|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Ben writes: 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. .................... 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. It seems to me that all you need do is read the topic title and OP to make a jusgement as to topic, regardless of whether you're a student of the Bible or not. You're an intelligent person, Ben and it seems to me that making a judgement on this should not be all that complicated. My impression of the admin response here is that it's business as usual here with the admins biased against Biblical fundamentalists. admin Jar gets a free pass, as usual, so jar will keep on making trouble. Don't forget, I'm not alone in this assessment. Faith has fully concurred with my observation. From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
nwr writes: In support of their position, buzsaw and Faith presented an argument that would probably resonate with a narrow evangelical audience, but which would be seen by most Christians and most scholars as missing the point entirely. Nwr, are you not aware that over half of Chrristians and scholars are evangelicals? Their views are generally more Biblically fundamental as opposed to liberal, meaning that they stick closer to the Biblical fundamentals. Faith and I were debating from that perspective as should be expected of us. It's not so much as the positions taken by Jar and often by Arachnophilia, but their behavior. It was my thread, but they wanted to run the show with their agenda which was often borderline to off topic. My repeated requests for them to move to topic center were repeatedly bulligerantly ignored.
nwr writes: The miscommunication between the two sides was annoying. But I find it difficult to fault jar for defending the commonly accepted view, particularly when no persuasive arguments were presented for the alternative position. And I cannot see any basis for considering jar's participation to be off-topic. Come on! "No persuasive arguments were presented?" Nwr, you know whose side you were on and you also know full well as an admin that "persuasive arguments" is often relative to one's ideological perspective.
nwr writes: My analysis here will likely be considered biased by some of the participants. Most assuredly!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
This shouldn't be a debate thread, so I won't comment on most of what buzsaw wrote. But I do want to comment on one point.
buzsaw writes:
Sorry, buzsaw, but that is wrong. If anything, "persuasive" is relative to those you are trying to persuade. This is a broad forum, so arguments should appeal to its broad audience. and you also know full well as an admin that "persuasive arguments" is often relative to one's ideological perspective. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2519 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
This kind of comment has no place on the boards:
Why the Admins have not booted your stupid ass to Boot Camp is beyond me Please remove him
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
That "kind" of comments occurs in various forms all the time. It is the sum total of his posts that makes this one-- loaded with that kind of thing -- the straw on the camels back.
I was way ahead of you. I did forget to post to the suspensions thread (it's been awhile since I did that). I might also forget to undo the suspension but I'm sure someone will notice that he's missing eventually (it is the holidays after all ).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
In support of their position, buzsaw and Faith presented an argument that would probably resonate with a narrow evangelical audience, but which would be seen by most Christians and most scholars as missing the point entirely. OK, as you say this isn't a debate thread but I apparently missed this comment in your earlier post and I have to agree with Buz that you are totally off the mark. EvC is full of oddball beliefs that people identify as Christian, but out in the real world the vast majority of Christians that I run into share MY beliefs. There is nothing narrow about them. I have to say that jar's beliefs are absolutely unique in my experience and I've done a lot of reading in Liberal Christian and all kinds of Christian cults. Where do you get the idea that he represents any sizeable number of supposed Christians? Arachnophilia appears to be a one-man theology unto himself. Perhaps he'll eventually gather a few followers and found a cult of his own. This message has been edited by Faith, 12-30-2005 04:17 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
OK, as you say this isn't a debate thread but I apparently missed this comment in your earlier post and I have to agree with Buz that you are totally off the mark.
Just a clarification. Commenting on moderator action (or inaction) is appropriate here. Your post is on-topic, except for that remark about arachnophilia. If I were to debate some of your comments, I would risk taking it off-topic. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The remark about arachnophilia should have been modified to make the more on-topic point that, like jar, his views are far from representative of Christian belief, to the point of being unique, and yet he will take up huge amounts of thread space arguing and demanding answers to his completely offbeat point of view and persist no matter what you say in response. Moderation is needed in this case too.
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-30-2005 04:43 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5860 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
Hey adminmoose (your name is too long for me to type!)
I appreciate your feedback on the threads. I of course want to follow good form here and it's nice to have some gentle nudging when needed. I am just posting a thanks to the "gentle" hand of the mods I've seen so far. Cheers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
[deleted -- arach]
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-30-2005 09:30 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
This is not a debate thread. Do not respond to this message. It's not just Faith. I and her both have shown that Jehovah is the proper modern English rendering of the Hebrew tetragamaton. how's complicating the issue now with irrelevancy, buz? the issue is not the NAME, but the fact that it's not found in new testament, which was the boundary you set for the debate.
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. it was one of faith's main points, that they didn't have the same name. the name is not mentioned in the new testament. period. it's a blatant double standard to forbid a source when it's used against you, but allow it when it's used for you. if you want to debate what the name is, again, start a thread and i will continue to explain it to you, ad nauseum, until you understand that no modern academic english translation uses the form you seem to like, and why. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-30-2005 08:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
This is not a gebate thread. Please do not respond to this message, EvC is full of oddball beliefs that people identify as Christian yes, faith, and you are one of them. please remember that if one expects respects for their beliefs, they should be ready to respect others too, without the help of a moderator. calling people cultist and idolators isn't the way to go. and yes, i know most of the people you run into share your beliefs. most people who go to an art museum like art, too.
Where do you get the idea that he represents any sizeable number of supposed Christians? the same way you get the idea that you represent a sizeable number of christians, minus the bits about not counting certain types of belief. look, people here are bound to disagree on stuff, including how to believe. but trashing peoples' faith as somehow not legit or cultish, or idolatrous is just insulting. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-30-2005 08:56 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
This is not a debate thread. Do not respond to messages except to comment on moderation procedures.
Thank you. 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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
oooh promote ditka's topic on all religions (after you fix the spelling) i think it would be a great read. i've actually been thinking about it myself for a while... maybe someday do a paper or something on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
really though ben, i kept it civil. i was thoughtful... it could have been much worse. but i'm right. she always does it. we yell at people like faith for doing it but it's okay when schraf does it? come on. she got all uppity and tired of dealing with the topic and so names his arguments as a waste of her time. if it's such a waste of her time why is she on the board? the whole thing is a huge waste of time... that's debate and the theory of the leisure class. but she gets to randomly decide that certain people with good arguments are wasting her time and not get called on it.
and it's not just her. it's a lot of people.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024