Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 91 of 301 (378083)
01-19-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Admin
01-19-2007 1:32 PM


Re: Why you are restricted, again.
Percy, with all due respect, every single thing you accuse me of is par for the course among evos, and yet you don't see their remarks as rules violations. It's just blatant one-sided moderation, and I know I am not the only one that has seen that, and I know that there are people that have communicated the same thing to you afer reviewing the threads you guys claim I am the bad guy on.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Admin, posted 01-19-2007 1:32 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 01-19-2007 2:34 PM randman has replied
 Message 97 by Admin, posted 01-19-2007 2:44 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 92 of 301 (378084)
01-19-2007 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Admin
01-19-2007 1:32 PM


Re: Why you are restricted, again.
Also, the reason for asking such questions as the following is because there has been no reasonable answer from the evo camp:
Why did it take over 100 years of sustained criticisms from the suppossed faith-based wackos for evos to finally admit Haeckel's stuff was fraudulent?
You guys claim all the time that evolutionism is real and self-correcting science, and yet it took OVER 100 YEARS of sustained criticism from non-evos or more ID type evos to FINALLY get evos, and we are talking scientists in their peer-reviewed lit, to actually try to verify one of their data claims, and admit that they were wrong. This happened after the advent of the internet.
Coincidence?
Hardly. You act like that is conspiracy-mongering but it's just a fact. Books and internet articles had been hammering evos over the use of this fraudulent data and ideas, and so finally an evo publicly did a study and confronted the error.
That's not self-correction. That's an extremely stubborn and non-fact-based ideological community being forced to correct itself via humiliation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Admin, posted 01-19-2007 1:32 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by AdminModulous, posted 01-19-2007 2:38 PM randman has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 93 of 301 (378087)
01-19-2007 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by randman
01-19-2007 2:17 PM


Don't give evos a plausible reason.
Percy, with all due respect, every single thing you accuse me of is par for the course among evos, and yet you don't see their remarks as rules violations.
So because they are doing it - that excuses you from doing it?
If I go to a creationist run board - I make an effort to stay within their guidelines and be as polite as I can. I know that any perceived rudeness will likely result in them banning me. If you honestly think that is what it is like here - then why don't you take more care? If you stayed within the forum guidelines you'd have proof that evos are trying to silence the debate.
By giving the evos a good reason to suspend you, you damage your point. If you stay within guidelines they will have to do more twisting and contorting to justify suspending you when you challenge their statements irrefutably. It will be clear to the bystanders then that this board is a heavily biased evo back slapping forum and you have made your point gloriously. You can then retire to a fairer forum, or start your own fairer forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 2:17 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 2:39 PM Modulous has replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 94 of 301 (378088)
01-19-2007 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by randman
01-19-2007 2:24 PM


sorry rand
Whether there is a genuine evolutionist fraud, and whether Haeckel demonstrates this is for an appropriate debate thread. This is for simply discussing Moderation Procedures - this subthread is for why you and Ray have limited access to most fora but some moderator privelages in certain threads in the Showcase forum.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 2:24 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 2:43 PM AdminModulous has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 95 of 301 (378089)
01-19-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Modulous
01-19-2007 2:34 PM


Re: Don't give evos a plausible reason.
The problem is that if you say evos resort to politics to silence their critics and show an actual example of that where evos use the courts to keep ID out of public education, then this is seen as a smear. It's not actually a smear but a verifiable fact, but the evos here are so confused as to what constitutes a fact or not, that telling a fact which doesn't fit with evo impressions is seen as merely smearing evos, and in fact some go as far as to say as lying and smearing evos. It doesn't matter a whit that there is solid evidence that evos have and do in fact use the courts to try to silence their critics. That "fact" somehow is irrevalent.
So in reality, what you have is a group of people incapable of reasoned discussion because when someone presents reasoned criticism, such as pointing out that evos do indeed resort to political means to control the debate, that's seen as rules violations, etc,....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 01-19-2007 2:34 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Modulous, posted 01-19-2007 2:46 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 96 of 301 (378090)
01-19-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by AdminModulous
01-19-2007 2:38 PM


