Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 286 of 302 (282312)
01-29-2006 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by AdminBuzsaw
01-28-2006 11:00 PM


Re: Plargiarism Charge
Because genuine non-Darwinian macroevolution is a fact within kinds.
These large populations have never been breached. Darwinists come along and assert their macro must be true based upon whatever degree of micro occurring within the kind.
Buz, if you can make heads or tails of these sentences, which are completely devoid of meaning to me - I literally can't understand what Ray is trying to say, here - then like I said, I'd appreciate it if you wanted to drop into the discussion and explain it to me.
If you don't believe that I simply don't understand, then I guess I don't know what to say to you. But I have appreciated your moderation on this issue. Very even-handed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 01-28-2006 11:00 PM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 01-29-2006 1:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 302 (282319)
01-29-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by crashfrog
01-29-2006 1:07 PM


Re: Plargiarism Charge
crashfrog writes:
Buz, if you can make heads or tails of these sentences, which are completely devoid of meaning to me - I literally can't understand what Ray is trying to say, here - then like I said, I'd appreciate it if you wanted to drop into the discussion and explain it to me.
Me, Buzsaw, explain science to you, Crashfrog? I'm flattered!
Better yet, why not you and Herepton dialogue into the specifics of what either of you don't understand in a congenial manner and work at resolving your problem of communication amongst yourselves in the thread? Anyhow, I'll keep an eye on the thread and if I see where I might be able to contribute I'll add my 2cents worth.
crashfrog writes:
...... I have appreciated your moderation on this issue. Very even-handed.
Thanks very much, CF, for those kind and encouraging remarks. Glad to help out. I'll work hard at maintaining evenhandedness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2006 1:07 PM crashfrog has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 288 of 302 (282363)
01-29-2006 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Admin
01-28-2006 5:12 PM


Re: ray's ad hominem remarks
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Admin, posted 01-28-2006 5:12 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by arachnophilia, posted 01-29-2006 7:19 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 289 of 302 (282364)
01-29-2006 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by AdminBuzsaw
01-28-2006 6:49 PM


Re: nosey's attack
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.
thanks
I 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 01-28-2006 6:49 PM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 290 of 302 (282374)
01-29-2006 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by randman
01-29-2006 6:22 PM


what is wrong with creationists?
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....
considering that people such as yourself have actually argued against rationality and reason, yes.
But you think there is no bias in the moderation team?
i think the bias is in the fundamentalists. afterall, i'm one of the godless darwinists to you guys, nevermind that i spend most of my time in the religious fora. i should be on your side.
i think this problem is systemic. fundamentalists seem to have a wholely different and opposite way of looking at world. where the rest of us see them constantly being banned for rule violations, they see conspiracy. this is the same debate we had over politics -- you're blaming the judges, not the criminals, and yelling "conspiracy!"
but the fact that we can't seem to find any creationists who argue in a reasonable manner and obey the rules is a pretty telling fact. what's wrong with creationism? maybe it's because it's a position of pseudo-scientific religious bias, and questioning of established rules and reasoning.
do i think there is a bias in the moderation here? yes, i do. i think they are biased against unreasonable people. science is based on reason and rationality, religion is based on emotion and faith. this is why i've argued time and again here for different standards for creationists. because it's not based on reason, it's based on faith. forcing the standard of reason removes one side from the debate.
it's also why i've argued against the bannings of faith, buzsaw, and you, randman. convincingly enough that all three of you remain here, i might add.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by randman, posted 01-29-2006 6:22 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by randman, posted 01-29-2006 7:29 PM arachnophilia has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 291 of 302 (282376)
01-29-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by arachnophilia
01-29-2006 7:19 PM


Re: what is wrong with creationists?
considering that people such as yourself have actually argued against rationality and reason, yes.
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.
i think the bias is in the fundamentalists. afterall, i'm one of the godless darwinists to you guys, nevermind that i spend most of my time in the religious fora. i should be on your side.
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.
but the fact that we can't seem to find any creationists who argue in a reasonable manner and obey the rules is a pretty telling fact.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by arachnophilia, posted 01-29-2006 7:19 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by arachnophilia, posted 01-29-2006 7:59 PM randman has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 292 of 302 (282381)
01-29-2006 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by randman
01-29-2006 7:29 PM


