|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Sounds like that, in order to participate in a science forum, one must have already accepted TOE. Is this accurate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sounds like that, in order to participate in a science forum, one must have already accepted TOE. Is this accurate? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4021 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Hi, Percy. I think the basic rule for discussing ANY subject, is that you should have a rudimentary knowledge of it. Otherwise, read up or lurk till you can contribute. Far too often do we see members give of their time and expertise only to be told they`re deluded or wrongly interpreting the facts. If these challengers insist on dropping back to kindergarten level, buzz them off. If they have a genuine challenge, lay it out upfront, and not waste everyone`s time debating a half-assed hypothesis. I keep my posts short because I can`t be bothered laying out a lengthy discourse, only to see it dismissed by someone who never got past the first few lines. Too many people here with good information to impart to waste time on agenda-driven twerps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Sounds like that, in order to participate in a science forum, one must have already accepted TOE. Is this accurate? No, I'd say not. What is requied is to voice ones objections to it clearly, to explain those further when asked, to build your objections on reasoning that starts from verifiable evidence and logic. These are, I agree, pretty stringent requirements. If it was actually possible to manage such then YEC'ers etc would be doing it a lot and even making progress in having the science changed. However, when asked to do this those objecting don't seem to manage these things and a lot of them don't even understand the requirements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
That post is out of place. This is not the place to discuss such issues.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I disagree with you on this.
I think the division into to classes of debate is a reasonable compromise. It is really only a reduction in the threads where the guidelines are enforced. We have been giving all comers a reasonable chance to participate in the scientific debates. By being clear about the need for some discipline in part of the site it saves those debating in good faith from wasting too much time. Once it is clear that an individual is uninterested or unable to carry on a fact based, reasoned discussion it isn't useful to waste the time they can easily consume.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In Message 104 I broke the rules and did some name calling and Phat shut the thread down. I guess I'm being a little too idealistic but I would still like to see Faith substantiate a, I mean any, claim she has made. In my attempts to do this I have quoted the Bible, to which she dodged, and then I tried to mirror her tactics, which was too inneffective at showing how full-o-crap she is. Now I finally think we are getting to the crux of her position and all of my efforts will be in vain if the thread remains closed (or if she doesn't reply). Leaving the thread closed not only lets her get away with murder, it perpetuated the problem that people have with her. My final tactic was indeed name calling, but I'm just trying to fire her up a bit so maybe she'll throw a post out there that actually says something. I'll go edit the name calling out of my message to make it presentable.
ABE: I guess I can't edit it because it is closed. This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 10-12-2005 09:29 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
robinrohan writes: Sounds like that, in order to participate in a science forum, one must have already accepted TOE. Is this accurate? No, this isn't accurate. It means that in the science forums one must argue scientifically. This doesn't mean that you must accept the TOE, but only that objections raised to the TOE must be scientifically well founded. Objections to the traditional definition of science and issues concerning the nature of scientific inquiry can be raised in the [forum=-11] forum. This message has been edited by Admin, 10-12-2005 11:13 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBen Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist,
Requests for thread reopenings should go to the "Thread Reopen Requests" thread. At first I thought you were complaining about how AdminPhat handled the situation. After reading the thread subtitle (somehow the last thing I read) I'm pretty sure you're just asking for the thread to be reopened. Is that right? Thanks. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBen Inactive Member |
Faith,
Next time just let this request go; I think the admins can handle a simple reopen request. Whether you realize it or not, you basically used this response as a reason to discuss the topic in this thread. Just leave it to the admins next time; we'll take care of it. By the way, should I take your interest in admin processes to mean you're interested in becoming an admin? We definitely have room for a newbie to sift through PNTs... and restock the beer. Where are the AdminIRH's of yesteryear? Thanks. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
By the way, should I take your interest in admin processes to mean you're interested in becoming an admin? We definitely have room for a newbie to sift through PNTs... and restock the beer. Where are the AdminIRH's of yesteryear? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBen Inactive Member |
I don't think I'd make a very good admin, I'd be way too strict and always be second-guessing myself. Sounds familiar. PB is the only admin I know who maybe genuinely doesn't have a "strict" side--and he makes up for that with double-doses of second-guesses. But otherwise, I'm pretty sure everybody else knows how to truly be an ass. It's a gift, really.
But what sort of training does a new admin get? I can barely even make sense out of this question. Training? Huh?
I have absolutely no head for internet abbreviations like IRH. What does it mean? IrishRockHound. I believe AdminIRH is the one responsible for the empty fridge. Well... ignoring the fact that Jar and Nosy are the ones who raided it in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
This doesn't mean that you must accept the TOE, but only that objections raised to the TOE must be scientifically well founded. No such animal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I can barely even make sense out of this question. Training? Huh? 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.)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024