AdminNosy banned?

What other name can we give it?Jar and Omni suspended themselves in protest of my post in the private admin forum that attempted to define debate, since this is a debate site. I changed the suspensions to inactive with the AdminJar and AdminOmni accounts changed to member level status.While I did firmly state my position in that message, I thought it was just part of the discussion whose goal was to work toward a resolution. So that members may form their own opinions and since it seemed to be the precipitous message I'll post the contents here in this thread, but keep in mind that it was just the tail end of a much longer discussion.Jar was a good friend and an invaluable contributor to EvC Forum, both as member and administrator. He will be sorely missed in many ways. He is naturally welcome to return at any time.Omni I knew barely at all, and that is probably almost all my fault. With my current work load it has been increasingly difficult to build and maintain relationships with the newer members and admins, but my sense is that his contributions were also valuable, and that he, too, will be missed. He, too, is, of course, welcome to return at any time.I have no idea what happened to NosyNed. That happened a week or two ago, and he left no indication of any reason. I have no idea if it is related or coincidental.As many long term members know, it has long been my goal to achieve balanced treatment of the creation/evolution debate by having qualified moderators from both sides. Nonetheless, the board has always been dominated, in both the moderator and member categories, by evolutionists.One thing we try to do here at EvC Forum is be patient with those unfamiliar with science. Those who are willing to get into a back and forth discussion usually fare very well. Those who dig in their heels and in one way or another just refuse to discuss constructively gradually get less and less moderator support. But we recognize some of the difficulties, for instance the piling on that can often occur, and we do try to deal proactively with these situations.But generally speaking, balance and fairness require treating evolutionist and creationist equally, so I confess that I am still very surprised that all hell broke loose when I aggressively challenged a lengthy series of errors posted by someone from the science side. Even creationist Buzsaw objected.Anyway, I'll post the content of the post that prompted the resignations, but keep in mind that it was probably more the final straw rather than the actual reason itself. Jar and Omni didn't respond to anything I said, they just resigned. For more information I suggest you seek out Jar and Omni. Jar can be reached at AdminJar@, if he decides to continue checking that email (I can't provide his non-public email address), while Omni can be reached at oneworldart@sbcglobal.net.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Here is the content of the post that caused Jar and Omni to resign:This is a Debate Site

---

This message's title is a self-evident statement, but I use the title to emphasize something some may have lost sight of: this is a debate site.The purpose of debate is to identify and exploit weaknesses in the arguments of the other side while emphasizing the strengths in your own arguments. The greatest luck in debate is to catch your opponent in a blatant error or misstatement. A single one can be fatal. Those of you who are older might remember President Ford's statement in debate with Jimmy Carter that Eastern Europe wasn't dominated by the Soviet Union, a classic example of losing a debate with a single blunder.This definition is my own. I didn't look debate up. Not yet. I'm now going to try to find a formal definition on the web. I'm sure there is wide variation in the characterization of debate, but I'm hopeful to find something mainstream and widely acceptable. I'll try Wikipedia first.Wikipedia does have an entry on debate, Debate - Wikipedia, and it does have some helpful information. Here are a few excerpts. Keep in mind that there are elements of this formal definition that aren't practical for online debate, but it makes a few relevant points: But the section on Online Debating includes a link to a list of web-based debate associations, so I'm visiting that now...Here's an excerpt from a book called Debating: A Basic Introduction: I've scanned the book's contents and read several sections, and nowhere can I find anything about aiding the other side, giving them a break, finding the sense behind their nonsense, etc. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.I think people have lost sight of what a debate is. When you find yourself in a discussion where both sides are equally committed to finding out the truth and reaching common ground, treasure it, because it will be rare. The rest of the time, be polite, be non-adversarial, be honest, be accurate, and go for the jugular. This is a debate.Now there are likely many people who find an aggressive stance too intense and not enjoyable. After all, the time we spend here is recreation time. And you can find a lot of that kind of relaxed discussion here. But in a debate it is difficult to see any grounds for criticizing someone who sees errors on the other side and accurately calls them out. Nwr *was* posting creationist arguments. Nwr *was* posting clearly erroneous arguments. Nwr *was* (inexplicably, given this site's Forum Guidelines) trying to avoid defending his position (we used to call this discussion avoidance in the board's early days, and it caused a revision to the guidelines). Nwr *did* keep this up for a considerable time. I *did* pointedly rebut his erroneous arguments, but I did it honestly, accurately and politely.I regret that so many disapproved of the tone I took. Modulous quoted the two times I used the term ignorant in reference to Nwr. The first was when he said that the luminiferous aether had been supported to a greater degree than the Big Bang. I would very likely have chosen a different term than ignorant had this been the first error or one of just a few errors, but it was simply the last and also the most absurd error of a long series of errors, and I believe ignorant was an accurate characterization. How could someone who wasn't ignorant of the history of cosmology, and apparently of much else, get the significance of the luminiferous aether exactly backwards?Modulous notes that I called Nwr ignorant a second time, but it was in response to his knee-jerk reaction calling me ignorant for not recognizing his genius (his exact words were, "It is your ignorance that prevents you from recognizing that my disagreement is a serious one.") Think about this folks. Nwr makes error after error after error, and I'm ignorant. Naturally I replied, "On the contrary, you demonstrate your ignorance at every turn." Which is true. My reply to anyone who argues against this will be to simply list the errors. I know it's a long list, but disk space is cheap these days.I do regret calling Nwr ignorant. Usually I'm more measured. But someone who persists in making error after error after error can't claim offense when his performance is accurately characterized, however bluntly. I suppose I was hoping that the more pointed my criticism the more likely it might be that he'd start thinking things through and looking things up before posting. Naturally it only made him angry, and I apologize for that. I'll try to choose my words more carefully next time, and I hope Nwr has a resolution or two of his own that might help avoid frustrating the hell out of people he's discussing with. I certainly harbor no hard feelings or ill will. This isn't personal to me, only factual.But getting back to the main topic, if I've correctly identified the nature of debate (and maybe I haven't, so we should discuss this), then for those who feel uncomfortable with a debate site that permits debate I can only suggest finding another site.--Percy

