All those were legitimate true comments. Abuse is primarily the namecalling -- I don't think you indulged in it, but roxrkool certainly did and Charles Knight. However, your insulting red herring of a caricature I consider abusive, as it was only intended to mock -- the one I commented on as idiotic -- it represents nothing any creationist believes. Schrafinator was arguably abusive in her insinuation that I had failed to remember the previous discussion and that she needed to remind me of her presumably correct comments; what I said in response was the truth about that exchange. You deserved to be suspended for what you did on that first thread, and you didn't get half of what you deserved.Enough for the off topic posts.

In response to your request athttp://EvC Forum: YEC approaches to empirical investigation -->EvC Forum: YEC approaches to empirical investigation Here I state that"I have been restricted from science forums for posting on a non-science thread in a non-science manner."I would also like to find the post where Percy agreed that that was the reason I was suspended and said he thought it for the best, but I haven't found it yet. And Here is the post that got me suspended from science forums though it was on a non-science thread,and Here is the suspension action by AdminNosy and the reason given for it,and the following posts on that thread make the reason for it even clearer.More to follow.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 07:52 PM

Ben I never did completely understand what you considered to be on topic for your thread (YEC approaches to empirical investigation). I understand that nwr and I got off topic and that jar's challenge to me and my answer to him were off topic, but otherwise I thought I was on topic in most of my posts. But perhaps I did not grasp what the topic was that you wanted discussed there.

No, I got suspended from the science forums for that post which was not in any way combative. The "snotty child" accusation was a response to my removing the post, and it was rescinded when Nosy grasped what had actually happened about my removing the post. He had nominated it for a POTM simultaneously with suspending me from the science forums and I objected to having it put up for ridicule like that.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 10:46 PM

Here's Nosy's reason for shutting the Southwest thread in my face. I had been posting energetically on the science aspects raised on that thread. I was the only YEC doing so. It got moved because Nosy isn't in favor of my YEC approach to science, so he put it where I couldn't post on it.http://EvC Forum: Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest? -->EvC Forum: Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?

A gem of a contentless ambiguous post. You put me to all that work and now you refuse to acknowledge that I was right? Why do you think creationists should bother to take pains to comply with challenges like yours when we're treated like this?This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 10:48 PM

You are simply muddling up the facts. You are now referring to the thread's being closed AFTER it was moved to the science forum where I could not post on it. What I said above is true -- it was shut in my face while I was avidly posting on it in the NONscience area. Oh, where was that asked? In one of those threads where I was having to answer many posters at once that came to an end before I got to that question? Or maybe it was one of your questions to keep me busy on a side issue. The answer is, by the way, that in my Flood Hypothesis, sandstone forms exactly the same way it forms in the anti-Flood Hypothesis. I put in a tremendous amount of work on that thread myself, and again many hours recently too, as I thought I would return to it. However, it is not the geological issues that are the reason I gave up on that thread as much as it is the morass of confusion, the multiplicity of topics. I reviewed the whole thing, and in this recent return to it, followed up on the links in the early part of the thread before it became a Great Debate as well. In that effort I realized that the problems are probably insurmountable. The first three or four pages of it were based on a misreading of my OP, where I clearly stated that it was the horizontality of the strata that was in question. It seems to me that given millions of years of exposure to erosion, any individual layer would not be horizontal as they clearly are in the Grand Canyon. For pages I was hounded about not accounting for the RATE of erosion in relation to the rate of deposition, which was a red herring because I wasn't addressing quantity but horizontality, which was perfectly clear in the OP. But I was also told how the strata aren't all that *perfectly* horizontal -- a red herring objection that creates a sense of despair about the possibility of actually communicating with anybody on that subject, Why bother if such simple points are so misunderstood? PAGES were wasted on that stuff. Then I also tried to get back to the point where the Great Debate proper had started and found too too many topics being raised. And then the attitude of the peanut gallery didn't help things either. {Edit: This is incorrect. I have never said I will not abide by the scientific rules ("method" didn't come up) on science forums. I have in fact said the opopsite.}Which is/was being discussed on the thread you started this side issue from as well as my first post on the Geology Data thread IRH started. Time to get back to it as it is an important discussion.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-21-2005 03:10 AM

Just a reminder. You demanded on the other thread that I support my allegation or admit I was incorrect: I have supported my allegations on this thread. I have answered every objection you have brought up and shown that you had simply misconstrued the facts. At this point you should acknowledge that I have demonstrated that my allegations were right.

If I was given access to the science forums at that point nobody told me. Nosy clearly moved the thread with the intention of ignoring me. He said so in the post where he moved it that I quoted to you above. http://EvC Forum: Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest? -->EvC Forum: Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?That doesn't sound like an invitation to me to post at the new location.I was LATER given access to a PARTICULAR science forum on ANOTHER TOPIC, but that one remained closed to me as I understood it. If it was in fact open I was NOT INFORMED OF THE FACT, and in fact I mentioned elsewhere that I could not post on it and nobody said that I could, which seems odd if I could. I am sure I even tried just to find out if I could and found out that I could not, but I couldn't prove that.You are continuing to address the topic drift reason for closing the new thread in the science forums where I couldn't post -- or THOUGHT I couldn't post, which amounts to the same thing -- and ignoring the reason for closing the thread when it was in the nonscience forums.I answered your challenges and you should acknowledge that you were wrong.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-14-2005 07:22 PM

It was not the one you are addressing above. You challenged my allegation that the Southwest thread was closed in my face and I proved that it was, and proved it again above with the link to AdminNosy's action to close it.This requires an acknowledgment from you as you required me to prove it or concede. I proved it.

Again, nobody has ever informed me until now that I have access to the science forums in general. All I was told was that I have been given specific access to Irish Rock Hound's and Ben's. I have continued to consider myself banned from the science fora in general, so this is news to me if I'm not.

Well if you won't acknowledge that I supported my allegations then I appeal to other admins or anyone else to acknowledge it. The previous train of posts establishes that I did support my allegations as Jar claims I did not, and Jar's denial has no justification.