General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0

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.

---

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.

---

curious. this comes after my argument that you be allowed back.do you like the showcase, randman? why or why not?

---

actually, i had a passing interest in astrophysics back in high school, so i read up a lot on relativity, qm, and string theory. i don't think qm is nuttery at all. i think people who use it as excuse for pseudo-scientific mysticism and post-modern philosophy are nuts. that's not just you, either, rand. that movie "what the bleep do we know" irritated the hell out of me too. that was sort of my point, actually. you are a crackpot simply because your views are not generally accepted. it was a figure of speech. certainly, the showcase has an interesting method of filtering content. you have something of a history there of silencing people with particularly strong arguments against you.but you like the showcase, then?

---

oh, yes, now i remember.

---

ah ha, i figured it would be something relatively easy like that. thanks!Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

it appears that dr. adequate wants to debate you, and you booted him off. since you are technically in control of moderating that thread, i believe this is the correct thread to question you on that.

---

for me? i wasn't asking -- i was just questioning rand (as moderator of his own thread) about dr. a's permissions.

---

out of curiousity, how does one empirically document someone's intentions?

---

yes, i agree.charges of lies are generally considered unacceptable behaviour around here. even if they're true.

---

the problem, crash, is that it rarely is so clear-cut. it's not even the case in randman and dr. a's conversation. these are "lies" that stem from obfuscation and misrepresentation -- and it's hard to say whether or not that's intentional. mostly, it seems to just be misunderstandings.i think it fairly clear from any of the biblical debates that i've been involved in here that fundamentalists simply read one thing and think another. is their misrepresentation of the supplied text (whether it be from a member here, or their own holy writ) because they are trying to lie to us, or because that this is the way they honestly believe?i suspect the latter.so when dr a. posts about such and such a mechanism potentially leading to increases in diversity, complexity, and so forth, and rand references him as saying "it always increases" it may not be because randman is trying to lie. he may simply have not understood, or read closely enough. there are other options for intentions than deceit. it's obvious to you and me, sure. but maybe it's not obvious to them. maybe they really don't know any better, even if they've been told a million times. i can't tell you how many times on this site i have ended up in debates that were "the bible v. fundamentalists." they really don't read things and understand things the way we do, source material first. they operate from a conclusion-first method, digesting all new information through the filter of what they've been told to believe. everything they take in has to confirm their a-priori assumptions, and if it doesn't, it has to be twisted to do so. this seems to operate on a subconcious level.but it's really hard to get any contrary information through when you say one thing, and they hear another.

---

so, wait, just to clarify.the showcase exists as a place for people who are incapable of following the forum rules to post -- but unless you're forced to be there (because you can't follow the forum rules) you had better follow the forum rules while you're there?i'm all for double-standards, but now i'm just confused.

---

yes, but don't we know that going in? we don't have to participate there. because that appears to be all one side has. creationism is simply misrepresentation -- of the bible, or science, or reality. i'm sure the creationists will take offense... but find me one creationist source that doesn't quotemine, or distort evidence, or just plain lie? even the name "creation science" is a lie -- science doesn't start with holy books they attempt to justify. it's just not science -- and it tries to pretend it is (in many different masks) to get into school systems.that's why this site exists. to cut through those lies, and reveal them for what they are. but we are to extend every courtesy and respect in debate with our members here -- we can't call them liars. how are we to know? maybe they're simply wrong and don't know better. maybe they're not totally honest with themselves, and don't want to know -- still not liars. maybe a few are liars, but i suspect that everyone here thinks they are telling the truth to the best of their knowledge. we just can't make that assumption.the showcase exists because without it, the opposition doesn't have much chance. their accusations of lies and conspiracies, and their "gish-galloping" topic derailing are core strategies of their debate style. every fallacy imaginable to distract from the evidence and the argument -- that's all creationism is. there is no scientific research, no evidence, no real argument. just books to buy and people to distract and confuse.and that's the debate. and most of it is against the rules.the use is that it gives the more extreme fundamentalists -- the ones that are simply incapable of doing anything besides breaking the rules -- a place to call their own, where they can post whatever they want, and feel like they're having an equal go of it with the threat of moderation in reaction to their basic arguments. but what they should realize is that it is a showcase. they are on display -- and they should really take this as an opportunity to try to construct real arguments instead of bullying and name-calling. because they are there representing creationism and fundamentalism. they should be good examples, lest everyone come to the same conclusions that i have -- that these childish games are all they have.

---

yes, i just read that. clearly, ray is misunderstanding what paul wrote. i understand what paul wrote, and so do you. ray understands it differently.frankly, the original comment was skirting around the edges of the forum guidelines. if it didn't prompt a warning from a mod, it should have. the implication was the randman was mentally ill -- although this was tentative and based on evidence, it's still insulting. just worded more carefully. again, go participate in the bible forums for a while. i think you'll find that they do read that poorly.

---

ok, i guess that does make sense.

---