Showcase Forum Issues and Requests

Hi Rand. I'm plugging to get you out in the forums where I think you're needed, so I'm citing these examples of problems which hinder this to happen. It's not that these would be considered so bad on rare occasion, but it appears that these inflamitory remarks are what continually get you in hot water. My suggestion is that you work to choose less inflamitory means of conveying your messages to counterparts in debate. If we all seek to keep the peace, the time and effort we put into these discussions becomes a whole lot more pleasant.There are times when one's opponent may violate the standards of peaceful dialog/debate. However, if each of us concentrates on our own conduct, regardless of what we see someone else do to us, at least our own record is not damaged and that's what each of us needs to concentrate on. Eventually other violators will be called on the carpet also if they persist in inflamitory remarks. http://EvC Forum: Showcase Forum Issues and Requests -->EvC Forum: Showcase Forum Issues and Requests http://EvC Forum: Showcase Forum Issues and Requests -->EvC Forum: Showcase Forum Issues and RequestsABE: For clarification, it may be that you or I may regard some aspects of evolution science as not being precise. Imo, it would not be wrong to cite such aspects with evidence. It's when we make generalized statements implicating all, i.e. "you evos" that makes the term problematic. Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : fix linksEdited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given.

Ok, I guess you have more faith in the "eventually" part than I do. I realize you are a mod, but only one of many....after a day and half of being called a liar here, in clear view of several mods without their censure, it's hard to see how remaining unusually civil or unprovocative serves a purpose....answer.....according to their folly, or not to answer....that's a real question at times.Edit to add a comment from your edit.....without wishing to inflame or make an enemy here, your advice or censure would carry much more water if the same judgment were meted to the evo side.....I can find upon casual review a good 15-20 denigrating generalizations of creationists and IDers, and sometimes whole threads, at any given time that go by routinely without any censure whatsoever. Moreover, when I say evos don't seem to relish being precise when it comes to the use of "evolution", I have backed that up with evidence on other threads, and in general though not true for all, the use of "evolution" meaning different things in evo discussions is particularly widespread and so the generalized charge, imo, while inflammatory is not entirely without merit....nevertheless, it is not meant that all evos are of the same mind...when discussing a mindset and group sometimes generalized comments are useful and necessary.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I hear you Rand, but I don't do a lot of reading, thus not a lot of moderating. The reason I cited you here is because I really want your stuff out in the science forums. I don't know whether that will happen, but I'm working at it. I have only read this page with a critical eye and I noted the two cited examples just in this small segment of your input. Not good.Again, I don't know how much you want to be in the forums, but if you want out there please listen. Imo, you have a lot to contribute to the creationist debate, regardless of whether our counterparts agree. We need you and you need us. Forget what others are doing and keep your own nose clean, so to speak. Folks in Showcase are somewhat on probation, so critical eyes are on you. Don't give reason for complaint and you'll do fine.

I appreciate the positive thinking even if my "faith" in EvC doesn't rise to the same level.thanksEdited by randman, : No reason given.

I guess I'm going to have to repeat the question.

quote:

---

Got a question for you Randman. Do you understand that:

​

"If X is true then Y is true" does not mean "Y is always true" ?

---

Is it too difficult for you to answer ? There is a point to it.

Amen.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi PaulK. I suggest we not belabor this in this thread. You're implication here that Rand may be incapable of answering your question is also somewhat inflamitory. I'm quite sure that it would be an easy task for him but to get into this here may lead on a rabbit trail.

I have good reasons for asking that are relevant to the ongoing discussion. And I think that it is necessary to prod a little to get an answer.

PaulK, I am not interested in answering questions you pose unless it's a genuine question where you are interested in learning something you may not know.

I'm interested in learning whether you understand the difference.

Uh huh? And I think if you can't state your point in one post, that it's not worth my time dealing with you.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I just want to take it step by step. Do you understand that there is a difference or not ? There's surely no need to be evasive over such a simple point.

No need to be evasive? Sure there is; if you just smart enough to smell a trap but not smart enough to know where it lies.

It has nothing to do with not being able to figure PaulK out, and more to do with thinking it's not worthwhile.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

You won't be interested in this, either, Rand, but I going to indulge my inclination to diagnostics anyway. Besides, I know that a thread about Randman suits you just fine.The above quote typifies one of your major problems in a nutshell: the positions you take on scientific issues are dictated by your cultural and sociopolitical beliefs. Thus, all your posts are essentially propagandistic--yet you cry "Bad faith!" or "Liberal bias!" at those whose political and sociocultural stands are grounded in evidence-supported propositions.You claim to desire authentic dialogue, but refuse to give honest replies to direct queries for two reasons: one, the reply may catch you out in one of the contradictions inherent to propaganda, and, two, because you believe that all who disagree with you are also propagandists, so that such queries must be rhetorical traps like yours.Thus, your paranoia of science (and scientists) is so extreme you gravitate to the lunatic fringe: the less evidence that exists for an outsider proposition, the more likely you find it to be true. An autopsy of your past exchanges on this forum would show that, time and time again, you avoided substantive replies. It would also show that, just as frequently, others answered your questions forthrightly and were prepared to defend their replies. The difference speaks volumes.This paranoia is consistent with the megalomania that prompts you to believe that your lay fancies possess greater credibility than the well-evidenced views of professional scientists: the only exchange you truly consider productive is one where the untutored (and thus untainted) Genius of Randman corrects the delusions of others. Your arrogance is pathologically divorced from reality.The Koreans have a folk saying: "A burglar cannot sleep soundly in his own house." Edited by Omnivorous, : tpyoEdited by Omnivorous, : again

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------