|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I just want to make two brief points:
Thanks!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2303 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Where are you talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2303 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
quote: 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:
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I just hope Ray gets regular checks on his blood pressure!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
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 themIf 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024