Re: what is wrong with creationists?
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.
quote:
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 [fundamentalists] teach and have them to be wrong. Simple as that.
simple reasoned approach. the point is, randman, that we're both christians. i don't question whether or not you really believe based on your arguments. i don't judge you to be un-saved. but you think i get that treatement from the other christians here?
No, the fact is plenty of creationists and IDers argue in a reasonable manner.
show me one.
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.
you are probably the single person on this board most guilty of pott-to-kettle arguments. laughably so -- i really get a kick out of seeing you call your opponents on your own shortcomings. but this is what i was saying about seeing the world completely differently, and opposite.
you guys take a lot of offense when we call you irrational -- but then call rationality irrational and argue against it. does your whole argument boil down to "i know you are but what am i?"
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.
and you refuse to even see that i have argued for you. you don't even acknowledge it. that's ok, i don't really expect you to. i just think it's funny. i get called unobjective -- nevermind that i have repeatedly argued -your- position, and that the forum rules themselves are biased against creationists. nevermind that i was the one who lead the campaign to get you, personally, unbanned when they tossed you a few weeks ago.
how unobjective must you be, randman, to call me unobjective for that? i don't think you could even recognize objectivity if you saw it. because it was just my subjective bias against irrational people that lead me to do that, wasn't it?
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.
yes, that's fine. show that (in a reasonable manner) in the appropriate thread(s). but so far, most of your threads have just been an attempted dog-and-pony show turned into a three ring circus act.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by randman, posted 01-29-2006 7:29 PM randman has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 293 of 302 (282382)
01-29-2006 8:00 PM


Topic Drift Alert
This thread is for discussion of moderation procedures with moderators, not for members to engage in discussions with each other.
AbE: I didn't express that well. Discussion between members is fine, but it should be about moderator procedures, not member behavior.
This message has been edited by Admin, 01-30-2006 09:17 AM

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 294 of 302 (283616)
02-03-2006 10:20 AM


admin nwr
yes, yes it did. well. about as much input as what it was a reply to.

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by AdminNWR, posted 02-03-2006 11:20 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 302 (283635)
02-03-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by macaroniandcheese
02-03-2006 10:20 AM


For the record
I take your message to be a response to Message 187. You should have provided a link.
The message to which you were responding (Message 186 also had little useful content. It at least had some minor justification as a response to your earler Message 185. You had no need to give an essentially empty response in Message 187, since you had already posted your position.
Please remember that what you post is not a private conversation. It is part of a public discussion. Before hitting Submit Reply, try to think about how your post will appear to somebody who is reading the thread as the result of a Google search.
You are capable of making intelligent comments. You damage your own credibility when you post too many messages that look more like schoolyard chatter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-03-2006 10:20 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 296 of 302 (283691)
02-03-2006 5:27 PM


My Bad
I didn't immediately associate Arach's new alias with Arach; as a result, I didn't realize I had posted in a "Great Debate" topic.
My mistake! Deepest apologies.

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by arachnophilia, posted 02-03-2006 5:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 297 of 302 (283693)
02-03-2006 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by crashfrog
02-03-2006 5:27 PM


Re: My Bad
i figured i'd try it on for size. frankly, it's confusing me too, so i think i'll probably switch back.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2006 5:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 298 of 302 (284490)
02-06-2006 7:55 PM


adminirh's manners
Do not refer to another poster as "a child who shows no respect for others". Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and calling someone names based on an opinion they hold is infantile - unless you can support it with well-reasoned arguments.
i would have to say that you would probably have done better to say that such speech is restricted on this board rather than calling it infantile. cause um. childish and infantile...
just a nitpick really. i agree with what you're saying, but i'd caution more precision in the future. i mean. unless you were being ironic.

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by AdminIRH, posted 02-07-2006 7:32 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 299 of 302 (284739)
02-07-2006 7:20 PM


Surprised by a debating PNT
Rays recent PNT, Message 1, is rather odd.
I think it is clear what Ray wants to debate, his position is
ray writes:
The Scots are claiming to be ancestors of scattered 10 tribe Israel.
And he provides his support. Its not a well detailed PNT, but I'm not sure what else could be added to it really. I am surprised at the reaction it has received. Surely Brian's response is in breach of the guidelines regarding respect?
AdminBrian writes:
Drugs are for mugs mate.
When the narcotics have worn off
And then begins to debate the topic with Ray. Is this not using Admin powers to debate a post before it has been promoted? Is this proper? It doesn't seem like good form.
Incidentally, I mean no ire or venom by my comments - I'm just concerned about precedent and the noble cause of holding mods to a higher standard. In actuality the only poster that has been really inline in that thread is Nosy.
Brian can clearly see what Ray wants to debate, but has not promoted it. The only reason he seems to have given is that Ray is wrong. I see an interesting debate here and I hope it gets promoted.

abe: It just got promoted, disregard that part
This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 08-February-2006 12:23 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Chiroptera, posted 02-07-2006 7:28 PM Modulous has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 302 (284741)
02-07-2006 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Modulous
02-07-2006 7:20 PM


Re: Surprised by a debating PNT
quote:
Surely Brian's response is in breach of the guidelines regarding respect?
AdminBrian writes:
Drugs are for mugs mate.
When the narcotics have worn off

I don't think this was meant as disrespect on Brian's part. When I read the exchanges between Brian and Herepton, I get the impression that they actually like each other, and this may have been intended to be good-natured ribbing on Brian's part.
But I do agree with holding Admins to a higher standard. There is an admin here (who I won't name) who I don't care very much for, and one of the reasons is that he cannot seem to avoid adding insulting and belittling comments when he makes one of his too numerous moderating actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2006 7:20 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2006 7:32 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024