Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 10:36 AM
36 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,004 Year: 9,040/19,786 Month: 1,462/2,119 Week: 222/576 Day: 25/98 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
AdminOmni
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 302 (300157)
04-01-2006 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
04-01-2006 5:16 PM


Blind Spot
Apparently, the one thing you haven't noticed is your tendency to label anyone who refuses to agree with you a liar.

For the record, I remain opposed to your reinstatement. I think your paranoiac resort to insult and accusation poisons our community.

There have been moments when I believed you and I made some authentic human contact across the gulf of our disparate personal philosophies, but that has been far outweighed by your other, toxic behaviors.

The question of admins acting in threads in which they participate is a red herring. Just because the deputy sherrif shops at the Stop & Shop as a private citizen does not mean she cannot act to stop a robbery in progress.

You prefer to portray yourself as a victm. But, invariably, it is you that launches the downward spiral of each imploding thread in which you participate.

I will be watching you like a hawk. Insult another member, and you're gone, whether I am participating in that thread or not: I don't need a nonparticipant's remove to recognize transgressive invective.

Let me tell you a story, Rand. I like stories because they have built-in context. This is a story about truth and lying.

A month ago I lay close to dying in the hospital, running a temp of 105, packed in ice, and beginning to convulse. I had already refused surgical intervention. I had spent a fevered night talking to my dead parents, siblings, and friends. The anti-inflammatories I use (no longer) to alleviate spinal injuries had eaten a hole in my colon, and the fecal matter that spilled into my abdominal cavity was trying to kill me with massive peritonitis.

The surgeon came to my room and told me, "Mr. Omni, after 3 days of the strongest IV antibiotics we have, you're getting dangerously worse. We have to go to the OR."

Going to the OR would have meant open abdominal surgery with the surgeon working, in his words, "in a sea of pus." It would also have meant a double-barreled colostomy--jeez, just shoot me.

But life is sweet. "Okay," I told the surgeon, "you're the pro."

He left to call the surgical team (it was a Sunday) and complete paperwork. The anesthesiologist came and completed her pre-op ritual.

I stared at the ceiling, and thought, with fevered conviction, "If I go to the OR, I'll die." My dead agreed. So I focused on lowering my fever--images of ice and sky, water and wind. It worked. I buzzed the nurses' station and told them to page the surgeon because the OR was no longer necessary.

He came, put a thermometer in my rectum, and examined my abdomen, pressing firmly where before I had been exquisitely tender, and asked me if it hurt like before. "No," I replied, "it hardly hurts at all."

He looked at me sharply and asked, "Are you lying to me to avoid surgery?"

"No," I answered, "and when the time comes that you can't believe what I tell you, you're fired."

He looked at the thermometer, shook his head, and told me, "Your temp is down several degrees. Your abdominal exam is dramatically improved. You must have connections."

He canceled the surgery. I lived. My dead mother came to my dreams again that night and pressed a cold hand to my forehead. My suicidal sister still stood silent in the shadows but seemed pleased.

I wouldn't lie to save my life. I can't--I'd rather die. I think that love of truth is shared by many here--evo and creo--and your accusations are obscene in the face of it.

If you can't believe other posters here say what they mean and mean what they say, go somewhere else. Darken someone else's town.

This message has been edited by AdminOmni, 04-01-2006 08:28 PM


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    Trust me.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 56 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 5:16 PM randman has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 62 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 8:38 PM AdminOmni has responded

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3063 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 62 of 302 (300160)
    04-01-2006 8:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 61 by AdminOmni
    04-01-2006 8:24 PM


    Re: Blind Spot
    So Omni, is the "trust me" part meant to reinforce the idea that you hate my guts or something....that's not an insult by the way, but I am puzzled by your lengthy post and story...personally, I am glad you are well and think maybe a miracle happened.

    I only wish you were as vigilant in demanding civility from my critics as you are of me. I think you would find there would be no problems at all then on my threads concerning a lack of civility or any such thing.

    This message has been edited by randman, 04-01-2006 08:38 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 61 by AdminOmni, posted 04-01-2006 8:24 PM AdminOmni has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 63 by AdminOmni, posted 04-01-2006 8:48 PM randman has responded

    AdminOmni
    Inactive Member


    Message 63 of 302 (300161)
    04-01-2006 8:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 62 by randman
    04-01-2006 8:38 PM


    Re: Blind Spot
    Rand, the "Trust me." means I won't lie to you or anyone else here.

    Puzzled? Continue to think about it.

    Civility?

    So who called you a liar?


