General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution

Well, that sort of makes any religious or science topic outside the parameters of Coffee House, which imo is a mistake. For one, on the incident in Pennsyslvania, it's as much about politics and government secrecy as anything. Keep in mind former Clinton chief of staff, John Podesta, and his group suing for the records to be released is not some sort of ideological comrade of my way of thinking.On the story of the guy being raised from the dead, I still think Coffee House is where it belongs. There is not a scientific study of the event, just the testimony, so I hardly see where it should be "In the News" or science and religious forums. It's a topic of interest, but still Coffee House, imo.And frankly, I am not inclined to argue with disbelievers in miracles and things. It's generally a waste of time, and imo, their comments add nothing to the discussion, nor is there anything usually to learn by debating with them. At least if I debate a hardcore materialist evolutionist, I can sharpen my own stance in the process. In talking about spiritual matters, the disbeliever has so little to add that it just adds nothing usually to debate with them.To me, it'd be like someone claiming Europe doesn't exist. It's a known, observed fact from my perspective, repeated many times, etc, etc,....but to someone that doesn't want to accept it, there just is no convincing them. At least that's been my experience.

pink, there is a significant difference between me and RhHain. I view my situtation more as Holmes see his on the issue you raised up.Every single thing I've been posting about Haeckel and the history of embryonic evidence is true, and frankly it is annoying to see people that have never done the same amount of research to pretend, just out of sheer bias, that I must be wrong, and furthermore to pretend that their merely stating that is evidence.The simple fact is I wanted to get some conclusion on Haeckel and many of the other basic evidences that have been used to teach evolution because I think any honest person would admit that a lot of these things taught for generations were wrong, and moreover, there was never any real reason to believe them in the first place.The fact that just as evos kept on using Haeckel and for 60 years even maintained the Biogenetic Law, and similar items represents a mindset committed not to facts, but to doctrine, and imo, your insistence on defending such practices is indicative of the same.In no way have I been remotely dishonest or any such thing. If you take off the blinders and just look at what has occurred, just look at the false things taught as facts, even if you continue to believe in evolution, you would have to admit that such practices by evos are morally and intellectually reprehensible.

Theodric, tell you what. Pick a thread, and have someone that is not an evolutionist review the numbers and levels of insults directed at me or Faith or any other creationist, and then the vice versa. I think if you take off your rose-colored glasses, you might see that, in reality, the virtiol, insults, personal attacks, smears, etc,...are far, far more coming out of the evo camp directed towards critics than vice versa.

Theodric, you would have to be specific in places where you feel I have insulted you, and then we could review that. It could be that perhaps you got lumped in with a bunch of others responding to me, but at the same time, I do recall a thread where you started off insulting, I believe.As far as questioning my beliefs, that is fine. I would not be here if that was a concern, but I think there is significant misrepresentation of motives often. So maybe you are confusing the 2, but without hearing details, I just can't say.

pink, what thread was that on?

I apologize for the inflammatory portion of my comments you censured on the whale thread. You were correct to censure them.Would have stated this on the thread, but sort of wondered if it would be off-topic there.

