Change in Moderation?

Peter Borger and Salty at least make claims that are worth taking a look at, even if they also make a lot of claims that they cannot support, evade important issues and misrepresent opposing views. Granted the main point to looking at them might be to expose the errors, but at least in Salty's case there might be something worthwhile amongst all the dross. They may be more work than they are worth from a moderator's point of view but they are not COMPLETELY worthless.Compared to drummachine, to use one example, there is at least a CHANCE of discussion even if it may be more work than it is worth. So far as I can see drummachine is a complete waste of time, and the only reason he has not been suspended is the lower volume of posts that he produces and the fact that he is so obviously a waste of time that he is easy to ignore.On an unrelated point, might I suggest that if "Free For All" is used as a "dumping ground" as proposed, that there is an option on the main page to list topics from the moderated fora only (i.e. like "list all topics" but excluding "Free For All").

I don't even believe that Peter Borger has anything worthy of being called a GUToB. And I don't think that he can contribute much st this point without an administrator keeping him on a tight rein.I do think that he should have been given the chance to present his views, but he's had that.I am happy to leave the decision of what to do with him now in the hands of the administrators - since it is they who will shoulder the burden.

He's started posting to talk.origins again.

In my opinion I think you need a little more sensitivity to context.A bare link is not appropriate for making an argument. Nor is it appropriate to rebut a proper argument. But when the only thing on the table is a bare assertion I don't see any need for anything more to rebut it.If you permit low content posts like techristian's then I don't think that you should complain if the responses are also low content - so long as they adequately address what little substance has actually been put forward.

Please take into account the time it takes to compose a post.

Actually I don't see a need. Your post discussed the situation and then stated that there would be no further discussion of the issue on that thread. It didn't single out anyone in particular.That's fair enough.What I am saying is that I beleive that you should allow a grace period between posting and taking any further action to allow for the time it takes to compose a post. If discussion goes on too long beyond that THEN further warnings and picking out individuals may be in order.

I don't think that I was intentionally singled out, but I also think that you were a bit too quick off the mark as I had had no opportunity to see your post.I suspect that it would have been better if the whole discussion had been quickly moved away from that thread but I think you have to take that one up with Percy.

Let me point out that Percy's response is largely shaped by your own recent thermodynamics thread which clearly showed that you had failed to do your homework, did not understand what you were talking about and refused to learn.Percy cannot offer any guarantee that you would be allowed to introduce such a thread again since it was rightly closed and should probably never have been approved in the first place.Percy is in a position where neither a "yes" or "no" answer is good. Yhere is nothing forbidding anyone from discussing thermodynamics provided they can do so in line with the forum rules and guidelines. Yet a "no" answer would contradict that. However there is no doubt in my mind that you would take a "yes" answer as indicating that your thread was wrongly closed even though the reasons for doing so were clear and do not relate to your question.