    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    Trust me.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 62 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 8:38 PM randman has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 64 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 8:53 PM AdminOmni has responded

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3063 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 64 of 302 (300163)
    04-01-2006 8:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 63 by AdminOmni
    04-01-2006 8:48 PM


    Re: Blind Spot
    adminomni, to be honest, there have been a number of threads suggesting that all critics of evolution are intellectually dishonest, hence liars.

    Do you want me to go back over the threads and show you examples of serious lack of civility or is that required here?

    By the way, I wonder who said this:

    Speaking of which, surely you understand that this portion of your quote is (to put it kindly) inaccurate? Either the fellow is remarkably ignorant of history or deliberately repeating a lie:

    or how about this gem of an accusation from you?

    Which you knew, which you know: are you, at last, simply a troll, Rand?

    You gave a touching personal story, which is bewildering considering you included it in comments that come off as flat out hate, imo.

    This message has been edited by randman, 04-02-2006 05:02 AM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 63 by AdminOmni, posted 04-01-2006 8:48 PM AdminOmni has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 67 by Admin, posted 04-02-2006 10:26 AM randman has responded
     Message 79 by AdminOmni, posted 04-03-2006 8:27 AM randman has not yet responded

    AdminBuzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 65 of 302 (300188)
    04-02-2006 12:21 AM


    Hi Rand. I suppose you're wondering if I've factored in on the matter of your problems here. My postition in the admin discussion on this is that I was glad you were back. I reminded my admin team mates that you work hard to do thorough debate on issues trying to respond to your majority counterparts, often numerous and this pressure builds tension. Nevertheless, my position on the ban was that because of previous warnings by counterpart admins and admonishment from myself as well, your calling people liars hindered me from coming to your defense. Remember, what I said on one occasion before. Someone else's violations of Forum Guidelines does not justify responses in kind. I try hard to be fair and balanced. Don't make it hard for me to defend your actions.

    Over the years I've been here, there's been occasions when I've been called a liar and was infuriated when I know that there was no deliberate lie, so it's a charge I consider significant. Unless you have solid and unquestionable evidence that a lie is intended, I'm afraid you can't expect help from me if you're called on it. It's fine to argue that an opponent's claims are false or based on lack of knowledge, et al. That is not a personal attack.

    Your presence and good work here is valuable to the board and serves as a good balance. I'll do all I can to keep you aboard within the fairness perameter. So my friend, in spite of what others do, work hard at keeping your own conduct above reproach. I hope that others who've been somewhat shabby in this regard will tidy up their conduct as well for the good of the community. We all have areas we could improve on.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 66 by randman, posted 04-02-2006 1:42 AM AdminBuzsaw has not yet responded

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3063 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 66 of 302 (300191)
    04-02-2006 1:42 AM
    Reply to: Message 65 by AdminBuzsaw
    04-02-2006 12:21 AM


    to be honest....
    I am a little unsure on how to take your comments here as no, I did not expect, ask for and want to see some of the comments on my behaviour on that thread rehashed. I especially did not consider adminbrian's atrocious mischaracterization as appropiate on the admin announcement thread, nor jar's comments here, nor omni's.

    Despite what many may think, in a debate forum, it is likely that one side will eventually begin to respond in-kind to a degree with similar language as the other side. I have noted that with others, including Faith, and yet somehow it seems the majority of mods and evos somehow just see, for the most part, their critics as the ones being unreasonable, or ignorant, "intellectually dishonest" or many of the other various charges continually levelled at those that disagree with their worldview.

    I think the situation here seems to be that it's always considered the critic of evolution, for the most part, that is somehow being unreasonable, not supporting their points, etc, etc,....when in reality that is not the case. Fairness requires recognition that demanding civility, supporting facts, rules, etc,...from only one side on a thread is not a recipe for success, nor appropiate action.

    Edit to add a one-time opinion of your's some time ago, but a little unsure on how to put it out there without being offensive. Please do not take this as criticism, but just that in some respects, I think in the past and perhaps present as well, recognize there can be a one-sideness here, which after all was adminchristian's stated reason for reinstating me. The idea, I thought, was not to justify my comments, but to recognize that there was misbehaviour, a pattern of it even, directed towards me while I was civil, and it went unchecked...but maybe you can clarify since you are privy to moderator discussions.

    If you go at one member, when your friends are doing some similar stuff, it needs to be noted that you're not really being fair and balanced in your singling out Randman. You and your ideological friends consistently defend one another. Randman needs a friend to keep the trial fair here, imo.

