General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution

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

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.

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.

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

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?

Robinrohan has a proposal up. You could promote it.

The ToE is in fact not falsifiable or reproducible. It is strictly an interpretation, which in principle is not falsifiable or reproducible. But in fact since they THINK it is falsifiable or reproducible -- confusing the daily scientific work that is done in the name of the ToE with the ToE itself it seems to me, just as RAZD and company seem unable to separate the mere fact of the existence of life from the naturalistic theory about how it arose -- practically speaking I think you are right: only believers in the ToE need apply.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-11-2005 04:09 PM

The thread is only closed for 24 hours. Besides, I have substantiated everything I have said including answering the post you claim I didn't answer. I have been doing little but repeating myself in the face of complete misunderstanding or disregard of the simple points I have been making, which is typical for threads here. It should simply be left that Catholics and Reformation Protestants have different views about Mary and that both have been amply stated, but for some reason that is not sufficient for the Catholics on this thread. In any case, I don't see any reason to continue beating what was long ago a dead horse.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-12-2005 10:47 AM

I don't think I'd make a very good admin, I'd be way too strict and always be second-guessing myself. But what sort of training does a new admin get?P.S., I have absolutely no head for internet abbreviations like IRH. What does it mean?This message has been edited by Faith, 10-12-2005 11:51 AM

No guidelines? No page of instructions?(By the way, my post about the thread reopen request was basically a thread-don't-reopen request that got out of hand.)

Akshully, Ben, thanks for the invite, which has also been extended by Percy on other occasions, but the hostility shown to me by certain of the current admins (and I've been VERY good lately so I know I haven't provoked it) is the reason I'm not going to take you up on it. Thanks anyway.