It has taken a little work to keep the thread on topic. You might recall the earlier diversion between Crash and John about credentials and income. It is my view that your messages have the potential to again draw defensive responses having nothing to do with the topic. "Your arguments are weak,"..."No, your arguments are weak," and so forth. Here are some comments on excerpts from your Message 225:
Thus taking advantage of this one line to dodge all the rebuttals of your previous weak (if not non-existent) arguments...
You address no specific arguments and accuse John of dodging rebuttals. Please focus on the topic and keep accusations of less than honest behavior to yourself.
I know you can't properly answer them without having to acknowledge the massive errors in the logic you employed, so I will take this as a concession that your previous arguments were invalid.
That's only fair eh? That you don't substantiate your arguments or answer when they are shown to be invalid must mean that you agree they are invalid, yes?
This is gratuituous patting of your own back having nothing to do with the topic, and statements about assuming he concedes his arguments are invalid is inflammatory, which of course includes the potential for drawing intemperate responses that draw the thread further off-topic.
The rest of your message primarily addressed the topic and was much better.
Advice to everyone: You can't force someone to understand something he doesn't want to or isn't capable of. All you can do is lay out the arguments and evidence as best you can. Personal criticisms usually only have the effect of causing people to dig in their heels, and it makes one look petty and uncharitable.
I'm looking at the immigrants thread for the first time beginning at your Message 105. I don't want to step on AdminPD's toes, but you seem to disagree with her assessment, so I thought I'd add my voice to hers and say that in my opinion you are crossing a line. You cannot equate this from EZScience in Message 101:
All these protestations don't really add up to any kind of evidence that would justify all the bigoted attitudes reflected in that email you copied.
If the distinction isn't apparent to you then I don't think it can be explained, but in that case you will continue to find it very difficult to remain within the Forum Guidelines. I encourage the moderator team to have little tolerance for violations of rule 10 because they tend to derail threads.
So please make a greater effort to stay within the Forum Guidelines or your posting privileges will only see further restrictions.
There is a difference between analyzing the relationship of Christianity and the state in history and trying to correct Faith's view of history.
I understand using history to support your view of a Christian State today, but I don't want the thread to melt into a debate with Faith on whose history is right.
See the difference?
PD, I apologize for derailing the thread... but at the same time it is tiring to see Faith spout nonsense over and over without challenging it. Calling liberals "america haters" and scientists "idiots".... spreading ridiculously false views of history, science, etc. I think it's only fair that we call her on it and make her back up her views with evidence.
Then again, I should probably just ignore the garbage and not derail threads. It would be nice if Faith could debate a subject using facts and evidence instead of simply pronouncing wide-ranging slurs against all who don't agree with her.
I'll try to hold back in the future (what can I say, I correct people when they say "That went good" "That went WELL!!!!"
edit: I will just ignore comments in the future and at worse post a quick correction and let it drop there. Again, I do apologize for derailing threads regardless of intent.
This message has been edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, 04-13-2006 12:14 PM
I am replying to the post where I initiated boycott. My boycott of this Forum shall remain until members Nwr and Randman are restored posting privileges.
It is fundamentally wrong to have in place a rule which protects liars and shields them from paying any consequence while shifting their guilt onto those who report the lie. The laws of this country are designed to punish liars and not protect them.
This is not a Creationist v. Evolutionist issue as is confirmed by the fact that Nwr and Randman represent both camps. However, this is a Darwinian controlled board and you guys have a rule that protects liars. This can only be interpreted as insulating yourselves from exposure. If this was a Creationist controlled board I would say the same thing - but its not.
We need a way to confront liars. If a Creationist lies then that person should be confronted, the same with an Evo. The rule needs to be changed OR a topic needs to be set up where a member can argue their case. There is NO PRECEDENT in civilized society that shields liars. EvC needs to do something.
There is though, even a greater issue. I can (and have) produced a source/Bible to expose certains liars. A person (from either side of the aisle) should be allowed to legitimately label and identify lie IF they have a source. The EvC rule voids the Bible.
My boycott will remain forever to protest the censorship of the Bible by an insignificant rule. The rule needs to be changed or amended. The subjective traitorous view of one Fundamentalist Admin seeking the approval of secular peers while grinding a personal hate axe will never be tolerated by myself. This person used classic weasel words to whitewash his support of the rule while shitting on Romans 1:25.
In my rebuke of this person I predicted he would not come clean, but would "dig in his heels". Of course the prediction came true. He perpetrated and repeated the foundational issue: shifted his guilt onto the messenger (me).
I am greatly comforted that a Fundamentalist disapproves of me; Darwinian disapproval is expected.
Many persons are aware that I am preparing a paper about Dr. Scott's refutation of Darwinism. It is taking longer than I expected but it is coming along. Dr. Scott has produced an invulnerable and impenetrable explanation and falsification of ToE. God has commissioned me (Dr. Scott's bulldog) to shove it in the face of the world. Darwinists are so used to refuting the moronic arguments of Fundies - we shall see how you do against the scholarship of a Stanford Ph.D.
May I remind:
Charles Darwin, common ancestry, macroevolution, Natural selection, human evolution, Theistic evolution, will all be CLEARLY refuted into oblivion. At the same time Paley's Argument from Design and the Creationist interpretation of scientific evidence will be invulnerably proven absolutely correct. The present state of society, that is, its enigmatic support of fallacious Darwinism will be explained and I will relish to see your rage - a rage that will make post 1996 Black Box rage look like a wimper.
I have always maintained that EvC is the best debate forum of the Net. Darwinian Site owner has championed free speech to his worldview rivals. I have been afforded over 2500 posts. Thank You.
My committment to publish this paper on the Net has not changed nor will it be thwarted. What will change is that I will not argue or defend the paper here - first, until the EvC rule that voids Romans 1:25 is changed. My committment to God and His word prevents me from supporting a Forum that censors His holy word based on the blood of Christ.
As Admin has tried to explain to you, the term arose when I said you had 'copied an email' that 'reflected biggoted attitudes', perhaps in the hope you might recognize them as such. You chose to identify with them and defend them. I respect your right to do so, but the only direct accusation of biggotry came from you.
I do equate it. He accused me of bigotry. I returned the compliment.
No, Faith, he didn't. As I said before, I'm sorry if you don't understand the distinction, but that doesn't excuse you from following the Forum Guidelines. I'm going to remove your posting privileges in the Coffee House forum.