    This message has been edited by randman, 04-02-2006 03:03 AM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 65 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 04-02-2006 12:21 AM AdminBuzsaw has not yet responded

    Admin
    Director
    Posts: 12601
    From: EvC Forum
    Joined: 06-14-2002
    Member Rating: 3.7


    Message 67 of 302 (300235)
    04-02-2006 10:26 AM
    Reply to: Message 64 by randman
    04-01-2006 8:53 PM


    Re: Blind Spot
    Hi Randman,

    It is my opinion that you are poison for any community because of your strong tendency to interpret disagreement as lying and criticism as insult. I have no illusions that you're going to understand and even less that you'll accept this argument, but I'll go ahead anyway. Here's your quote from Omni:

    Omni writes:

    Speaking of which, surely you understand that this portion of your quote is (to put it kindly) inaccurate? Either the fellow is remarkably ignorant of history or deliberately repeating a lie:

    If someone came up to me in real life, say at town meeting where something close to this happens on a regular basis, and said, "Either the fellow who just spoke is remarkably ignorant of history or he's deliberately repeating a lie," even if I strongly disagreed with that assessment and even if the person he was talking about was a friend, I would not be insulted. But if someone came up to me after I had spoken at town meeting and said, "You're a liar," I would be very insulted. Probably angry.

    If you can't see the difference then I don't think you'll last here very long.

    In case it isn't obvious to you, though I can't understand why it isn't obvious to anyone out of kindergarten, the reason we don't allow the debate to become personal here is because when people get angry the quality of debate suffers.

    I don't know if you've ever seen my traffic law analogy, but it might help you to give it a read (Message 36 in an old thread). You're in essence arguing that because everyone else is doing 70 that it's okay for you to do 90.


    --Percy
    EvC Forum Director

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 64 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 8:53 PM randman has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 68 by randman, posted 04-02-2006 4:07 PM Admin has responded

      
    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3063 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 68 of 302 (300327)
    04-02-2006 4:07 PM
    Reply to: Message 67 by Admin
    04-02-2006 10:26 AM


    Re: Blind Spot
    though I can't understand why it isn't obvious to anyone out of kindergarten, the reason we don't allow the debate to become personal here is because when people get angry the quality of debate suffers

    I guess you could have fooled me with that one, considering the voluminous personal attacks and charges, even whole threads, directed at me...all making it personal, and yes, not just at my views, but at me personally, my character, etc,....

    The quote I gave to omni was not meant to suggest it was the same as calling someone a liar, but at the same time, I think the idea that his posts and tone have never "darkened" the board was the overall point, not to try to dredge up everything he may have said in the past.

    All I ask for is equal moderation. Someone throws out personal insults towards me repeatedly, and you ignore it, repeatedly, it does seem a little biased and unfair to come back and call me poison because eventually I responded in a less civil manner.

    I also think the claim of questioning motives works both ways. Evos here routinely and frequently question the motives of anyone that disagrees with them, asserting that people only reject evolution based out of things like ignorance, religious prejudice, etc,....instead of analysis of the facts. Yet, if I or someone else raise possible motives for evos in general not agreeing that evolutionary theory is weak or wrong, I am accussed of being paranoid, of advocating a conspiracy, blah, blah, blah......

    Somehow then it seems acceptable to the evos to accuse creationists and IDers of taking part in an anti-science conspiracy and that's perfectly reasonable, but don't anyone dare say the same back the other way.....

    You're in essence arguing that because everyone else is doing 70 that it's okay for you to do 90.

    No, that's not what I am arguing, and frankly that is highly offensive. I object to your characterization of me as poison, etc,....and feel it is highly biased and I have given and can give repeated instances of that bias. I am not defending calling someone a liar, or being uncivil. I am defending the mischaracterization of me as the problem. If everyone is going 70, and you give me a ticket for going 70 (not 90), fine. But don't go about claiming I was the only one goong 70; that you are working hard to make sure the other traffic is not speeding when you watched dozens of people go right by you, happened to be friends of your's, and then I come along and you nail me.

    Yea, I was speeding, but I the only poison committed by me was following the lead of your friends.

    This message has been edited by randman, 04-02-2006 04:12 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 67 by Admin, posted 04-02-2006 10:26 AM Admin has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 69 by AdminJar, posted 04-02-2006 4:11 PM randman has responded
     Message 72 by Admin, posted 04-02-2006 4:17 PM randman has not yet responded

    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 69 of 302 (300330)
    04-02-2006 4:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 68 by randman
    04-02-2006 4:07 PM


    One quesstion
    Did you call another member a liar?

    So far you have avoided answering that simple question.


    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 68 by randman, posted 04-02-2006 4:07 PM randman has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 71 by randman, posted 04-02-2006 4:14 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 31656
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 70 of 302 (300332)
    04-02-2006 4:14 PM


    Admin intervention against on-topic post
    Percy directed my complaint here, which is about his Admin intervention on the thread about how you can't refute the argument about evolution being incompatible with Christianity by pointing to what people believe, so here it is. My answer to him is in Post#152 of that thread.

