General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution

HE HAS BEEN ANSWERED.

He started out way back in message 127 with a similar question. I asked what his point was twice after he repeated the question. Faith then responded with an answer to it. Jar then proceeds on to repeat the question a third time after it was answered.This is the exchange: To begin with it should be obvious to anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever that Jesus believed his god was also the god of the OT, so he's obviously trying to play with word and phrase tricks.In the first place I'm not aware that Jesus ever made such a statement outright. Why should he regarding something so obvious?Jar and Arachnophilia (spelling?), in particular are enough to drive a counterpart nuts with some of the off beat illogical stuff they think of to trip up the opponent, often requiring page after page of responses to frivolous absurdities.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-29-2005 01:56 AM

---

From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

How true.

i admitted my first few arguments in the thread you're probably referring to were a tad off-topic. that was my mistake, and i acknowledge that. however, you failed to put it into perspective of a larger picture, using "that's off-topic!" as way to kill a perfectly valid argument. namely that if the islamic depictions of god is similar to the jewish depiction of god, and the christians feel they are inspired by a jewish god, then there is a decent argument for them being the same.it's not "off beat" or designed to trip up an opponent. it's an argument. and a valid one. it wanders a little away from where you wanted to go, yes, but the point it makes is exactly the point of the thread. it's not a red herring if it actually argues the point in the question -- i'm sorry if the logic was somehow confusing.moreover, i have a moderation request. and it's that we hold the fundamentalists to the same standards. you are far to quick to scream about how an argument violates the boundaries of your topic when it is against your position, but you readily accept the ones that confirm your position.for example, faith keeps making an argument based on god's name. god's name is "jehovah" (which it's not), and allah's name is "allah" so they are not the same god. even though the argument has been shown to be bunk, she keeps repeating it, ad nauseum -- missing the obvious point. god's name is never mentioned in the new testament. not once. there's a vague invocation of it, maybe. but it's debatable, and still not the actual name. rather, the tetragrammaton itself only appears in the old testament.and if i can't make comparisons to old testament scripture, why can she?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-29-2005 02:14 AM

---

אָרַח

randman, please--bring such discussion off the thread and into here.Now, to get to the issue. This board is not a science board. It is discussion of creation and evolution, supernatural and natural, religion and science. Look at the breakdown of forums... religion and science.The topic you posted was suggesting people being raised from the dead due to some religious intervention. Did you honestly fail to think that some people might want to question / discuss this?Anything having to do with belief in the unknown / unexplained is part of the discussion. It's the whole "Goddidit" paradigm that is often ... explored here.Hope that helps explicate things. And I hope that helps clarify my comment in your UFOs thread.

buz,Thanks for outlining those messages to clear things up. I didn't see those when I went back to read.I get the feeling that the discussion between you and jar often becomes adversarial (sp?) and filled with unwillingness of each of you to bend. This is not meant to be an admonisment, but an observation.The two of you need to work that out. Either by not engaging in discussion together, or both of you finding a way to communicate and discuss more .. efficiently and accurately.I do think you are right that there's a problem of willingness and stubbornness there. I feel I see for many people who have debated many times before; I do agree that this sometimes includes jar when discussing with you or sometimes Faith. But I do think the stubbornness is on both sides, and it's something best worked out by you guys.It's also something that should be more closely watched by the Faith and Belief admins. Maybe AdminPD and / or AdminPhat can keep a closer eye; these aren't threads that I frequent, especially now that my board time is reduced. So I can't help by keeping up on the threads where this usually happens.I'll see what I can do to see if there's moderators who are reading through the Faith and Belief threads, but aren't necessarily actively participating in the discussion.

---

It's not just Faith. I and her both have shown that Jehovah is the proper modern English rendering of the Hebrew tetragamaton. I have explained this in detail and you refuse to accept the fact that nearly every modern Biblical translator who has translated the tetragammaton literally from YHWH (not adonai) has used the modern English rendering, Jehovah. You arrogantly and doggedly buck the professional linguist English Bible translators as well as ignoring my sound arguments for the modern rendering of it. That's your problem and you keep on keeping on mentioning it adnausium in the threads.As for the OT in that thread, the difference is that Faith referred to it briefly whereas you and others were pretty much basing your argument on it in your earlier attempts to establish your arguments.

