|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Guys, she just wants attention. She'll do anything and say anything to get it. Don't argue with her. Don't address her comments.
She baits people into battles by posting stuff she knows to be factually incorrect so that they will give her attention, then when that isn't enough she comes here and tries to get people banned thus garnishing even more attention. The common theme is always the same - "Oh, look how I have suffered for my religion". Yawn. Tired of it. If the consensus is that she's acting like a child, we need to treat her like a child. Don't rise to her taunts, just ignore her. I believe it was Jimi Hendrix that said, "Turn the other cheek"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's not crucial -- it is bad for Jar, not for me -- but I don't feel like letting it go yet. Jar challenged me, I met the challenge and he refuses to acknowledge it. The right thing to do is to acknowledge it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-14-2005 10:05 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2937 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
Folk have bent over backwards to grant you special consideration. Stop whining No, you, Jar have changed the rules to give Faith special consideration. How can you moderate when you admit you favor some over others?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sigh. I don't buy this whole idea myself. I'm more aware of being summarily suspended from forums without warning, and from the site itself from time to time, a couple times when I knew it was coming, than I am of any favoritism. Of course I'll take their word for it that if it weren't for some judgment in my favor coming from somewhere or other I'd have been permanently banned long before this -- if you want to call being reprieved from that sentence "favoritism." The word is especially ironic when it's often accompanied by the denunciations and namecalling already so abundant in this very discussion here, and the sentiment that the purpose of the leeway given me is to expose my terrible flaws to the world. You sure you want to call this "favoritism?"
Anyway, I would like to point out that I have not myself requested admission to the science forums since I was first suspended from them. I have pointed out the absurdity of banning me from those forums for something I wrote on a NONscience forum, as I think such a policy could use some rethinking, but beyond that I have not requested readmission to the science side. In one case I pointed out that the placing of a particular topic on the science side that was specifically addressed to me wasn't going to work as I couldn't post on it, but what I had in mind was its being moved to a location where I could post on it. Instead, Jar admitted me to that science forum. That was nice of him, but either way would have been OK with me. And the other occasion was IrishRockHound's invitation to me to think through his geology notes, and he requested that I have posting privileges there for that purpose. He thinks like a scientist though, and I think like a YEC and I doubt it's going to work. Then in the last couple of days Ive begun to get some new understanding of the proportions of the conflict between science and the Biblical God in the evolutionism-creationism dispute, and started posting on that, but my conclusion is not that YECs should be given more leeway but that real debate should be recognized as fundamentally impossible because of the mutually exclusive presuppositions. I've emphasized that because the rules here are the science rules that the Biblical creationist side is disadvantaged, but I've also recognized that the Biblical side couldn't be admitted on an equal footing either. It's an impossibility. Either position cancels out the other. Ben has been working on some ideas he has about how to accommodate the not-quite-scientific thinking of YECs at EvC and I'm not sure yet what I think of the likelihood of their succeeding, although I think he has a good grasp of some aspects of the problem. I don't really want to post on the science forums because they don't accommodate the way a YEC thinks. Let scientists post there (even though YEC scientists also think like YECs and don't last too long either). The same science bias, however, also prevails on the nonscience side of the site. This isn't a personal issue really. It's about the terms of the debate here and I think they may be insurmountable, though I'll wait and see if Ben comes up with something workable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2937 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
Sigh. I don't buy this whole idea myself. I'm more aware of being summarily suspended from forums without warning, and from the site itself from time to time, a couple times when I knew it was coming, than I am of any favoritism The "poor little me syndrome"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Bingo. Also, watch for "last word syndrome"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
