General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ

Neutralmind writes:I like this forum because people usually stick to the OP topic and arguments. But the one thing I hate about this forum is that many times evo's ( sorry for the generalization ), when asked a troubling question start to represent their own scenarios, invented logical fallacies as facts and then ask creo's for facts to disprove their scenarios into which they have provided no facts for. When said that they actually have no facts the reply is something like " even if you can't see / don't like the facts it doesn't mean they aren't there".I think this is enraging. It's either that I'm too stupid to understand these simple facts or that the person telling wasn't actually very clear about what/which were facts and which were his own reasoning and conclusions drawn out of nothing or from the real facts. I think this in a way is the same as what many teenagers do when they feel their position threadened, " you're too stupid, I can't be bothered to try to explain it to you".And then the cycle continues... " Could you explain one more time what the facts are?" " It's this and that and this" " That's not facts, that's just your own reasoning from within the facts" " even if you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there" And so on...I know creo's also resort to logical fallacies, strawmans, whatever. What makes evo's different though is that there are usually people backing up the failed logics. It's hard to explain, I'll try though . I still sometimes get that spontaneous reaction when someone says to a creo " even if you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there". " HAHHA, TAKE THAT YOU STUPID CREO!" Then after a moment I'm " Hey wait a minute. That actually does make no sense. What the BLIIP was he on about...?"I don't know if that's true for anyone other than me but it looks to me like so on many occasions. Except for the after thinking.I think on one hand at least this situation is true, maybe not exactly about the thinking method/pattern but about this, kind of herd culture. Defending your tribe, whatever. Why I think it doesn't happen with creo's is because god is a bit different, personal to everyone. A lot fewer share just about the same image of god than about evolutionism ( I think). After all, only one conclusion can be right in science ( simplified ), but many can be about god. That's why I think evo's are more into defending each other than creo's.
It can be a good thing, but it's not if you're in there just trying to win points for the evo side. Also, I've noticed that when this kind of argumentation goes on all the "pro" knowledgeable people from the evo side stop responding to the thread.I don't know if anyone else thinks this but for me it has been sad to see many good threads "devolute" (never seen this anywhere but in this forum ) into these win over one little petty point of argument, competitions.What I suggest is that admins should jump in and tell people to move on in the subject whenever someone's trying to sweet talk their argument into making sense without providing any real material even when asked for it.General Discussion of Moderation Procedures is okay for this topic. I'd like this discussion to be about, if moderating should be done in the situation(s) I presented above and if there really is some kind of herd culture among evo's as I claim there to be.

Randman is the cowardly lunatic liar that Dr. Adequate describes. Any competent observer could win the debate on that question with ease: the record is long and clear.

Nonetheless, Dr. A spoke the truth. Had he made those charges against almost any other member, they would constitute insults; as applied to Randman, they are facts, and I would happily debate that assertion with anyone...though I don't propose to do so here.

Just in case I don't get another opportunity (sic, indeed!) to say so, have a grand New Year!