AdminNosy banned?

What the bloody hell? Tell me not this thread that I started caused all this commotion and massacre.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Don't worry its fallout from the 'Big bang' thread, somewhat ironically.TTFN,WK

Huh. The creationists are right, then. Modern cosmology is a disruptive force in social stability. I hope cavediver is happy.

I'm afraid that Percy is becoming an ideological tyrant. I've been trying to get it in his head for a long time that he needs to loosen up but instead he keeps tightening his ideological rope so as to make it almost so you agree with his ideology, his science, his way of debate, his choice of words, et al, et al.Brian, you're dead wrong. Creationists do not get the breaks. Man, at least you can debate your choice of science and how to interpret the evidence you observe, but not so with IDist creationists. Even our PHD doctorate scientists are pshawed by Percy as peddling non-science. If one of them came here and became a major debator in Percy's science fora, they'd either eventually convert to BBists and evolutionist or get the heck out as per Percy's tight rope he has drawn up around his science arena.NWR expresses his guarded doubts about the BB, redshift, and some of Percy's pet doctrines as he participates by invitation in discussion. He gets harrassed to death throughout the exchange as though he were some nuthead creo. And get this -- he even gets likened to "poor ole Buz." Five or six of us moderators protested, but Percy, armed with the support of just one non-admin just keeps on keeping on tightening his rope insisting that we're all wrong and he's right. Imo he was showing pretty shabby treatment of those folks like Jar, NWR and others who so faithfully served his website all this time.I really hate to have come to the place where I could post such a condemnational message about this highly intelligent fellow who has allowed me to participate here for over three years, but when I see folks like these good people leaving I will do anything I can to get Percy to listen up to what his constituency is trying to tell him.Percy is a perfectionist, higly efficient with some very good qualities about him I would wish I had. Imo he needs to loosen up, however and recognize that he can't run a dictatorship public forum in which his goal for everyone is to get them converted to think, talk and do what he sees as needful to make things work at EvC.ABE: I need to clarify that two or three of the moderators did lend some support to some of Percy's problems with NWR's debate style, but these two or three were also amoung us who were critical of the overall way Percy treated NWR.Like I said, however imo, this is just the straw that broke the camel's back. This problem has been festering and imo, Faith, Iano, and Randman are all factors in it's earlier stages. Faith could have been reigned in without being dumped with some effective moderation so far as her overproduction problem. Maybe the boss needs to try and get these good folks who've gone back in, turn the 'store' over to them and take a few weeks in Bermuda away from his computer. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Take heart, folks. We've still got a lot of good folks here at EvC including some good mods (not counting my do little self). If little or nothing is changed, the ship is not sunk or even sinking. We can all go on from here in a positive manner and work to make EvC go, each working to promote our given notions of how things should be done. We all have a certain amount of influence we can exert to make the improvements we see needful.

Well, I mean, did you read the thread? NWR said he got to disregard science because he didn't like the color of Percy's avatar.That doesn't strike you as a little nutso? Just a little unreasonable? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone, here, but it's exactly what I've come to expect from a culture that sets science and nonsense on exactly equal footing, so long as the nonsense gets to call itself "religion."Like Buz, I'm not interested in a debate site that will brook no departure from orthodoxy, but if it's a matter of disqualifying from the debate voices who clearly are not here to debate but to obfuscate, aggrivate, and prevaricate, well, draw that hoop a little tighter. That NWR no longer feels welcome is no loss that I can see. He made abundantly clear that he believes he gets to hold the most ridiculous positions on the most specious ground, and that he gets to advance those positions completly protected from the views of any who might disagree.Good riddance. That kind of nonsense doesn't belong on a debate site. And I simply can't understand the position of those who disagree. How is debate moved forward by those who refuse to take part in it? Who demand that "debate" be nothing more than a platform for them to promote their views absent any response or rebuttal?

Enough, Crashfrog. Argue the position but leave the person(alities) alone.

CF, you quote mined this out of context so as to further demean NWR. It was a tongue in cheek thing in conjunction with other words to make a sensible point.You show no appreciation for NWR's valuable contribution to this site both as super Jonny-on-the-spot administrator/moderator and as an amiable, respectful and interesting posting member. Who do you think makes this place go so you and so many can post your stuff for the www to view? It's folks like NWR, Jar, Asgara, Moose, Percy and others who do all the work. How arrogantly ingrateful of you to laud the departure of this good member!

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

What point was that? I didn't get the impression that he was joking or kidding. Can you substantiate that? He might have been using hyperbole but his essential argument was that any criteria whatsoever was valid for rejecting science, if one felt it should be rejected.It's no quote mine. It's what he said, and the context doesn't change it. Everything he said was in conjunction with a point that's basically nonsense. I didn't think he was a great administrator; I think he played favorites and pursued vendettas. I don't think he was impartial. Where their contributions are positive, they are to be commended (preferably where it's on-topic to do so.) And I have commended them when I've remembered to do so.But it's pretty surprising of you to lambast me for speaking ill of the dearly departed in a thread where you've just finished lambasting Percy for running his website as he sees fit. You just advised him to turn the reins over to you and your buddies, and you think I'm being arrogantly ungrateful? Please. I'll laud whatever I please, thank you very much, as I imagine my eventual departure might be lauded from many quarters. If NWR's departure means a net reduction in the EvC nonsense quotient, as suggested by the fallout from the thread in question, that's nothing but a change for the better.When did NWR suddenly become immune from criticism? And when did these rules against ad hominem suddenly develop exceptions for people like Percy and myself, and others? Why are the admins making private determinations about who it's ok to call names, and who it's not?

