General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel

I understand what you were doing and why.I suppose I am undecided about how I feel regarding the posts being made invisible.Perhaps if you are going to do this sort of thing in the future, including a note that if one wants to view the post, all they have to do is "peek"?

With a warning, I think it is a good way to break tunnel vision.

quote:

---

Perhaps if you are going to do this sort of thing in the future, including a note that if one wants to view the post, all they have to do is "peek"?

---

If I had planned on leaving them permanently invisible, I would; but I will keep that in mind if I need to follow through with the threat again.Maybe in the explanation post I could mention the peek option with a warning not to respond.

Nobody could answer me point for point here:http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel -->EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution SequelWe know this is because of the inability to refute.I am shocked to read Brian's rant/loss of composure. I thought we were friends. I take no pleasure in it. From what he wrote it is obvious he intentionally said things daring me to call him a liar. I will leave you alone. This is about as objective and credible as a Judge deciding a case involving his relative.You are also confused. Randman was suspended for allegedly calling you a liar. I suggest you do less drugs; the same will undoubtedly improve the look of your face. Because you are an atheist/Darwinist this secures the fact that I am not as you say. Your approval would have proven me as such. We know your kind (Fundies of science have teamed up with the Fundies of religion) and both have condemned me = my rightness/Creationism confirmed correct.Your entire post shows deep frustation caused by my irrefutable points in previous messages. Common sense says if a person wants accurate information about the Bible do not consult an atheist/Darwinist.You guys are animal worshippers = evolution says we descended from apes and so on and so forth ending in the mythical common ancestor. Any objective reading of Genesis knows it was written to say origins was not by common descent.I have no ill will toward any atheist or Darwinist. Since I am a Creationist all your comments about me are entirely predictable as mine are towards you. The ill will that I do have is towards the cowardly Creationist lap dogs too bored in life to have the character to take a stand about the censorship of the Bible. You care more about having a place to post than with atheists who have shit on your Bible. The Bible claims to correspond with physical reality. The Pharisees are the type of EVERY established religious community in any era. Jesus said (the ultimate authority and source) they (the Pharisees) were of their father the devil (John 8:44). Imagine that....thinking you are worshipping God when in fact you are deceived by Satan and belong to him ?If the typology is true then every established religious community in any era is exactly the same. The Fundamentalists are the established Protestant religious community today and their members are here, in this Forum, and by their silence, approving of the censorship of the Bible by our enemies, they prove, the typology is absolutely true corresponding with physical reality. The book of John was written before 70 AD.Darwinists have "changed the truth of God" (that He is the Creator) "into a lie" that we originated from creatures "and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator." Romans 1:25 = perfect fit on Darwinists. My paper will prove it.The error of all nonbelievers is that the word of God does not apply to them but some uncivilized savage in the past. The verse fits Darwinists to a tee. This fact is supported by your censorship of the Bible verse by not allowing it to be applied to you. By plainly admitting that you will not allow shows that you really think it does.Imagine that...a Bible verse and its application censored on an Internet debate board....the truth obviously hurts.Now I debut my new signature that would accompany all my posts if I was not boycotting this Forum.Ray Romans 1:25

​

Who changed the truth of God into A LIE, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. All Darwinists are the liars for special pleading the appearance of design (what more can God do ?) to not correspond with Designer but a blind and mindless process of their own imagination and need.

Hi Ray,I'm going to help you implement your personal boycott of EvC Forum by suspending your posting privileges.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Well, goodbye Ray, I hope we'll see the paper. That's why I said that Randman accused me of lying - perhaps you should join the same drug rehab as me? We can also work on your seeming obsession with my face Next time, should I be more explicit when I say something tongue in cheek? Perhaps I should explicitly write that what I say is actually intended to be taken as a tongue in cheek comment? I wasn't trying to refute your points, but rather give my thoughts on how to deal with liars, hence the title. But it's not. You have been at liberty to post your opinion and the Bible verse in question in this very thread.As for the forum guidelines, you are entitled to post something like 'according to Paul, you are a liar', just like someone could post 'According to one of the Psalms, all men are liars'. That's fine, but accusing someone of lying is against the forum rules regarding respect - and, unless intent to deceive is provable it should not be done. In most cases I've seen where someone is accused of lying, its actually that they are just 'wrong' (according to the accuser) or there has been a misunderstanding. nwr and randman's suspension reasons basically cover these varieties, as I highlighted in my previous post.The cost of allowing accusations of lying to be part of the debate is greater than the profit of exposing the occasional person who is intentionally misleading. Especially in this medium where previous posts can be referenced to show any inconsistency.

you mean, "with my tongue in my cheek" was not clear enough?clearly, mod, you must have been lying, because you're an evolutionist.