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

And I'm sure all our best wishes go out to you, too. You're always welcome back at any time. Any inactive member can always change his status back to active just by visiting his profile page (while it's been tested, I've never had a member actually do this yet, so anyone who hits a bug trying to return to active status should just send email to an admin).Since you're inactive now and cannot reply I won't respond to your previous message, it wouldn't seem fair.All the best!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

It may seem a little counterintuitive, but here's the way it works. Anyone can make their account inactive by going to their own profile page. To get to your profile page, click on the "Profile" link at the top left of the page while you're logged in. This feature was added to satisfy a longstanding request to be removed from membership in EvC Forum. But deleting an account orphans any messages posted under it, so the inactive category was created.The profiles of inactive accounts cannot be accessed by other members. However, an inactive member can still visit his own profile page by logging in (inactive members can still log in) and then clicking on the profile link mentioned above. This makes it possible for inactive members to restore themselves to active service.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Have had a busy day, I'm just poking in quickly, can't stay, but I'll be back in tomorrow morning.First, I think it is important that we not speak ill of those who have chosen to leave. They acted upon principle.Second, I thank Modulous for his clarifications. I think he has bent over backwards to be fair to me, because in the Admin forum he challenged me pretty strongly on some things.Third, some people may return. Not entirely sure at this point.Fourth, I think dialog is healthy, even when heated and people get upset.That's all for now.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

One of the central issues of the recent disagreement is the right of someone to declare a position private and off-limits to discussion. If it isn't clear to everyone yet let me be as clear as I can now: there is no such right at EvC Forum. There never has been.We've worked hard over the years to keep the Forum Guidelines down to 10. The previous version of the guidelines can be found at http:///WebPages/ForumRules.html. Here's the earlier rule 4:

4. Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.

