Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 2:29 AM
19 online now:
Dredge, Heathen, PaulK (3 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,135 Year: 5,172/19,786 Month: 1,294/873 Week: 190/460 Day: 6/29 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 302 (304002)
04-13-2006 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by kjsimons
04-13-2006 4:13 PM


Re: the accusation
Nope, its like saying "Those women over there are acting like bitches" and your girlfriend claims you called her a bitch.

You mean, Faith didn't even write the email?

That's ghey....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by kjsimons, posted 04-13-2006 4:13 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1157 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 137 of 302 (304044)
04-13-2006 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by NosyNed
04-13-2006 3:55 PM


Re: Taking longer
You seem to have misread my last post.

The EvC rule that protects liars voids a source/Bible to identify a liar.

My boycott remains forever as long as the Bible is censored by this Forum rule.

You are an Admin, why don't you address my post unlike the childish insult delivered by Omni ?

Then maybe I will consider your issue about an excerpt/draft ?

I really do appreciate your interest in my paper. It is the central focus of my life until completed.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by NosyNed, posted 04-13-2006 3:55 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by NosyNed, posted 04-13-2006 7:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 138 of 302 (304046)
04-13-2006 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Cold Foreign Object
04-13-2006 6:56 PM


The boycott
You are allowing Randman's behavior to control your own. He will not be readmitted because of your boycott. (If anything it may encourage not readmitting him). If you want to give that control over to him it is totally up to you but it doesn't impress anyone here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-13-2006 6:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2006 3:38 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3068 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 139 of 302 (304048)
04-13-2006 7:32 PM


Boycott =
The boycott = inablility to refute.

Ray has realised that Gene Scott's grasp of science, bible studies and history is pretty poor.

As I showed on the Egytian thread, Scott and Velikovsky have no clue about Egyptology or ANE history, Ray now realises this and the boycott is his way of wriggling out of facing up to this.

It is so obvious that it is embarrassing.

Scott says Velikovsky is hated because he proved them all wrong, yet Ray himself rejects Velikovsky, to be sure this must be some mind f*ck.

You not fooling anyone.

Brian.


Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by arachnophilia, posted 04-14-2006 3:54 AM Brian has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12590
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 140 of 302 (304053)
04-13-2006 8:08 PM


Two Points
I just want to make two brief points:

  • Please keep discussion here on-topic. I'm going to be revoking posting privileges in this forum for violators.

  • Please be selective about those you choose to converse with. Let people's past behavior be your guide to whom you're likely to have a productive discussion with. And if you decide to engage certain people, please don't complain when what everyone knew would happen happens. Moderators will, of course, attempt to keep bad behavior in check, but please try to make the moderation job easier.

Thanks! :)


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
nator
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 141 of 302 (304090)
04-13-2006 11:35 PM


since when do we censor/remove posts?
?
Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-13-2006 11:40 PM nator has responded

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 142 of 302 (304092)
04-13-2006 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by nator
04-13-2006 11:35 PM


Re: since when do we censor/remove posts?
Where are you talking about.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by nator, posted 04-13-2006 11:35 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by nator, posted 04-13-2006 11:46 PM AdminAsgara has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 143 of 302 (304098)
04-13-2006 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by AdminAsgara
04-13-2006 11:40 PM


Re: since when do we censor/remove posts?
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1354&m=30#30 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1354&m=30#30">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1354&m=30#30
This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-13-2006 11:40 PM AdminAsgara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-13-2006 11:50 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 150 by AdminPD, posted 04-14-2006 6:33 AM nator has responded

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 144 of 302 (304099)
04-13-2006 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by nator
04-13-2006 11:46 PM


Re: since when do we censor/remove posts?
quote:
The content is still there, do a peek.

Ah.

I see.

This message has been edited by AdminSchraf, 04-14-2006 12:15 AM


AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

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

    http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 143 by nator, posted 04-13-2006 11:46 PM nator has not yet responded

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 14819
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 3.5


    Message 145 of 302 (304140)
    04-14-2006 3:38 AM
    Reply to: Message 138 by NosyNed
    04-13-2006 7:12 PM


    Re: The boycott
    Since the purpose of the boycott is to demand the right to falsely accuse others of being liars I can't see that it stands any chance of success.

    Even if there was no blanket ban on accusations of lying what Ray wants would still be contrary to the rules. Accusing people of lying for no reason other than that they disagree with the beliefs of the accuser would still be contrary to the rules of the forum.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 138 by NosyNed, posted 04-13-2006 7:12 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 87 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 146 of 302 (304141)
    04-14-2006 3:54 AM
    Reply to: Message 139 by Brian
    04-13-2006 7:32 PM


    Re: Boycott =
    The boycott = inablility to refute.

    not to mention that he's dodging that big paper he was supposed to submit. but i don't think it's a big deal for ray. i found where he's been spending his time:

    http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?...