Re: sorry rand
I didn't bring it up. Percy did. Moreover, you guys are not actually allowing fair discussion in allowing your critics to present the facts to support their argument that they feel is necessary. Instead, you try to control what facts can actually be presented in an argument. Evos can, say, bring up natural selection on a non-natural selection thread as a point of evidence or part of a larger concept.
I bring up evidence such as Haeckel or other errors of evos as evidence on a thread or a point as to why or how evos would have missed something or the evo mentality, and that's seen as a rules violation. It's not. It's using a set of facts to discuss the topic. The problem is you guys want to define what sets of facts can and cannot be used.
If I bring up the fact evos discriminate seemingly against IDers, or use the courts to forbid the presentation of ID in schools, somehow I am smearing evos and so in a rules violation.
The interpretation of the rules is such that they are basically a debating tool of evos here, which is why so few evos are willing to debate on Showcase, I suspect.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by AdminModulous, posted 01-19-2007 2:38 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by AdminModulous, posted 01-19-2007 2:47 PM randman has not replied
 Message 104 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2007 3:15 PM randman has not replied
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-19-2007 6:05 PM randman has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 97 of 301 (378091)
01-19-2007 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by randman
01-19-2007 2:17 PM


Re: Why you are restricted, again.
randman writes:
Percy, with all due respect, every single thing you accuse me of is par for the course among evos, and yet you don't see their remarks as rules violations.
If you have been accused of anything then it is by your own words, for that is all I did, quote your own words back to you. In a thread where other people debated with evidence and reasoned argument, you responded almost exclusively with denigration, aspersion and unsupported accusation. There was no provocation in that thread for you to claim as your justification for Forum Guidelines violations. And as has been explained to you many times, being the victim of a Forum Guidelines violation doesn't excuse you from following them yourself. And anyway, when you let someone else pull you down into the mud then you look just as bad as them, so I don't understand why you would want to do this anyway.
For just a month and just to show you can do it, why don't you participate in the Showcase forum in a way consistent with the Forum Guidelines.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 2:17 PM randman has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 98 of 301 (378092)
01-19-2007 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by randman
01-19-2007 2:39 PM


Re: Don't give evos a plausible reason.
That facts you mentioned are not irrelevant to the debate. They are very pertinent. Also pertinent are other facts like how the ID movement were encouraging and eagerly awaiting to put ID into court. It is not a rules violation to state what you just stated, though some elements of its wording are debateable.
However, that is not important.
My point was exactly that - as long as you actually did stay within guidelines then the bystanders will see that and conclude that the evos here are twisting and turning to come up with reasons to silence you. Your point gets proven, and you can go to or start a fairer forum where you can discuss this victory without fear of suspension.
Its a win-win situation...as long as you avoid blemishing it with off topic posts, ignoring moderator direction, insulting other members and other obvious and visible rule violations. I wish you the best of luck with this tactic - I'll be keen to defend you when they try and suspend you when you have been within the forum rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 2:39 PM randman has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 99 of 301 (378093)
01-19-2007 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by randman
01-19-2007 2:43 PM


Re: sorry rand
Percy just quoted you and stated his reason why. It wasn't to debate why you bring up Haeckel and fraud etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 2:43 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 100 of 301 (378094)
01-19-2007 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Admin
01-19-2007 1:32 PM


Let's review then....
I hate to bring Haeckel back...
Why did it take over 100 years of sustained criticisms from the suppossed faith-based wackos for evos to finally admit Haeckel's stuff was fraudulent?
...frauds such as the Biogenetic Law.
It's time for evos to come to grips that a lot of what evo scientists have advanced as true in the past 130 years is a load of cow-dung...
This is not a rules violation per se, except the rule that you must allow an evo moderator and debater to define the interpretation of the rule to his advantage. The Haeckel story is a relevant fact of the discussion.
Frankly, rather than go over all this in detail, the quotes you take out of context are not rules violations, and had they been said by evos, you wouldn't count them as rules violations as such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Admin, posted 01-19-2007 1:32 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Admin, posted 01-19-2007 3:05 PM randman has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 101 of 301 (378097)
01-19-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by randman
01-19-2007 2:52 PM


