General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel

How could you forgot Jars favorite biblical passage - you old goat you!Faith, whilst you know I agree with you and respect you without end I'm going to point out something to you from an angle which might make clearer to you why things might be the way they are.(and Jar, please don't take this a some kind of slight... yet - read on. You may disagree but this is the way I see it and don't see any reason why it shouldn't be so)Faith. Do some basic analysis of Jars posting pattern. Look up topics for Jar and follow his progress (especially through a couple of God threads). Its typically a couple of lines per post no matter how far into the thread you go. There is no long drawn out discussion and points gone into in depth. Surface skimming pot shots - not in-depth, long drawn out debate. I'll grant that quantity doesn't necessarily mean quality but if you look at the history of Potm's then you will see that the best points (as understood here) tend to involve medium to long posts. Not three liners.Thus it is unreasonable (on both yourself and Jar) to suppose that he will satisfy your requirement of him (explain himself and expose his viewpoint to critique - for there is insufficient material to work with) or that you will satisfy his requirement (you aren't content with short on detail attempts at conclusion)If I look at your posts I can trace my way through your argument - whatever it may be. Click on "Topics for Faith" and I can go back quite a ways or forward quite a ways (nigh on all the time). I am able to follow from whence the argument has come and to where it has gone. Not so Jar. Short answers that don't have root backwards from the point of entry or forward from the point of entry.Jar is (like Charles Knight before him) a sniper at work. There is a role for this input. It helps to know that you can be tackled on any word or idea that you post and it helps to keep your arguement tighter. Sniping is almost a pseudo-admin role in that respect. But don't take it as mainstream in depth, point on point debate. It cannot do what it is not designed to do.I think that it is here that the nub of the issue lies. You are both trying to accomplish different things and might do better to understand each others core aim in considering the others approach.Thats my view anyway

Whilst your understanding of "what an evolutionist is" might be as plain as day to you and many (..for complex it is not), I would hazard a guess that "what is a Christian" is anything but. How come then your assurance about a Jar 2 liner post in deciding as you do?A Christian evolutionist. Elaborate... on the Christian bit This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-30-2006 04:47 PM

thou shalt not question an admin then.So be itLOLPS: having AdminJar do a "Cease and desist" on a post concerning plain old Jar is about as ropey a scenario as one can imagine.PS: Iano hears a knock on the door. Its late. He opens the door. Its 20 Orangutans...AAARGHThis message has been edited by iano, 30-Mar-2006 10:58 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 30-Mar-2006 11:00 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 30-Mar-2006 11:07 PM

Oops ...too much coke. Sorry AAThis message has been edited by iano, 30-Mar-2006 11:01 PM

In the "Gospel according to You" in Faith and Belief a discussion has arisen between myself and Jar. A key question is focused on at msg 168 by myself (last 3 sentences of post). Jar dodges on a couple of responses but in message 182 comes out with a response which seems to expose himself. He gets a predictable response in 183 and in 184 makes what I would consider an deceitful evasion.In msg 184 Jar refers to comments made in the thread to Phat. Not only are those comments completely unrelated to the discussion at hand (the thread is den of sub discussion at this stage) but the have been latched onto after the original question to Jar has been asked. Instead of Jar answering the question asked he attempts to have me support the unrelated assertions made to PhatIs this Kosher?This message has been edited by iano, 11-Apr-2006 02:25 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 11-Apr-2006 02:27 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 11-Apr-2006 02:28 AM

On reflection you are right. I withdraw the charge of deceit on Jars part.

You have it on the button AdminPD.Rangers and Celtic are respectively Scottish football teams who are followed by predominantly (possibly completely) by respectively Protestants and Catholics and wear respectively blue and green football apparel. As same city teams, the matches between them are the most intensely important games of the year (especially given that either team usually ends up winning the league). The rivalary is not simply football but has a very strong sectarian element to it. Rangers for example only repealed there Protestant-only signing policy for players in 1989. An extreme Celtic supporter is more likely to kick an extreme Ranger supporter than pick him up from the gutter and care for him. And vice versa. More below if you were interestedJust a moment...So I don't know why Trixie is getting so upset. It seems patently obvious that I wasn't accusing her of being one or the other. Her subsequent statement that she was well aware of the divide between a Jewish priest and a Samaritan makes her missing the reason for the analogy all the more confusing.Needless to say I regret the offence caused in not making it crystal clear for her. I just didn't see the problem. I won't make the same mistake with her (you trixie, if you are reading this) again.I'm sorry.And thanks PD for stepping in. It allowed the opportunity for explanation and apologyThis message has been edited by iano, 21-Apr-2006 01:27 AM