I believe it is important to keep the list of rules short and to the point, and for that reason I've often said to people to try to follow the spirit of the Forum Guidelines. If even the old rule 4 doesn't seem clear to anyone about barring the tactic of publicly declaring a position and then ruling discussion of it out of bounds, then I apologize, but brevity was a goal because we felt lengthy guidelines would never be read.The reason the old rules 2 and 4 were combined was to make room for a new rule, rule 1, which is to follow moderator requests. At the time of that particular revision some members were claiming they were being treated unfairly because there was nothing in the rules about having to listen to moderators - I know, seems incredible!The reason the current wording that leaves out the part about supporting your points was chosen was because at the time this seemed to be generally well accepted and understood.But times change and there's turnover among active participants, so maybe the rule about having to support your points isn't one that is as widely shared by the current active membership as it was in prior days. Maybe that part needs to be explicitly stated once again.Revision of the Forum Guidelines is a collective process among moderators, and I don't know if and when we would embark upon this periodic task, but it will certainly be on the table for discussion at the next moderator meeting. In the meantime let me be perfectly clear: if you state a position here at EvC Forum, you're expected to defend it. You can certainly decide not to defend it, but in that case you have to stop stating it. And you certainly cannot cite as a reason for not defending it that it is private. It ceased to be private when you posted it.Let me say it again: The only reason you can have for not defending a position is that you've chosen not to defend it, and in that case you have to stop repeating it.AbE: I've decided it would be a good idea to provide an example. Person A is clearly trying to disengage from discussion about Grobistan independence. Disengaging can be difficult to do, and it certainly seems fair to allow a few posts for this to happen. But at some point Person A just has to either resume defending his position or stop reiterating that he's not changing his mind. In particular, he can't keep switching back and forth between defending and disengaging, e.g.: If this were his final post in the thread then this isn't too bad, certainly within acceptable bounds, I guess. But if he posts again? Hopefully it is clear to everyone that as Person A continues to post his reluctance to continue a defense while reiterating his position that he is getting closer and closer to violating the Forum Guidelines. Naturally, at what point he actually crosses the line will vary according to individual moderators, but that he is moving closer and closer to a violation cannot be in doubt.Putting this in the context of the recent controversy, Nwr was so eager to defend his position that he even responded to my post to Cavediver (see Message 70) after he had already successfully disengaged. Unfortunately, by responding yet again he gave up any right yet again to a claim of privacy, and this message was where he made his most inexplicably erroneous statement, the one about the luminiferous aether (see Message 75). Nwr concluded, "I have a higher threshold than you for adopting explanations."And apparently a lower threshold for actually getting anything right. Getting your ducks in a row and your facts straight is what debate is all about.Edited by Admin, : Spelling.Edited by Admin, : Added example.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If I seemed somewhere to be implying that I, too, was trying to let it go, I never meant to give that impression. I was aggressively pursuing Nwr's misstatements. When Nwr disengaged, since Cavediver had agreed with Nwr about the desirability of direct distance measurements of distant galaxies, I attempted to pick up discussion with Cavediver. Nwr responded, something I never expected - I assumed he would stick by his decision to to leave the discussion. If you're wondering why in my post to Cavediver I specifically said that he and Nwr had shared this opinion, instead of just not mentioning Nwr, it was because I felt then Cavediver could rightfully respond, "Well, wait a minute, it wasn't just me who thinks this desirable, it was Nwr, too. In fact, it was his idea in the first place." I wasn't trying to needle Nwr back into the thread. You're leaving me guessing what you're referring to. You're talking about Message 70 when you say I was trying to needle Nwr back into the thread, so where's the "pretty much an insult"? And if you weren't talking about that message then this just highlights the necessity of providing enough information to make it clear what you're talking about.But this is minutia, and it points out the problems of reaching significant conclusions from tiny snippets of messages. It's important to stay focused on the significant issues. Where there's no smoke I do not suspect fire. Who does? Get real. Possibly. But what if he had made an error while trying to be supportive of the BB? What if he had said something like, "The BB is strongly supported by the evidence, and one important piece of that evidence was the discovery of the luminiferous aether by Michelson-Morley." If he had made such a momentous blunder, or even much more minor blunders, then I would have challenged it. In fact, I would probably wish he would go away - I don't want someone clueless arguing for my side. I would have responded in the exact same manner as I did to what he actually did say when he was making errors while trying to support a position that the evidence for the BB is "less than satisfying". There is only one part of that that looks even remotely familiar with regard to Nwr's approach. This is probably a reference to Nwr's statement that he takes an epistemic approach. There are two problems with that. First, he only resorted to an epistemological claim after seeing my rebuttal that pointed out that almost nothing he cited in support of his position was correct. In other words, in reply to my rebuttal pointing out that almost everything he said was wrong, he suddenly changes tack and says he's taking an epistemic approach, as if being wrong in the factual foundation for his position didn't really count. Second, he was beginning to disengage while reiterating his position. As I said earlier, it can take a few messages to disengage, and I have no problems with attempting to disengage, you won't find any protests from me about it in that thread, but Nwr kept flip-flopping between disengaging and reengaging. But Nwr never allowed the discussion to progress to the point of examining actual evidence for (or against) the BB. Practically everything he said was either spurious or wrong. Yes, and I asked him several times how BB theory was different in some qualitative or quantitative epistemological way from other theories that leads him to conclude its evidence is unsatisfying, while other theories' evidence is satisfying. I asked this question several different ways. Nwr's responses varied somewhat, but the general idea was that I just didn't understand his position, and that it was private and not open to discussion anyway. Not sure where you're coming from here. I never felt provoked. It was just a case of "see error, cite error", not a case of provocation. Yes, much more. I've already mentioned his false use of tentativity, and his citations of tired light and Olber's paradox. His errors continued throughout the entire thread. It's not a case of Nwr getting a few things wrong. It's a case of getting almost nothing right. This is why the defenses of Nwr that people are making seem so weird to me - it's almost as if some believe that errors shouldn't be challenged, and that running away from defending your ideas while still promoting them is honorable. Yeah, I know. And every time he attempted a response to the questions about how an epistemic approach revealed something different in character from the evidence for the BB versus other theories, he could only cite things that were wrong, or at best, irrelevant. Are we speaking English here? He said, "The evidence that the cosmos is expanding, however, is far from satisfying." Maybe in your version of English that's not a position against the BB, so okay then, he wasn't advancing a position against the BB, have it your way. I questioned the statement he actually made that I just quoted. And I quoted it in Message 34, inviting him to defend it as an example of how to skeptically approach accepted scientific views. And he accepted the invitation and proceeded to reveal he knew almost nothing.Going in, I had no idea he knew nothing. I thought I was going to learn something. I was surprised that he was so full of misconceptions, but once faced with them I had to respond honestly to them. His response was to distance himself from them, claim he had no responsibility to defend his views, and to continue making misstatements.As I said to Modulous in the admin forum, I understand that perhaps the epistemic case Nwr was attempting to make had some validity, but nothing he ever posted brought it to that point. And valid points are supported with valid information and evidence, not continual error. I can only respond to what Nwr actually posted.I remain as mystified by this whole dispute as ever. I may have had my faults in that discussion, but compared to Nwr's lengthy performance of error and evasion I was an angel. Keep in mind my Message 34, where I extended the invitation to Nwr by saying, "I think it would provide a wonderful counterpoint to Bob's approach if you'd elaborate on this so as to provide an example of the proper way to skeptically approach accepted scientific views." How in the world is anything Nwr did a good example of how to do this? What he did is what I would point to as a perfect example of what to avoid in any skeptical approach.What I would recommend to anyone challenging an accepted scientific theory is this:

