General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution

wiki may be a valid reference for common knowledge stuff (like the popular colors at christmas) but not for anything of contention. you need peer-reviewed or otherwise confidence bearing sources for this. wiki is an encyclopedia. just like all encyclopedias, it's written by encyclopedia writers and prone to error and non-specificity.{Note: This is a reply to this message. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-21-2005 02:39 PM

yes. but it is not appropriate to use for the debate of obscure facts. i.e. no one should use it to determine how many women were imprisoned in rape camps under saddam hussein. instead, one should look at the records we recovered in the first gulf war. these things are not yet common knowledge and neither are facts about some crazy puerto rican who may or may not have decided to join a terrorist organization.

because he wants answers. christ's sake just answer him so he'll shut up.even i'll agree he's reaching at straws but we can't prove it until you give him the ammo that he'll turn into blanks. you look weak by ignoring him. just answer him.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-29-2005 12:17 AM

[deleted -- arach]This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-30-2005 09:30 PM

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.

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.

very well.

i would like to defend myself as having responded appropriately and civilly to a proclamation of superiority. it was off-topic, but not an attack. being underserving of respect in the formal debate sense is, i think, an appropriate call. i even gave well-reasoned (even if you think i was mistaken) reasons.nonetheless. i would like to thank you for yor swift actions on both accounts and for the strike-through procedure rather than a deletion. i think this is a good policy and should be continued.

i really like the new off-topic banner. it's cute and i think will prove very effective. it could use a funny picture though.(edit by AdminNWR - add off-topic banner )This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-12-2006 12:16 AMThis message has been edited by AdminNWR, 01-11-2006 11:37 PM

well that was fun. thank you for your swift action in both directions jar et al. i understood as i wrote them that my words were out of line, but i felt they were worth it. such is life eh?i'm kind of disappointed that the discussion is now necessarily over. i was having lots of fun. troll or not, he played the line perfectly and never lost his cool. i think most of his barbs were pretty mild and many of our associates would have been more biting with the same statements. but i do know many people who do hold his positions. and i think it's an important argument.on to the next one then kids?

i had no intention of posting more. i prolly shouldn't have posted the first. but, as it stands, i'm tired of being ignored. ah well.

oh god i hope not. we did that before, sorta. it went very badly.and schraf and i are almost getting along right now. don't screw that up.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-19-2006 10:47 PM

yeah. come on people. it's just the internet and no one here actually knows who you are.behave responsibly and the universe will tend to work things out for itself.

do we have a spelling boot camp? cause miss princess peach is starting to drive me nuts.

cut and paste does not plagarism make. you might be cutting and pasting from your grand and mysterious paper. doesn't matter. making statements isn't evidence. present evidence and cite them or be quiet. but stop professing grand atheist conspiracy.