This, Jazzns, was precisely the kind of thing I was trying to avoid. If you look at the original post, I wanted to provide Faith a chance to work out her ideas from raw data without having conventional geology waved in her face. Well then I just must not have understood what the heck the purpose of that thread was. In no way was I attacking Faith's ideas of how the flood did anything. All I was doing was trying to point at the raw data. No where was I trying to "wave conventional geology" in her face. All I was doing is addressing her incorrect knowledge of the data. Or am I wrong IRH? Can you create folds in strata similar to the ones you described at a divergent boundary? Is knowledge of tectonic boundaries "waving conventional geology" in her face? I could have gone off like most do talking about how the fountains of the deep are impossible, or more into the details of the flood but I didn't because I knew that would be contrary to her formulating her theory. But why would you want her to create a theory NOT based on the raw data seems not productive in the slightest. Sure, the sky is orange because of the chemicals left over from the ancient vaport canapy. Oh but wait the sky isn't orange so what the hell use is even discussing a theory that describes fake facts? For another example, what use would be a theory that is contrary to the law of cross cutting relationships. Is that not raw data? Is it not fact that a fault in a rock happened after a rock was formed? What the heck are we calling fact here? I have no idea what your basis was for closing that thread based on Faith and my discussion. I felt like we were actually getting somewhere. Once we cleared up the whole fold issue she could have moved on to other items and I would have stood back and let her theorize. If you had been reading the auxillary thread about YEC empiricism you would have seen that I was all for you thread and the experiment which you were performing. IMO you were trigger happy on closing your own thread. No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Nothing to complain about, as I thought I was probably getting off course, so your comment is well taken. Just want to say there was no intent to distance myself in the post about the 10,000 years, it was simple confusion about whether it was long enough to expect mutation to confer genetic diversity, but I see that it could have been misread. No problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
A comment from an observer (me) of Some mutations sound too good to be true. On my reading, Faith was mainly seeking clarification. When she brought up Noah's flood, I took her as asking what evolution would expect from the bottleneck that would exist, if the flood story were correct. I did not take her as using that to challenge the science. I took this as within the intended scope of the thread.
This is probably the wrong place, but I would like to compliment the several participants in that thread. Overall it has been, and continues to be, an excellent discussion. And it seems to me that Faith has learned quite a bit about the role of mutations. For that matter, I have learned a thing or two myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBen Inactive Member |
Faith,
Sure, thanks for being understanding. I am still trying to be ultra-conservative. I really think that's the best formula for success. Thanks for being willing to take my comments and suggestions for what they are--simply comments and suggestions on how we can continue to make this thing work. Thanks also for your effort, and the effort of all those participating in the thread. I share nwr's sentiments about the effort and information in the thread, and I've learned a lot myself as well. If you do have comments or suggestions in the future, I will be open to listening. So feel free to post them here anytime. Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 506 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Faith writes:
As a matter of fact, I was very very close to pointing out that I thought AN suspended you from the science forum out of immediate frustration and anger. I specifically remember that AN asked you for some sort of evidence (probably science base) while you were discussing something with other people in a non-science forum. You refused and implied that he could ban you from the science forum if he wanted to, to which he did. I have pointed out the absurdity of banning me from those forums for something I wrote on a NONscience forum, as I think such a policy could use some rethinking, but beyond that I have not requested readmission to the science side. Like I said, I almost rushed to your defence, but your later posts indicated that (at least at the time) you had no interest to participate in a science based discussion with other people. Without your reassurance that you were still interested in discussing with people on science using the parameters of science, I decided not to pursue it. With that said, I must admit that AN's decision really really looked like it was not a decision as an admin but as someone who favored scientific evidence over religious. If you had pursued this matter, I'm sure myself and others like myself would have backed you up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thank you for the spirit in which you wrote that. Unfortunately I don't remember the specifics very well any more. I did think I should avoid the science forums as much as possible, although I thought banning me from them didn't make sense, as I expected to play by the science rules if I did post on them.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-28-2005 06:10 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Reply to Ben,
If two members wish to have a discussion then it should go in the Great Debate forum. All other forums are public access, if the two aren't happy then they can have a private email discussion. As for suggesting opening a thread, what is assinine is expecting someone who doesn't mention a new topic to open a thread on it. Jesus, get a grip.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Couldn't even let the clever-evolutionists question-begging thread go a few more over 300 to see if we could bring it to a close?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBrian Inactive Member |
Simply start a 'part two' with a link to the first one!
Going over 300 is very unstable. Would you like me to start a continuation thread? AdminBrian
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024