I'd like to make a point that could come off as negative and to avoid that want to preface it with a few comments. First, I notice my privileges as a poster have been restored and thank percy for doing that. Secondly, I want to remind everyone, especially on the evo side of the aisle here, that good people can and do disagree, and that despite percy and I locking horns so to speak, nothing I say here is meant to be derogative towards him personally, his character, motives, etc,...but we simply have a disagreement of opinion.Ironically, imo, I tend to think my actions as a moderator were within the forum guidelines more so than as a member, where I have tended to respond with similar tones and at times even similar tactics that are directed towards me, which I will try to avoid doing from now on, but that is, of course, my view and opinion, and offered not as a point to debate here.I offered several times to resign as a moderator since it seemed clear the differences in perception of fairness was so great between me and percy and some other key mods such as adminjar and others, that it was not going to work out, but I would try continue if they wanted. Imo, it is essential to have creationist and ID mods, not to combat the appearance of biasness, but to combat a genuine biasness in moderation. I think among the evo mods the sense was the moderation was fine, but they just needed "a little balance" and perhaps not even that but just needed creationists and IDers to help ID and creationist posters behave. I don't think there was a sense of actual misbehaviour or biasness among the evo mods towards non-evos, and so with such a disparity of opinion, it just did not work out.I do think it would have been better and more appropiate to allow me to resign, as offered, instead of rejecting my offer to resign and subsequently dismissing me in an insulting manner.On a larger note, I was asked to give examples on the private moderator forum where board violations were tolerated in an unfair manner by evo mods, and I gave the example, one of many that could be given, where an entire thread was promoted with the following comments in the OP. http://EvC Forum: For ToErs Eyes Only -->EvC Forum: For ToErs Eyes OnlyI contrasted this example of open bashing and denigration of creationists and IDers with an example where I was banned sometime back for merely appearing to denigrate evolutionists. I harbor no ill feelings over such a temporary ban some time ago, but just used that example since it seemed to contrast so well; evos disparaging creationists being fine, but just the perception of denigration of evolutionist character being a bannable offense.Imo, I truly thought the moderators would agree, and say, yea, I can see that is blatant one-sided application of the forum guidelines.I also mentioned that more civil and polite IDers such as Jerry Don Bauer were probably run off by less than even-handed moderation and posted a thread and example where, imo, the evo moderation was uncalled for.One of the complaints against me was that I was not weighing in against Faith and other creationists, but honestly there has been a lot of moderation of late, and I was perfectly willing to weigh in against any post needing moderation. I have a large family, sole supporter financially, a growing start-up company, and I am sure like everyone, that significant time devoted here cuts into other important areas of life, and in my case, probably has cost me many thousands of dollars since I am paid per the work produced (but my own fault for being so addicted). My point is I cared enough to try to do what I felt was needed to create some balance here.Imo, there is a need for much more balance, and I still maintain despite the fact almost no evo mods agreed with me, that actions such as promoting the claim the only reason anyone disagrees with evolution is they are ignorant, dishonest imbeciles is insanely outside of that the forum guidelines. More to the point, considering that most evo mods seem to agree with that basic characterization of their opponents, except some disagree with the tone (such as comparing creationists to people on the Jerry Springer show), that there is absolutely no way for the board to remain civil when this sort of mischaracterization is allowed and supported.It shows a level of blatant disresprect and biased perception, which unfortunately I was not able to convince the board moderators as a group to accept and deal with, and as everyone can see, once again, the perception is it's all basically the unreasonable creationist and IDer that is at fault.I would respectfully submit that just maybe some evos here should rethink that basic belief, that it is sheer unreasonableness, or dishonesty, or ignorance, etc...that results in some rejecting ToE, and to be a little more open-minded to the possibility that educated, honest, smart, and open-minded people can and so view the facts related to ToE and find them lacking.This message has been edited by randman, 01-10-2006 05:53 PM

Buzz, thank you for your prayers and God speed as a moderator.

Pointing it out is probably all you can do, Holmes. I wouldn't expect much else. If your view is favored by the ptb, then you get one result, and if not, well.....

Brenna, jar's posts insinuated to holmes, imo, that this is "for the record" and thus perhaps is indeed going to be used against the individuals later, or that's how I read jar.

Glad to see you have some time. You'd probably have to read a little more than one post, but note the following: http://EvC Forum: Should this guy have served time? -->EvC Forum: Should this guy have served time?That was directed towards me, but note that Holmes noted: http://EvC Forum: Should this guy have served time? -->EvC Forum: Should this guy have served time?I admit this does not say for sure that Holmes feels what he says on this forum will be used against him. So I need to qualify that, but if you read the thread, Holmes takes a very unpopular position, one that advocates legalizing that most people despise as one of the worst offenses, but he does so in a manner that is logical and respectful.I think we all know jar has a lot of access to this forum, and for me, I suspect he can obtain our personal identities to a certain extent from our registration data. Jar says this is "for the record" and concerns "the participants." I know I definitely do not feel I would trust that people's anonymity would be protected, down the road. Holmes though, on closer inspection, does not seem concerned about that.You probably want to give jar the benefit of the doubt, that he means only the anonymous "participants" but considering his hatred of religious conservatives, calling them bigots and such, I see his comments as something else, but either way, I think he shows that he is not discussing issues in good faith, but is simply trying to score points, imo, through sophistry.

So jar, are you saying the content here will not be available for years to come and that you would never use this content against anyone personally or compromise their anonymmity?For example, let's say someone here that is a religious conservative is running for office, and you know they posted something inflammatory here, and you despise everything they stand for.Would you leak their identity and quote them?How about if someone like Holmes really angers you down the road....? His views on sexual freedom, which I strongly disagree with for children, could nonetheless reflect badly, say, in an application for an academic position?Personally, judging by the way you post and your denigration of other people, I certainly don't think trusting your sense of fairness is a wise move.

You have to give an e-mail address, correct? I have forgotten but I thought there was some other personal info requested, but maybe not.

I mentioned Holmes' posts because it's a sensitive area in which his stance is more than a little controversial and one in which he has complained about being misrepresented, and yet no mod "has the time" but let someone bash you, and hey, we can get 3-4 people working on that problem as quick as possible.

Methinks you protest too much....and the language and logic is typical of your self-righteous foolishness and denigration of others without ever really addressing their claims, just dodging and weaving. Deny reality and logic at all costs, and pretend you are right..., eh?Btw, you pledge not to try to use posts against people personally or not?