• Completely familiarize yourself with the theory.
• Stick to what you know in making your points.

The reason one needs to be so careful in this is that theories don't become accepted in any casual manner. This has never been pointed out better (or more forcefully) than by Schraf, who accurately describes the withering examination new ideas are subjected to before becoming accepted. As I told Nwr, if he thinks he can come up with legitimate objections to BB theory from his armchair then he's sadly mistaken. My suggestion to him was to at least familiarize himself with what cosmologists view as the weaknesses in the theory, as a starting point if nothing else. By knowing so little about what he was criticizing, Nwr doomed himself to failure.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Archer,Good observations. Yes, you're right, we've built a community. I'm not unaware of that. You can do much more than just debate here. But while you're debating we do have rules. So when you say this: The real reasons have nothing to do with rule 4. The reasons have to do with interpersonal relationships and feeling like you're respected and listened to. If I haven't described that well enough you probably at least understand what I'm getting at.About one small thing you said in passing, while this doesn't alter the significance of your point, it wouldn't be correct to say that "I made them admins for a reason." Moose is in charge of moderator recruitment. The only people I selected myself were Buzsaw, Randman and Faith. And Moose a long, long time ago. He'd sometimes ask if I had an opinion on someone, but by and large he demonstrated skill at this task and I let him do his job.About the idea of recruiting a subset of the community and/or additional members to engage in more serious debate, if this is something you're interested in pursuing then let me know. I forget if I've voiced this publicly or only in the admin forum, but I've been concerned that we are not continuing to move forward, and this is an initiative I have been interested in exploring for some time. Why can't we do things like set up a debates between people like Ken Miller and Kent Hovind, for example (I hear Kent might have a lot of time on his hands soon)?More than a couple years ago I was already making noises to the admin crew and others I thought might be interested about things like an EvC Forum store, a private messaging system, more automation for assisting one-on-one debates, etc., but as it has turned out, for the most part if I don't do it, it doesn't happen, so other than the chat room, the only thing I had time for, nothing has happened.I am unfortunately hogtied regarding free time for the foreseeable future. All coding has come to an end, and while there may be a spike over the Christmas holidays, there won't be any significant time available for coding and other initiatives until July at the earliest. This could be a far, far better place than it currently is, but not if we're just playing out the story of the little red hen in real life. Or online life, I guess I should say, which sure feels pretty real sometimes. The site doesn't need money, since this is a very inexpensive hobby as hobbies go. It costs far less to rent a server than to do woodworking or play golf. What the site needs is expertise from people who can code, and from people who know how to put together websites.But I know that even if these types of things interest you that that's not why you're writing. Yes, we are a community. Our greatest failing is that we're a community of 1st class evolutionist citizens and 2nd class creationist citizens. The promotion of creationist members in to the Admin role was also solely my initiative, and while the results have been decided poor so far, I continue to believe that this is important. My belief that it is important to treat both sides equally is probably the most significant reason for concluding that integrity demanded that I aggressively challenge erroneous statements even though made by someone from the evolutionist side.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I didn't think he was bad, I only said he was worse than me. I still don't understand what the ruckus was about. Nwr's complaints are those of someone with too much pride and too thin a skin. If I had made the embarrassing errors that Nwr had made I would be so mortified that I would hide under a rock for month.Here's a little tidbit for you. After Nwr complained about me publicly and the thread started picking up comments, 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 don't really see what Nwr was doing in the way you do at all. For example, concerning his statement that the luminiferous aether was better supported than the Big Bang, you say there was a point I was missing there. Don't you think enormous blunders like this tend to not just obscure but to defeat any associated point? I'm afraid I can't see it any other way.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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: 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: 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