    This message has been edited by Faith, 04-02-2006 04:20 PM

    This message has been edited by Faith, 04-02-2006 04:21 PM


      
    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3063 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 71 of 302 (300333)
    04-02-2006 4:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 69 by AdminJar
    04-02-2006 4:11 PM


    Re: One quesstion
    Have you ever accussed people of ignoring something in a manner that reaches a point of lying jar?

    Have you?

    I never denied my comments and I will pledge never to call an individual here a liar again.

    It seems you are upset because I pointed out you were commenting as a poster after you banned me permanently, knowing I could not respond.....or am I missing something?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 69 by AdminJar, posted 04-02-2006 4:11 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

    Admin
    Director
    Posts: 12601
    From: EvC Forum
    Joined: 06-14-2002
    Member Rating: 3.7


    Message 72 of 302 (300335)
    04-02-2006 4:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 68 by randman
    04-02-2006 4:07 PM


    Re: Blind Spot
    randman writes:

    I guess you could have fooled me with that one, considering the voluminous personal attacks and charges, even whole threads, directed at me...all making it personal, and yes, not just at my views, but at me personally, my character, etc,....

    You're like the criminal who after being arrested complains that the police used means that would have been illegal if had he done it himself.

    Much of the criticism that has been directed at you has come from moderators who are entrusted with the task, if they think it possible, of trying to coach members back to behavior that conforms to the Forum Guidelines. We could, I suppose, just suspend people without providing any feedback about why we're suspending them, but that would be unfair.

    It is clear to me that you're not getting it and will just continue to be a headache for moderators, so I'm suspending you again.


    --Percy
    EvC Forum Director

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 68 by randman, posted 04-02-2006 4:07 PM randman has not yet responded

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 142 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 73 of 302 (300383)
    04-02-2006 8:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 53 by Admin
    04-01-2006 9:30 AM


    well, when you put it like that
    i guess i just have a bit of a thicker skin for randman's antics than most.

    but like i said, i didn't see anything out of the ordinary -- maybe that's why he was banned instead of suspended.

    [edit] i guess i should add something more, but this is a difficult subject, and a very touchy one for a lot of people here. my question is, does the wording matter? i think randman is right, to a degree. we DO accuse creationists of "intellectual" dishonesty, and continually question their integrity in rather roundabout ways.

    but "intellectual dishonesty" is really just a fancy word of saying "lie." i have always argued here that people shouldn't get in trouble for accusing others of lying -- if they make a case for it. because people DO lie, and we should be able demonstrate that some people in the debate are simply trying to mislead people. while it DOES border on an ad hominem argument, sometimes it's the truth. and we don't ban "evolutionists" for exposing the lies of someone like hovind.

    randman did word his points more civilly than usual, but maybe the issue is that they were aimed other members instead of public figures of the evc debate? the question is, will i get banned for the implication i'm making when i say that, of all people here, we shouldn't take randman's accusations of a lack of integrity too seriously?

    This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 04-02-2006 08:59 PM


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 53 by Admin, posted 04-01-2006 9:30 AM Admin has not yet responded

    AdminBuzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 74 of 302 (300418)
    04-02-2006 11:15 PM


    Admin Offer Fair
    Admin writes:

    I'm going to leave the suspension in place permanently, and I respectfully request that other moderators not restore his posting privileges. Randman can send me email at any time stating that he is ready to abide by the Forum Guidelines, follow moderator requests, and not take anyone else's misbehavior as an excuse to do whatever he likes, at which time I will restore his privileges.

    This is fair. Rand knows how things are here so he needs to decide whether he wants to return with a positive attitude, making the best of how this board is run or find one which he can tolerate. If Rand accepts Percy's conditions and returns he needs to bury the hatchet, graciously accepting the offer and get on with productive discussion.

    Percy is moving in the right direction. He accepts constructive criticism when given in a positive and constructive attitude. I've had to learn this myself and am still working on it. It's Percy's website. I believe he sincerely wants it to be compatible for all. This does not mean we're all going to be in total agreement with how things are. When we desire change, we need to go about effecting it with the attitude that it's someone else's website as we make suggestions and critique the management which laboriously strives to make it a pleasant place for members to aire our views on the www and for guests to read and learn. :cool:


    Replies to this message:
     Message 78 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-03-2006 3:29 AM AdminBuzsaw has not yet responded

    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 31656
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 75 of 302 (300431)
    04-03-2006 12:03 AM


    Admin responsibility to suspendees
    Since I am suspended from the believing is not proving thread, I think it is admin responsibility to tell others who are posting to me that I cannot respond to them.
    Replies to this message:
     Message 76 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 04-03-2006 1:36 AM Faith has responded

      
    Prev1234
    5
    67
    ...
    21NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019