|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel | |||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
AdminNWR writes: The problem was with using "a classic example of a blind, unfaltering, dogmatic mindset" in that nomination message. If, instead, it had said "a clear expression of a creationist viewpoint" there would have been no criticism. While that would have made the situation stand out less, I don't think it is really a significant change. I don't think (and of course this means IMO) the nominated material is of POTM quality. I would have never thought "Post of the Month" (POTM) when seeing it. The nomination pretty much seems to be a pot shot at Iano; Like I said before, close to if not a forum rule violation. Perhaps the nominating message would have been better as just a reply at the topic itself, rather than ending up in the POTM topic. The most important reason for my commenting on it is that I thought it, at best, a dubious example of what a POTM nomination should be. If it went uncommented on by an admin, it probably would have led to even more dubious POTM nominations (that "more dubious" is intended as referring to quantity, although it could also be interpreted as referring to quality). People - If you feel the urge to make a POTM nonination of that nature, think about it carefully. It may well not really be a good idea. Also, remember that the a POTM topic is not only not a place to debate the nominated message/topic itself, it is also not a place to debate the merets of the POTM nominations. Even if you think such, let it pass. Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(This all is about a POTM nomination)", which actually gives some meaning and vulue to the subtitle. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Replaced "It pretty..." with "The nomination pretty..." to make clear I was referring to the nomination message and not the nominated message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5006 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
up to you ( and the admins).
"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The phrasing is part of the act itself. A POTM nomination is supposed to be a positive statement about a post, so negative comments don't belong in the nomination. ok, i think i understand what you're saying then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Thread closed - and unusually - the closer remains anonymous. As does the reason for closure
Any explanation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
There may be something going on here in an area to which I am not privy. If so, there is no need for urgency in responding to my enquiry. If some greater goal is served then let it lie for now.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
See Message 15
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I missed your post sorry.
In your reasoning for closing the thread you mentioned that the thread was pointless whereas a point was most certainly given. Could you comment on how a thread with an express point can be labelled pointless? In the thread I mentioned that I was open to suggestion as to improvements for a time saving standard letter. This can obviously no longer occur. You also suggest that people are free to take up my suggestion for petitioning messrs Dembski and Dawkins to challenge John A. Davisons position here at EvC. However, having closed the thread almost instantly, it will fall to the bottom and off peoples viewing pane - denying them exposure to the idea. Thus ensuring that they are unlikely to be free to take up my suggestion. Comments?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
adminpd writes: This is not a continuation of reconciling Genesis 1 and 2. actually, it is. from the op:
quote: the goal of the op is to reconcile genesis 1 and 2, and provide an argument not provided in the other recent thread. the op has since been refuted, and has deserted the thread (note that there are no replies to my message 25). adding additional evidence for why the stories are contradictory and of different origins provides further back up for the points against. we can't actually be expected to sit around debate the meanings of two english words for 300 posts, can we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
quote:It is still referring to a very specific portion. I am here to clear up this errant thinking that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory as far as man being created after the beasts in Genesis 1, and then being "created" again, before the beasts, in Genesis 2. The original topic Truthlover asked: Has anyone heard any better reconciliations of those two chapters? Teets Creationist is arguing his specific reconciliation concerning when man was created in relation to the beasts. Since he's new to EvC, I'd like him to have a chance to discuss his position and not have his thread turned into a rehash of the old thread. You, jar, Faith, Randman, and ramoss have hashed this out several times. Give TC time to come back and participate in his thread. I will revise my warning and have removed the off topic tags, but I do ask that veteran members not run off with the thread beyond the scope of the OP. Is that a reasonable request?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Is that a reasonable request? i suppose. however:
It is still referring to a very specific portion.
I am here to clear up this errant thinking that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory as far as man being created after the beasts in Genesis 1, and then being "created" again, before the beasts, in Genesis 2. yes, and that portion i specifically addressed in one of my "off topic" posts, refering to the previous thread where i established that the causal relationships dictated order.
Since he's new to EvC, I'd like him to have a chance to discuss his position and not have his thread turned into a rehash of the old thread. You, jar, Faith, Randman, and ramoss have hashed this out several times. Give TC time to come back and participate in his thread. may i suggest you modify the warning to temporarily put a halt on the thread until teets can come back and address, specifically, my post in reply to his op, or others that ask the similar question: "what does a created, but formless man look like?"
but I do ask that veteran members not run off with the thread beyond the scope of the OP. in my opinion, the scope is a little TOO limited. we can't discuss other renderings (i've never seen kjv-onlyism enforced by moderators), i can't discuss the hebrew and the connotations therein, and we can't provide additional evidence that the stories are in fact different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
In your reasoning for closing the thread you mentioned that the thread was pointless whereas a point was most certainly given. Could you comment on how a thread with an express point can be labelled pointless? While there might have been some merit in your intial message, the thread rapidly degenerated into folk telling you why they thought it was not a great idea and your response noting their absence from somewhaere. There may have been merit in the OP but the thread was as pointless as any I have ever seen. And yes, it will quickly fall off the first page. The fact that you missed my message was yet another indicator of why the thread was going nowhere. The balance of the thread is folk saying that it is a bad idea and you responding with your message of absence. They were coming so fast that my closing message got passed like it was standing still.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
The off topic tags have been removed.
quote:Sure you can. Before the first warning people weren't making a case using other translations, they were just complaining about the KJV translation and what would be better. Like I said in the warning: This is not a discussion about what translation is best or if a translation influenced others. Our English words developed out of foreign languages, so make your case from the Hebrew standpoint. Show him the progression from Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, to English. I didn't say we had to stick with KJV, but address TC's argument. There have been discussions that request only outside resources be used or only the Bible be used, etc. TC didn't say to only use the KJV, but he did want to discuss the English words and he uses the KJV, so I feel that whatever participants argue needs to address that. Yes this topic is narrow, but TC is also a new member. This topic is about what TC wants to discuss not what you want to discuss. If and when TC returns, the discussion may broaden, but I feel that should be his choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Rapidly? It didn't even get of the ground to go anywhere rapidly. My comment: "your absence from the relevant thread" dealt with the objection that 3 posters made which simply denigrated John an/or his argument. That their comments are hollow is made manifest from their unwillingness to put their convictions to the test. Did one of them even attempt to gain entry to the Showcase PEH thread?
Wounded King didn't get that response for obvious reasons - but the thread was closed before I could respond to him. Your proper role would have been to warn those posters that their comments were off topic. The OP didn't say anything about debating the wisdom of the suggestion and that is all the posters were doing. Why didn't you warn them off instead of closing the thread?
And yes, it will quickly fall off the first page. The fact that you missed my message was yet another indicator of why the thread was going nowhere. The balance of the thread is folk saying that it is a bad idea and you responding with your message of absence. They were coming so fast that my closing message got passed like it was standing still. Dear oh dear.... Forget it Jar, I'll ask Percy to comment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Percy,
Could you comment on the closing of the "Lets get this PEH show on the road"? iano
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024