---

From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

That's why I posted it. It appeared you hadn't gone back far enough to notice it. All you need do to see who's the stubborn unbending one, even though he was leading off topic, is to look at the last page of the now closed prophets Jesus/Muhammed inspiration thread. I showed you in the exchange above how he was the stubborn one then and he simply confirmed this to be the case at the end of the thread. Why is it that when others mess up, they get moderated with suspension or warnings, but with jar we need to work it out ourselves? Jar seems to have had a free pass for a long time, no matter how obnixious he gets, so how are we going to work it out ourselves? Is it because he's admin, or what, that he gets by with his stuff?Edited to delete "outright" in first paragraph.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-30-2005 11:29 AM

---

From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

See, the thing is, I can't really tell. I can barely understand the subject matter, because I'm not versed in the Bible at all. I have a hard time understanding jar's hard line, whether it's on topic or not, and whether your refusals to answer his questions are valid or not. I can't tell.It seems to me that jar is trying to move forward very clearly, without distraction by only asking questions, and you don't think the questions are relevant, or have been answered already. Jar's approach can be very powerful, but it can also just be very stubborn. Your refusals can be right on, they can be missing the point, they can be stubborn. I can't tell, because I don't really know the subject.Clearly each of you thinks you're on topic and right; I don't have enough knowledge to figure it out. You're left to work it out for yourselves. Someone needs to bend and be willing to address the other person's concerns to the other person's satisfaction.That's the best I can do. I usually don't moderate Faith & Belief threads; I only did so to try and see what I could do, given your request. I wanted to show you willingness to address such a request. I wasn't comfortable that I understood the situation well enough to take a moderator action. But I tried, because you asked.As I said, maybe one of the Faith & Belief moderators can take a look. And I'll bring up the issue and see if we have moderators who are reading these threads without participating.

---

BTW, the now closed Were The Prophets/Messiahs Jesus and Mohammed Inspired By The Same God? is the topic in question.Maybe AdminBen should get an admin to admin POTM for that message.It's pretty tough for an admin to moderate a topic when the theme of the topic is of no personal interest, and is beyond your comprehension anyway. And it certainly doesn't help when topics accumulate new messages as fast as that one did.That topic illustates the (at least potential) advantage of the "Great Debate" forum. When Jar and Buz get into a clash, the moderating team can use all the help they can get. Maybe including getting a qualified moderator lined up right from the begining.What if that topic had been a "GD"? My guess is that Jar and Buz would still each be posting messages at a high rate. Maybe, at least in some situations, each "GD" participent should be limited to 1 message per day, or maybe a reply should not happen until the next day. Take it nice and easy. Keep things lean.Who do we have here at (admin or non-admin), that would have been a suitable moderator for that topic? Brian or DoctrBill may have the theological background, but I suspect they would have a hard time not having a pro-Jar / anti-Buz bias. Maybe AdminPD or AdminPhat. But do they deserve to have such a load dumped on them?Adminnemooseus

There is a way of guessing who might be most at fault if you don't have time or enough knowledge to dig into the thread.You can go on the past behaviour of the individuals. If you pick these two individuals it is easy to guess at who is being stubborn. Very easy.

But even so, there's the real possibility that a specific topic may be an exception to that "rule".Each topic must be moderated based on its content, without excess considerations of a members past performances.Adminnemooseus

1. So much for fairness. Ned, you should have to be debating against someone like jar. You're so doggedly biased against Christian fundamentalists that you're obviously totally blind to the obnoxious posting behavior of jar.2. If I don't answer the repeated demands of jar in debates he whines about me 'running off' just as he did in that thread, even in spite of the fact that I was responding as soon as feasibly possible for me in my schedule.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

a reply to messages 39 and 40 might be more useful.Buz - AdminBen and I have conceded that there are big problems in moderating such topics.Adminnemooseus

More comments on Were The Prophets/Messiahs Jesus and Mohammed Inspired By The Same God?.I suppose I could have "moderated" that thread, and in a way I tried via my non-admin participation. But I would not have been considered fair by some of the participants.Here is how I saw it. My analysis here will likely be considered biased by some of the participants. C'est la vie.I would like to compliment buzsaw for ending the discussion on a positive note in Message 298.This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 12-30-2005 12:56 PM

---