    (they're waiting for it there, too)

    Changed URL display length to fix page width - The Queen

    This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 04-14-2006 03:55 AM

    This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 04-14-2006 09:51 AM


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 139 by Brian, posted 04-13-2006 7:32 PM Brian has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 147 by Brian, posted 04-14-2006 4:07 AM arachnophilia has responded

    Brian
    Member (Idle past 3068 days)
    Posts: 4659
    From: Scotland
    Joined: 10-22-2002


    Message 147 of 302 (304143)
    04-14-2006 4:07 AM
    Reply to: Message 146 by arachnophilia
    04-14-2006 3:54 AM


    Re: Boycott =
    I just hope Ray gets regular checks on his blood pressure!
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 146 by arachnophilia, posted 04-14-2006 3:54 AM arachnophilia has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 149 by arachnophilia, posted 04-14-2006 5:08 AM Brian has not yet responded

      
    AdminModulous
    Administrator (Idle past 213 days)
    Posts: 897
    Joined: 03-02-2006


    Message 148 of 302 (304147)
    04-14-2006 4:25 AM
    Reply to: Message 128 by Cold Foreign Object
    04-13-2006 1:35 PM


    My thoughts on how to deal with liars
    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.

    I have been here nearly a year now, I have no memory of a single person I spoke with having lied. I have heard empty boasts, which later turned out as such, I have hear exaggeration and seen misleading. Never a real lie though, most of the time its simply a case of correct and incorrect. Where I believe my opponents have been wrong, I have tried to demonstrate this.

    Randman accused me of lying yet I told no untruth. He said that I had never accepted x despite several posts where I explicitly stated that I accepted x. Does that make randman a liar? No - it makes him wrong. Instead of calling him a liar, I simply pointed out he was wrong.

    It is very difficult to be sure that someone is lying over the internet. It could be that someone is denying having ever held a position - but it could be that you misunderstood their original position, or they communicated it badly. It makes debate run ever so more smoothly if you don't paint the term 'liar' on someone even if you think they are deliberately telling an untruth.

    Here is how we deal with 'liars':

    If they are inconsistent, tell them
    If they are saying something which is untrue, correct them.

    Its a simple formula that has worked very well. Consider nwr's suspension. This is what he was responding to:

    You hardly have the best interests of the children in mind when you want to force them into an inferior education system (and an environment of social ills in a number of cases).

    I'm calling you a liar, in spite of rule 10. I'll withdraw the accusation if you can demonstrate where I ever did what you state.

    A better response would be 'It seems you misunderstand my position, here is a different explanation, do you understand this?'. TimesChange did not appear to me to be lying, but rather wrong about nwr's position.

    This brings me on to your central point re: The Bible. If you want to use your Holy Book to call the opposition liars, its never going to happen. The only way you can even try to get away with the liar accusation is by demonstrating that the untruth was intended to mislead (and not a mistake). A difficult task, possibly impossible to do fairly, so it makes life easier if we encourage members to always assume that your opponent is honest, no matter how absurd or dishonest their position looks.

    You cannot use a Bible passage, that accuses animal worshippers of changing the truth of God into a lie to call all people that accept evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life. Its not ever going to happen.

    The rule does not void the Bible. It insists that the only way to demonstrate a lie, is to demonstrate that an intentional act of dishonesty occurred. It accepts that this is not something particularly trivial to do, and requires a judgement that we are not able to make with confidence. You cannot call someone a liar using a source, only by showing intent to deceive.

    Your boycott will have to continue ad infinitum if you insist on using Romans to at will accuse others of lying. Perhaps if randman was reinstated you will drop the boycott? I'm not sure which condition needs to be met since you are unclear. Either way, the point remains, accusing someone of lying is a pathway to uncivil debate. Nobody likes to be called a liar and in most circumstances nobody is lying, just somebody being wrong. Randman has way back in, if he chooses to take it.

    On that note, and with my tongue in my cheek, you are a liar Ray. I can provide a source for it too, so it should be justifiable:

    Romans 3:4 writes:

    God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written (Psa 116:11), That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

    Take care Ray, I look forward to seeing your devastating paper, I certainly hope I don't see pride in your words, Ray. Such things defile a man.


    New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

    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

    Other useful links:

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


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 128 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-13-2006 1:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 153 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-14-2006 1:48 PM AdminModulous has responded

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 87 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 149 of 302 (304148)
    04-14-2006 5:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 147 by Brian
    04-14-2006 4:07 AM


    Re: Boycott =
    I just hope Ray gets regular checks on his blood pressure!

    it's kind of funny to read the conversation on that group (i mostly lurk, and even then i don't really lurk THAT much).

    they don't appear to have the same rules that we do. and little to no moderation. and let me tell you -- insults go aflying. ray's "darwinist rant" claims almost sound justified there sometimes.

    it's kind of funny to see the idiots and nutters get called idiots and nutters.


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 147 by Brian, posted 04-14-2006 4:07 AM Brian has not yet responded

    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 150 of 302 (304157)
    04-14-2006 6:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 143 by nator
    04-13-2006 11:46 PM


    Re: since when do we censor/remove posts?
    Hey Schraf,

    The posts are not removed and weren't being censored. They were simply made invisible for a short duration to deter that line of off topic discussion.

    A warning was given in Message 19 of that thread.

    I explained what I did in Message 37 and I explained that visibility would be restored after the discussion had moved forward.

    I will be restoring visibility today and each post will be marked as off topic.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 143 by nator, posted 04-13-2006 11:46 PM nator has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 151 by nator, posted 04-14-2006 10:09 AM AdminPD has responded

    Prev1
    ...
    89
    10
    1112
    ...
    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