Thanks for the responses and discussion, everyone. This post will be a sort of grab bag of responses, sometimes general and sometimes specific to what someone said.
First, to Buzsaw: EvC Forum is a debate site that was created to consider this simple assertion:
Stated: That creation science is legitimate science deserving of treatment alongside evolution, or even replacing evolution, in public school science classrooms.
I've never lost sight of that. I never will. Whatever else EvC Forum has become, that is where we started, and it will always be a significant part of our core purpose.
To everyone: There are no free rides here. If your position is scientifically valid, then you must make this clear by using scientifically valid evidence and arguments to support it. This expectation is true for both evolutionists and creationists alike. It is as true for Nwr as it is for Baumgardner supporters. I have no patience for anyone who thinks they can dress up fallacies in scientific-sounding rhetoric in the belief that then it isn't open to challenge.
To everyone: There are no positions that are private and that need not be argued or supported. If you don't want to argue a position, don't state it. There seems to be some variety of opinion about this that I can't pretend to understand. Those who disagree with me about this are going to be unhappy, but I will not back away from this, I will not compromise on this, not ever, not when hell freezes over. If you say it then you support it or you drop it.
Let me clarify this, but only just a little. First, there are no special situations or exceptions. You cannot claim, for example, that "I was asked my opinion on this, so I gave it. I don't have to defend it." Too bad. Defend it or drop it.
Trying to avoid defending your position is nothing new. I see new approaches tried every year, and I hope the moderator team continues to shoot them down every year. The fact that even moderators can fall prey to such fallacies only argues for how vigilant and steadfast we must be if we're to maintain fairness, objectivity, and our reputation as a discussion site where people can't hide their views from examination.
Second, there is much discussion here that isn't debate. If someone wants to keep saying, "Strawberries taste great" in the Coffee House without ever offering any support, then if that person isn't being disruptive I just couldn't care less. But if this opinion is repeatedly offered in one of the science forums where it is likely way off topic, then he'd better follow moderator requests to get on topic. And if for some strange reason it is on topic and relevant, then he'd better start supporting it.
To those with thin skins: If you bungle your arguments badly, don't complain about what happens, unless you believe the
Forum Guidelines have been violated.
About the
Forum Guidelines: They are our rock. Every time you have doubts about what the correct course of action is, seek your answer in the
Forum Guidelines.
About Nwr's point: I think I've heard enough talk about Nwr having some valid point buried in the bullshit. Almost any valid position can be stated with an easily understandable sentence or two. Even if supporting the position takes a hundred pages of prose, the position itself can almost always be simply stated. Whenever you hear claims that there's a valid point that you're just not getting, but you never hear that supposedly valid point simply stated, and people just keep writing words and words that make less and less sense, then you are being drawn into a house of mirrors and can safely call it all nonsense.
Anyone who really believes Nwr had a valid point is welcome to return to the
No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper thread and, beginning with a simple and clear statement of the point, proceed on to support it with valid evidence and argument. (Nwr's statement of his position was that the evidence for the Big Bang was far from satisfying, but this is so non-specific as to be useless. You need a simple statement that begins, "The evidence for the Big Bang is unsatisfying because...", and what follows should only be an easily understandable sentence or two.) Be forewarned that there won't be any sympathy or special treatment for any errors or fallacies offered to support the position. In other words, don't expect any special treatment just because you think your position is scientific or because you're able to couch it in scientific-sounding terms.
Specifically replying to Holmes in his
Message 97:
holmes writes:
when Crash defended me Nwr then posted a complaint in the Admin forum for someone to do something about it. Omni obliged. Now, you tell me what's really going on. Like Archer, I don't believe it really has very much to do with rule 4 or rule 10 or anything like that at all.
I'm not getting into a psychoanalysis of other posters on this. I thought it was strange for him to make such a request (I'm assuming you mean in the public admin moderation thread)...
No, I mean the private admin forum. Nwr saw Crash's post, went to the private admin forum, requested that an admin intervene ("From my point of view, almost everything in that post is factually wrong, and it is 4 paragraphs of insults."), and Omni obliged.
From my point of view Nwr was using his Admin powers and connections to squelch any criticism of himself. In other words, after coming up short in discussion he abused his Admin powers to his own advantage.
No Admin should ever do what Nwr did. No Admin should ever whine and complain and raise a bunch fallacious excuses and objections when they make boneheadedly wrong statements. And they must work hard to avoid abusing thier Admin powers to their own advantage. They should never hold themselves above criticism.
If people want to criticize me then I believe everyone is already aware that it is more than okay. There can only be benefit to an open discussion of opinions and ideas. I might not agree with you, you might not like the answer, but you can criticize me as much as you like. Just stick within the
Forum Guidelines.
To Archer: Earlier I said that Moose was in charge of moderator recruitment, but I remembered later that Jar has been active in recruitment over the past year or two. Who recruited Nwr and Omni? Jar, Nwr and Omni sure formed a very tight clique over this issue very quickly, and I haven't been able to make any sense out why and how that happened.
| -- | Percy |
| | EvC Forum Director |
™ Version 4.2