They're not 2nd class citizens in the way you're taking it.They're 2nd class citizens in terms of their representation by moderators who share their viewpoint, and in a secondary way, because they represent a minority of the membership and are outnumbered. I meant it in the same way we used to say that blacks were 2nd class citizens because they lacked representation within representative government, and because there were many fewer of them than the white majority.In other words, it's a reference to their unfortunate situation, not a denigrating personal reference.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You'll have to say more, I don't recall this. Heck, I don't think I live up to any of my ideals. That's the point of ideals, isn't it, to serve as goals, not as achievements? Yes, this is true, many did seem to perceive me as making personal attacks on Nwr. No one actually went to the trouble of quoting something in context and attempting to make the case, though. I was never provided any substance to respond so, though to be fair to Buz he attempted it in the admin forum, but before I could reply Phat closed the thread suggesting that it wasn't constructive at this point in time, and I thought that perhaps he had a good point that maybe we should come back to it later. But no one's attempted this in the public forums, so perhaps you could remedy this.But before you put any effort into it, keep in mind that my claim isn't that I was blameless, only that I wasn't anywhere near as bad as Nwr, and that I didn't think moderator attention was called for. I was referring to people who are thin-skinned about having their errors pointed out, of which Nwr made an incredible, and incredibly uninformed, number. While you don't mention it here, you have up till now been countering my references to Nwr's errors with claims that he had a point. I again suggest that if you really believe he had a point that you go to the No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper thread and make that point, but that otherwise continuing to just state he had a valid point is an unsupported assertion. It is my assertion that it is flim-flam that is for some reason appealing to a number of people. If it really had any substance then Nwr would have stuck around and argued it so he could show he was correct. Instead he had to resort to posturing and making a show. This isn't the behavior of someone who believes he has a strong case.Edited by Admin, : Change authorship.Edited by Admin, : Fix sig.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Your point has merit, too. While that wasn't how I was using the term 2nd class citizen in that instance, it is certainly one of the ways it can be used.The point you're making is more about how dramatically unsuccessful creationists are in arguing their position in debate. But it can be looked at another way. I'll bet that we couldn't do half so much with their arguments as they do. They often prove surprisingly resourceful with extremely meager weaponry, and they should at least be credited for that.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Good to hear from you! Hope you continue to check in occasionally. I'm going to change your admin account to inactive. Let me know when you want it back so you can come here and wrestle us back on topic!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I wasn't questioning a moderator decision. I was alluding to Nwr's decision to post a complaint in the moderation thread. It was a reference to the irony of the primary offender making the complaint. Is this about recent events? Or is this about you? That's fine as long as this is the last time you mention that you believe I personally insulted him without supporting it.As to the rest, all I can say is that I don't see it the same way you do. If I were to reply to the specifics of what you said I'd just be repeating myself, but it is probably worth repeating that it was never the intention of EvC Forum to allow ways in which positions could be stated and not defended. If you think you've found such a way then you're wrong by definition. It was always the intention that that not be possible here. I remember my motivations for creating this site as if it were yesterday. If you think the Forum Guidelines need to be clarified on this point it would be helpful if you could suggest some wording.Edited by Admin, : Add clarifying sentence to first paragraph.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director