LOLLooks like we've got a lot of sensitive people here. Percy's post didn't seem so terrible that 10 people with thousands of posts and years of contributions should just up and leave. Who wants to be that half of them are back within a few months after their retarded little protest becomes forgotten?(Back to lurking)

if anyone at least jar better come back. I haven't been in the chat room for some time, but when I was there actively, it was always good having jar around.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

That really wasn't what was being said. nwr's argument was not that any criteria was vaild for rejecting science, but that any criteria was valid as any other to qualify as an opinion...even if that opinion was essentially a rejection of science.nwr's argument then was that he didn't have justify or defend his opinion, and Percy's was that this is a debate forum the purpose of which is to do that very thing.Any reason is fine for rejecting the Big Bang. If you bring that opinion to EvC be prepared to defend it, though. Refusing to debate by saying that all opinions regardless of their derivation are equally valid is not particularly good faith.I do think you are putting a spin on nwr's words by saying his argument was that any criteria whatsoever was valid for rejecting science. I don't think nwr said anything close to it. Me? I just see someone getting upset at being told he is as qualified to hold an opinion on cosmology as a creationist has of holding an opninion on evolution. nwr was saying that anyone is qualified to hold an opinion even if that opinion was based on seemingly insane logic.Where nwr fell over was in thinking that this would somehow be an adequate debate position to take. It isn't, it is simply another way of saying 'I'm not going to debate the issue, just tell you my opinion on it'. And that is not what EvC is for.On this point, Percy was quite right to call nwr out on it.

But there are some things which reduce to pure opinion and that may be where it must be left... difference of opinion... even in science.I think many people, most especially Percy, were taking nwr's statements incorrectly.In the history of science, seemingly solid theories have been held by the scientific community at large as obvious and essentially incontrovertible, only to be changed when unforeseen data emerged later. In fact there have been instances where the ultimately correct theory had less supportive evidence, or equal supportive evidence as an incorrect theory and all that scientists had to separate the two were personal opinion. Both worked well enough for what they could be used for at the time.This especially occurs where there is much still left to be revealed. Perhaps we have limited access or vantage points.It seems to me that NWR was simply explaining that he, personally, was not certain that the BB theory would end up being the final theory regarding the origins of the universe. That is he was unaware of data sufficient enough to make him accept that theory as the likely full explanation. As he put it, he has a higher level of criteria for acceptance.There was nothing wrong, nor antiscience in that stance.To my mind, he didn't advocate that BB wasn't the best theory science has at this time, nor that people should doubt it, nor that he had some replacement theory. Those ARE the positions of creationists and why they would bump heads with scientists holding BB theory. He was simply saying, given the science on that subject as he was aware of it (which he admitted was not complete), his position was "I don't know".That seems to me a very honest and quite scientific view of the subject.It seems patently bizarre and antiscientific for the likes of Percy and others to argue that nwr should say that he does know, or act as if they do know BB is true... that it will stand the test of time. That seems to be more a statement of clairvoyant powers than anything else.It is true that he does not seem to have an accurate understanding of that body of knowledge. Thus when he attempted to explain what were possible issues, he could be taken to task. But it is errant to think that that sort of picking away could change his opinion that he did not know... that he might have lingering doubts BB will hold up over time. To attempt such a point by point refutation is to miss the very point he was making about his position.In Percy's defense, nwr totally restarted the argument after it seemed clear percy was willing to let it drop. But then again neither took their own advice to others to "let it go", and clearly Percy continues to post on the attack.And NWR was correct, as are others, that the tone with which Percy advances his position is caustic well beyond necessity. The fact that it was clearly disturbing nwr, and others, should have been enough for him to recognize it was time to give way. That's besides my own belief that Percy was unwilling to understand what NWR was arguing, insisting that he (Percy himself) could tell NWR what NWR was thinking and saying. Both issues seem to be a habit (causticism and esp) allowed to those that purport to be "scientific" at evc.To my mind Percy (et al) are the same kind of "upright scientists" who slammed those who questioned geocentric theory, in the name of science.BB is a theory. Its the best we have right now, and it is productive. I personally like it. But there is no reason why a person cannot feel unsatisfied that it is the ultimate explanation... the one that will stand the test of time. There is still room for doubt on THAT question.Its only when a person starts saying BB is not the best scientfic theory we presently have, they know it is wrong, or because they doubt BB another theory is equally likely, that there are valid logical and evidentiary criticisms to be made.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I think I argued largely the same point with Percy in the PAF (though not in the same style) - that was part of the discussion that lead to Percy's 'This is a debate site' post (Message 31) which lost us two admins. I was dissapointed with this because Percy's last paragraph asked for discussion over the issue, but there you go.

Jar was a good mentor and father figure, kuresu. If he does leave permenantly, he will be noticeably missed.Those of us in chat need to make the effort to act respectfully and maturely to one another.As Jar would say,"And its just that simple."