General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ

I didn't say that it was. Let me clarify this point to you. Note: admins I am not asking for any further resolution on this issue nor am I trying to continue to debate the case. I am simply explaining to her what I was saying... NOT that it must be reconsidered.Earlier I had stated explicitly how I would handle any future comments I found worth responding to in crash's posts, without dragging him into a situation where he felt he had to defend them. This was because he felt I always misrepresented his position.From then on I would not reply to him directly and I would not address any comments as if they were coming from him. Essentially any such posts would be my replying to a position which could be from anyone (or no one, perhaps my own invention). I posted this solution to admins and crash and received no suggestion this would be inadequate.As you can see above, crash says that his reply to me (which was the first case of anyone replying directly to anyone) was because I did exactly what I said I was going to do. Thus your criticism appears to apply to him, not me.My complaint about his behavior, which came after I stopped replying to him, was in two parts. The first was that his initial post (ironically not to the post he claims generated his response) was just an insult, followed by more posts which amounted to platforms for simply hurling more insults.The quote you gave above was my stating why I felt I needed to respond to any of his replies at all. He made direct statements regarding OT issues, which were made to appear relevant and I wanted to make my position clear for others. To him, with every post, I pointed to where relevant debate on those OT topics could be directed, if those were subjects he actually wanted to address.Thus it was not my complaint that he was "forcing" me to do anything. The second part of my complaint was that he was engaging in OT discussion, even when pointed to appropriate threads for such discussion.Hence, insults and OT debate were the issue.This is what was presented for admin judgement (and no one else's). Additionally, for my own part I was wondering (from admins and not the public) if there were any other options than "ignore him" since that does not stop his replies.If you want to take up the subject of how to handle such behavior, you can email me. Please do not continue to discuss this particular issue (and that goes for anyone who feels they have comments regarding crash or me). This issue is over for me.Since I brought it up, if it is over for me, it should be over for everyone else.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

If that was really Holmes' plan all along, this is the first I've heard of it.

Point taken, I was trying to do my best to not actually continue that arguement, but be able to use some of the points of that discussion.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

Am I missing something? How in the world do these posts merit a suspension? Especially with no warning.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

well, that's one of moose's pet peeves.

quote:

---

Am I missing something? How in the world do these posts merit a suspension? Especially with no warning.

---

And it looked as though Faith was participating in that line of discussion, yet was not suspended.

quote:

---

well, that's one of moose's pet peeves.

---

So?No warning = unreasonable. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

yes, schraf, i do believe i used the word "moose" in that statement.

Source = EvC Forum: Suspensions and Bannings Part II Trash messages, disruptive and absolutely irrelevant to the topic. I consider both of them far too intelligent to requires warnings about doing such. See the above quoted Adminnemooseus. See reply to message 94. I commend your observation abilities. You message, however, contributes nothing to this discussion.All that said, I had no intention that those suspensions were actually going to last 24 hours. They will be soon lifted.Yes, I was making examples of Archer and Subbie. They and others should know better than to insert such stuff into such a topic. The "mini=suspensions" are intended as warnings to them and others. Warnings that will actually get paid some attention.Adminnemooseus

Moose's link picks up the discussion in the middle. The beginning of the exchange is with Faith's post in
Message 113.You can see I was only answering her question. Then Subbie offered a comment that, in context, certainly seems on topic.It never occurred to me that someone might construe these as trash messages. I just thought of it as minimalist discussion.It may interest you to know the exchange has precedent in literary history. Victor Hugo was asked a similar question in a letter from his publisher about Les Miserables. He responded as I did, verbatim.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Jar, as I said in my email, I am really struggling with this for reasons that I wish to enunciate as clearly as possible.In the thread you gave this quote, the discussion was in my opinion flowing quite naturally from topic to related topic. We cannot talk about science... especially in terms of whether or not scientists are lying, without getting into the dialog about morality itself.The reason diferring positions are unable to understand each other, is often times because the terms on which their reasoning are not even agreed upon.When you stop the dialog as being off topic, you are ensuring that the issue cannot be understood. It is difficult enough for some of these differences to be bridged in any case.I understand the need to keep things on topic, but where that line is drawn, seems to me, to be motivated (in your case) by something other than a desire for agreement to be reached. If that is true (and only you know for sure. I do not claim to read your mind), then I respectfully rebuke you.I honestly think the reason you insert yourself has more to do with the fact that the positions I take are ultimatley effective, than in any real problem with a violation of the legitimate use of topic enforcement. If so, (and only you know) I would not expect you of all people to acknowledge it.But that goes right to the core of the morality issue doesn't it? And whether scientists are interested in sound reasoning that includes a complete philosophical framework, or an intentional seperation of ideas, disciplines and individuals.Communication is our only highway. I do hope you wouldn't put up road blocks unless absolutely appropriate. Such as in cases of verbal abuse from various members, which you seem to tolerate well enough, while preoccupied with putting detours and obstacles in the path of earnest runners of the greatest race.

---

"Now that I am a Christian I do not have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable."
(C. S. Lewis)

stick to science in that thread. Your flights of fantasy do not touch on science.

---

Your not God Jar. You're just a monkey remember?
And not by my interpretation of reality, but your own!Your moralizing is corrupted by it's own disrespect for itself and it's source.By all means, I am ready for my 40 lashes minus 1."When you invite a middle-aged moralist to address you, I suppose I must conclude...that you have a taste for middle-aged moralizing."
(C.S. Lewis The Weight of Glory)

---

"Now that I am a Christian I do not have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable."
(C. S. Lewis)

Hi Rob,I haven't the time to read the thread in question (whichever one it is, I see you've posted in three threads today), but let me very briefly address just this part of your message: I assume we're talking about of the threads in which you're participating in [forum=-11], and neither is about dishonest scientists or morality. Please feel free to open a new thread on the topic.Lying scientists happens to be one of those topics that is so general that it has to be restricted to threads designated specifically for that topic. The reason for this is that someone could enter literally any thread in the science forums and argue that science is wrong because scientists are liars, and it is such a volatile claim that it would immediately derail the thread from its intended topic.The equivalent could be done in the social/religious forums, where someone could enter any thread and argue that Christianity is wrong because Christians are liars, and for the same reason, that it would very likely derail the thread from its topic, arguing this position would be limited to threads designated for precisely that topic.Don't know if that's the main issue, but if it is, then propose a thread for discussing lying scientists.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Actually, there is a thread on whether scientists lie, but Rob hasn't posted to it yet.