Re: Let's review then....
randman writes:
Frankly, rather than go over all this in detail, the quotes you take out of context are not rules violations, and had they been said by evos, you wouldn't count them as rules violations as such.
I'm afraid the quotes I provided from you *are* rules violations. Taken one at a time most of them aren't too bad, but taken in the aggregate and as part of just a single very short thread they show an unwillingness to forthrightly address rebuttal and to instead treat it with denigration, aspersion and unsupported accusation.
I was assuming that you were participating in this dialogue out of a desire to regain full permissions, and to that end I have been trying to make clear to you how your behavior is in violation of the Forum Guidelines so that you can take corrective action. If I can provide any more assistance to you in making clear what you need to do before you can regain full permissions please let me know.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 2:52 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 3:15 PM Admin has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 102 of 301 (378098)
01-19-2007 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Admin
01-19-2007 1:32 PM


in defense of randman
You question people's ability to think, make accusations of fraud and of political and legal tricks and of discrimination, ... and ascribe base motives to evolutionists at every turn.
as much as i hate to admit it, i think i'm forced to agree with randman.
for instance, i very regulary question peoples' ability to read and comprehend, in the bible fora. something that is plainly obvious and elementary to me might just simply be understood wrongly differently by some one else. but if the fact and evidence bear out that someone is grotesquely misreading something -- quotemining, for instance -- then it's a valid argument. it may outside of the forum guidelines to call someone liar, but if you document intellectual dishonesty (while NOT making accusations) the argument is accepted and the mods say nothing. similarly, we often talk about the baser motives of fundamentalism, and certain frauds they often commit.
i don't see many of those randman comments as particularly offensive, or the kind of language that warrants extreme moderation action. reprimands, sure. but it's nothing that we evolutionists don't do, and occasionally get warned about. randman can have a very abrasive attitude, but so can a lot of us out here. really, what seems to be his major problem is his generally nuttery, and the two-trick pony act he does with haeckel and quantum mechanics. he acts and posts like a crackpot, so we've thrown him into our crackpot cage.
i say that unless he's doing something particularly vicious that i've missed, let him back out to play with the big boys.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Admin, posted 01-19-2007 1:32 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Admin, posted 01-19-2007 3:17 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2007 3:18 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 107 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 3:18 PM arachnophilia has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 103 of 301 (378099)
01-19-2007 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Admin
01-19-2007 3:05 PM


Re: Let's review then....
I am participating due to my name being mentioned upon perusal of this thread and also on threads I am not allowed on, and so prefer to set the record straight. Has nothing to do with requesting to be "allowed back" to the general forum which I have not done, and am not doing.
If anyone wants to debate me, they can do so on Showcase. I just ask they actually present some factual material. They can even insult and break all the rules they want there provided they move the discussion forward, but if they don't move the discussion forward, I don't want to waste my time with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Admin, posted 01-19-2007 3:05 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2007 3:19 PM randman has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 104 of 301 (378100)
01-19-2007 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by randman
01-19-2007 2:43 PM


Re: sorry rand
I bring up evidence such as Haeckel or other errors of evos as evidence on a thread or a point as to why or how evos would have missed something or the evo mentality, and that's seen as a rules violation. It's not. It's using a set of facts to discuss the topic. The problem is you guys want to define what sets of facts can and cannot be used.
no, the original post does. rule number two:
quote:
Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
if the topic of the thread is not evolutionary frauds, haeckel, phylogeny, recapitulation theory, etc... then haeckel is off topic. open a new thread for that discussion -- you have before and no one is stopping you from opening more in the showcase.
but attempting to derail other threads with it is simply against the rules, and downright tiresome. it's like you only have one argument, and try to insert into every discussion you can. it gets boring.
imagine if everytime you debated an evolutionist, they wouldn't shut up about asking where cain's wife came from? especially after you've answered such a claim, repeatedly, and shown the flaws in the logic of said evolutionist? yet every thread they participated in eventually came down to "cain's wife shows the inaccuracy of the bible" whether or not thread even had anything to do with the bible?
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 2:43 PM randman has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 105 of 301 (378102)
01-19-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by arachnophilia
01-19-2007 3:06 PM


Re: in defense of randman
arachnophilia writes:
i don't see many of those randman comments as particularly offensive...
Niether do I, please see the 1st paragraph of Message 101. I purposefully chose about the politest Randman thread I could find, which is one where I purposefully made every effort to avoid sending him over the edge.
If you'd like to have a discussion with Randman then you can be provided permissions to the Showcase forum. But Randman's permissions to the regular discussion forums will not be restored until he demonstrates an ability to follow the Forum Guidelines.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2007 3:06 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024