AdminMoose closed the ID at Cornell thread due to it having "wandered terminally off topic". In a pre-warning issued a half an hour or so before actual closure (and after which warning - but before closure, there was but 1 post) AdminMoose advised that the thread (which had racked up 160-odd messages at that stage) get back on topic.The trouble was that no actual discussion direction (other than a bare cut n' paste about an ID course at Cornell) had actually been posted in the OP. One might imagine that going off a non-defined topic direction would be impossible here. And its not that something wasn't attempted to be made of it.I joined the discussion at msg 13 and started out on one potential tack mentioned in the OP cut n' paste. What area could ID possibly tackle so as to begin to generate evidence (assuming there was some) of a scientific nature and so take a place at the table oft denied it? "Maybe a comparison between markers of human ID vs any found in nature" I thought to myself.It wasn't long before the usual "its Religion not science" side-issue started creeping in, championed mainly (but not solely) by RickJB. Not exactly off OP topic it must be said given that this too is contained within the cut n paste. and... Thus the original main thrust of the thread ( ID markers: started around msg 13) took off in the direction of "ID = Religion". Me attempting to show it is not necessarily and Rick (and others) trying to show it is. After some contribution as Percy, AdminPercy steps in at msg 130 with the view that my attempt to show God is irrelevant to the discussion is off (non-defined)topic and tacitly supports the notion that God is inexplicably linked to ID. If there is any doubt about that then Percys statement below should make it plain... How one could expect this ship to sail if the holes in the logic weren't completely patched up with bias, I fail to comprehend. The thread was closed before Percy got a chance to explain why the intelligence which designed us (were that ever to be established) could not be completely naturalistically arising intelligence - and thus not necessarily regress to GodNotwithstanding the illogic of the reasoning here we have Percy posting in direct contravention of a ruling he made as Admin a short while before, in asserting off (non)topic I kind of expected some trouble after a post to Percy at msg 106, when it never got a response. But that could be simply persecution complex:http://EvC Forum: Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University -->EvC Forum: Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell UniversityWhat were the reasons for closure at such a late stage? Why did the warning refer back to a vague discussion direction supposedly established within 11 posts of an OP devoid of suggested discussion direction? Why such quick closure after a topic drift alert? Why can Percy contribute posts which contain such blatant fallacies as outlined above which, when responded to, result in topic drift alerts, then closure?edit typoThis message has been edited by iano, 03-May-2006 01:10 AM

The first notion was never really established and the thread moved quickly onto your second idea "Generally: Is ID science?"If A = B and C = B then A = C (with A=ID B=Science and C= SETI) seemed to me to be a way of dispensing with at least one objection to ID not= science viewpoint. The need to deal with this arose due to the repeated insertion into the works of the the "ID=Religion" spanner (from about msg 60). Incidently you appear to be the first to make this assertion early on. It would have only taken one word from you to deal with the response to the problem posed in your own ID=Religion-therefore-it-cannot-be-science case (the "IF Alien Intelligence THEN God" leap of logic ) It was the dodgy nature of thread closure I was enquiring about but no matter. I get the jist: one plays the cards one is dealt

Given the trouble encountered continuing them inside topics I can't but agree with you.On reflection I can understand why Moose shut it down, he is, after all the one who opened it and is presumably the beneficiary of inside knowledge as to the precise way in which he would have liked the thread to progress. Not having any further part to play in it against which one could gauge his intent means that any explanation from him would be automatically sufficient.Intelligent design? Blind Chance? It depends on which way one views the evidence I suppose...

BumpRe: ID at Cornell thread

Fair enough Moose...I was a little pissed at the abrupt halt given that loads of threads here veer away from the original idea but latch onto something along the way and develop along a new line. 160 posts in was a little late in the day I thought..Option 3 is fine by me...Thanks

Good judgement Mod. Of all the various mod activity concerning this thread, this one appears to me to be the most even-handed. Jars comment appeared not only to deny the reason for the thread (a thread originator cannot question the reason given for 'his' thread being closed?) but it was used as a cape from which behind an insult was delivered. This from a position "unquestionable authority". Very 1984 that - not to say downright ugly.Again. Well done. Edited by iano, : typo

If the nominator happened to be the person to whom the the nominated message was replying, would the clarity be expected to be so very clear?Ropey use of the PotM system? I think so, especially if the (even if modified as above) motivation for nomination supplies an analysis of the PotM'ed statement which doesn't take into account the context of the message to which it was replying to (which the nominator wrote himself so is presumably aware of what he wrote)We'll be nominating ourselves next

I'd say leave it. It serves to highlight (as my message up a bit points out) some of the motivations which lie behind Potms. In a recent thread on the subject of Potms, the various reasons given for nominating Potms did not include the notion that the potm was a highlight in a debate involving two skilled opponants (the most noble of all reasons to nominate I would have imagined. And the most satisfying thing to be nominated for - I also imagine){Added by Adminnemooseus - I also say "leave it". It serves to hightlight something, which may or may not be what Iano is saying. Also, it is the source point for this moderation issue discussion.}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.