General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution

As some like Faith and myself have pointed out to you before, you typically don't respond but try to avoid discussing issues when confronted with inconsistency, as you did repeatedly by claiming a response would be off-topic when I pointedly raised the issue of your inconsistent beliefs relative to a Creator, ID, and evolution.If you want to address that thread's topic or any of the many areas you have dodged, please do so.

Rev attacks me with unfounded accusations and personal attacks instead of answering the factual presentations in the thread.I say, and justly so. What's wrong with that?Nosey who routinely moderates in a manner seeming to deliberately use his position to harass unjustly people he disagrees with, jumps in and instead of telling rev to deal with the facts and quit making false personal attacks, writes this: It was definitely called for. My argument is based in facts and analysis. The whole historical rewriting that the thread claims is due to fundies is in fact, due to multiculturalists and it started with secularists rewriting history to deemphasize Christianity, and for an example, I gave the great misssionary LIvingston who is presented simply as an explorer, so much so one poster insisted he was mainly just an explorer.Rev then jumps in and says that is a paranoid rant.Imo, allowing Nosey to continually use his mod position to harass non-evos is wrong and reflects very poorly on this board.

So there would be no discussion, eh? In other words, pretty much all your critics are unreasonable and you guys are fair and balanced, at least as far as the moderating group sees it....But you think there is no bias in the moderation team?This message has been edited by randman, 01-29-2006 06:23 PM

Well, that was a very kind rebuff, and actually makes me want to do better and feel somewhat remorseful for not following your meekness here.thanksI already posted a less meek response and won't edit, on a different thread, but just want to add I will see if I can adopt a meeker tone.This message has been edited by randman, 01-29-2006 06:27 PM

No, we have simply pointed out that refusing to recognize the limitations of human perception and reason is not rational, nor reasonable. The idea is to use human reason to help one become more rational, not less, as, imo, rationalists have done in creating an ideology. The idea you think because you like to study religion, and bash it mind you, should make you more on the side of those criticizing evolution just shows a deep level of irrationalism. No, the fact is plenty of creationists and IDers argue in a reasonable manner. You guys are just so partisan and one-sided that you think anyone disagreeing with you is irrational. What's funny is you actually have the gall to accuse your opponents of being like yourselves, of adopting ideological-driven arguments and labelling them objective.I can objectively demonstrate and have demonstrated the biasness here, but the evo response is well, it's OK to say such and such about creationists or IDers because it is true, but to say the exact same thing about evos is against the forum guidelines, wrong, etc,...The simple fact is you guys are totally incapable, it seems, of a semblance of objectivity, and imo, that is an indication of a group that has been affected by indoctrination rather than education.Your opponents are not, as much as you want to believe, unreasonable, and disagreeing with evos is not the result of being unreasonable, irrational, ignorant, stupidity, or any of the things you guys believe. People have just begun to take a closer look at what evos teach and have them to be wrong. Simple as that.