---

hey again ray. i know you wouldn't answer this even if you weren't suspended/involuntarily boycotting/whatever. but here it goes. no one is saying that animals created mankind. and neither is anyone saying that we "originated from" animals. rather, we ARE a kind of animal.and if you don't believe me, read your bible. i think you'll find that genesis uses the same word for animal that does for mankind: -- living creature. this is the phrase genesis 1 uses to describe all of god's animal creations, and the phrase genesis 2 uses for us when god breathes life into adam. i think you'll also find that man and beast, ‘ often occur in tandem, parallel.dispute it if you like, but the bible clearly groups us together -- because we are more like animals than we are like god. make no mistake here, ray, you are not just accusing people of lying: you are accusing people of idolatry. i have no doubt that if you DO respond to this, it will be the same accusation. but this is no darwinist rant, ray. nor am i an athiest. you make such claims here, and insult people's religions. i understand the reality of evolution -- but i do not worship any created being, only the one who created them all.should we let you sit here in judgement? calling people liars, and idolators -- often even insulting your fellow christians? because, obviously, anyone who disagrees with you is neither christian, nor saved; but a tool of the devil. how dare you, who is saved by grace alone, make such accusations? and how dare you pervert such a sacred text, and use it as a weapon. that's the real issue here, ray. it's not that you are quoting the bible -- quote all you like. it's not that you are talking about implications. it's your judgemental, condescending, insulting, and un-christ-like attitude. it's that you are using the text disrespectfully to harm other members. you are disrespecting the text itself to use it in this manner.i think perhaps you should give the teachings of jesus a second thought. what would jesus think of you attempting to use his name to insult other people -- people he died for (whether they accept it or not)? we wait with baited breath, ray. what would jesus say about this whole debate? let's ask him, shall we?

quote:

---

Mat 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

​

Mat 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

---

if you really think we're all against you, or that we don't hear or accept you, then feel free to accept jesus's message and just leave. but what we, the other christians here, don't need is for someone to cast us in a bad light -- using our texts as weapons, disregarding the teachings of our saviour that instruct us to have nothing but compassion, and love, and respect for our fellow man. jesus had the right to judge -- but we do not.the issue here is that you broke the rules. you insulted members, and you made accusations -- some of them false. you break not only the rules of conduct for this board, but the rules of conduct for christianity. play nice, or don't play at all. but this act neither convinces anyone that you're right, nor does it show the love of our lord and saviour to the people who need to see it. how this a christian response, ray? i'm sure you think the policies on the board are not fair, but remember. we as christians are held to a higher standard. we are to be the example, and show others christ -- through our lives, and our actions, and our words. what witness to the gospel does a response like this bare?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 04-15-2006 01:53 AM

---

Anyone with anything to say about moderation procedures? Anyone at all? That *is* the topic of this thread, after all.Please, people, stop discussing Ray's issues here. If you have issues with any specific moderator action or with moderation procedures in general, then this is the place. Anything else, please take it to the proper thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I might add, Percy, that when we continue this thread, instead of calling it something even longer than General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel we simply call it General Discussion of moderation procedures II or III or IV.

I realize that locking great debate topics down to the stated participants is in the works, but before then, can something be done to make them a little more apparent from inside? I almost always view messages via "All Topics" and the Great Debate topics simply don't stand out from the 20-odd other forum categories.A new color scheme, maybe? Anything to indicate that the thread one is looking at is a Great Debate topic. I realize that maybe I'm the only one dumb enough to be accidentally posting in them, but it's simply because there's no indication that it's a great debate topic when one is reading the last few most recent messages in it.

Re: http://EvC Forum: How do we know about natural selection? (Igor and Lithodid-Man only) -->EvC Forum: How do we know about natural selection? (Igor and Lithodid-Man only)Topic title: How do we know about natural selection? (Igor and Lithodid-Man only) Crashfrog's message at that topicIsn't the "(Igor and Lithodid-Man only)" part a pretty good clue that you shouldn't be posting there, even if you somehow don't notice the "The Great Debate" at the All Topic page? Sheesh, open your eyes.Adminnemooseus

I don't think the Great Debate indicators are obvious at all. After a thread is underway it is rare for anyone to start at the OP, so the banner in that post is missed. The standard practice seems to be to go straight to the latest post displayed on the All Topics page, and for most threads this is fine. In my experience on the All Topics page nobody notices which Forum the thread is in either. I know I don't. The only way to alert people to a Great Debate topic is to put a banner notice in EACH POST or at least every few posts. I did this in the last two GDs I was in and it seemed to help, but even then if too many posts went by without a banner people would again miss the warning.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-16-2006 02:22 AM

I'm sorry but the title of any topic is far from obvious, especially when the link is taking you to the most recent message. The title is there when you compose a message, but so is a lot of other garbage, and it just gets filtered out when one is concentrating on writing a post. Look, I'm not saying it's not a stupid mistake, but all I'm suggesting is a quick change to the stylesheet. The indicators at present are insufficient - Great Debate topics are rare, and they look exactly like every other thread.

means of course that I can't answer anyone who posts to me there, so this is an announcement to them that they won't be hearing from me there.And also to ask if those bannings are permanent or what?Thank you.

This seems like a really good idea to me. Make a change to the stylesheet to help identify threads where people probably shouldn't be posting.This color coding could include "specialty" topics where it's unusual to post replies (which includes other such forums, like "Links & Information", "Practice Makes Perfect", "Post of the Month", and other "non-discussion" forums (archives, etc)Seems like a good, low-cost idea to me. Even if it's not a color change... some more obvious indicator. This has been a problem for a looong time.Ben