|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. I see what Percy's trying to say, though. Sure, you and I and the evolutionists might get testy, but we also get serious - we respond to rebuttals, we substantiate arguments by elaboration instead of repetition, we present evidence. Randman doesn't. It isn't that his posts contain accusations of fraud and deceit and spurious insult, it's that that's all his posts contain. It's not what he's doing, it's what he isn't doing - responding to rebuttals, addressing counterexamples, presenting evidence, substantiating arguments by elaboration instead of repetition. All Randman is here to do is call everyone who doesn't agree with him a liar, and I can't think of a single reason why that's something that we should support. No useful discussion has ever occurred with Randman. The only useful discussion he's ever been involved in occurred in spite of Randman's best efforts. Keep him in the Showcase. We built that zoo for people like him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I realize you think quantum physics is nuttery and appreciate your defense until the insult part (but don't really take offense as I think you guys are just as wacko, probably more so actually), but don't assume the Big Boys are hanging out in the general forum.
It takes someone of some intellectual courage to come over to the Showcase and discuss topics where they cannot run to the moderators to silence any particularly strong arguments against them....or so it seems to me....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Has nothing to do with requesting to be "allowed back" to the general forum which I have not done, and am not doing. curious. this comes after my argument that you be allowed back. do you like the showcase, randman? why or why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It takes someone of some intellectual courage to come over to the Showcase and discuss topics where they cannot run to the moderators to silence any particularly strong arguments against them.. Are you kidding? That's all you do over there - go running to the moderators to silence counterarguments you can't rebut.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Sure, you and I and the evolutionists might get testy, but we also get serious - we respond to rebuttals, we substantiate arguments by elaboration instead of repetition, we present evidence. Randman doesn't. It isn't that his posts contain accusations of fraud and deceit and spurious insult, it's that that's all his posts contain. Uh huh....I think any objective person on this site knows full well this is a false accusation....note I didn't say lie because it's hard to know the level of reason within another human being. But to pretend I offer no facts, data, argument, etc, etc,....is quite absurd.
It's not what he's doing, it's what he isn't doing - responding to rebuttals, addressing counterexamples, presenting evidence, substantiating arguments by elaboration instead of repetition. All Randman is here to do is call everyone who doesn't agree with him a liar, and I can't think of a single reason why that's something that we should support. No useful discussion has ever occurred with Randman. The only useful discussion he's ever been involved in occurred in spite of Randman's best efforts. No useful discussion? Note a comment from someone in your camp the other day (I hope he doesn't mind too much me using his comments here btw)
randman writes: Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html This statement is interesting all on it's own because it asserts "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and that "the majority of biologists" do not have a satisfactory grasp of it with the obvious yet startling implication that the writer of the article and the TalkOrigins site do have the proper understanding and are better judges of "the cornerstone of biology" than most biologists themselves! This is not exactly a promising start, especially if most biologists do not understand evolution one wonders why we ask high school teachers to include it in the curriculum. I am inclined to agree with you that this is a bizarre statement.
randman writes: Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Ok, evolution is heritable change. It's not universal common descent, genetic relatedness of all organisms, macroevolution, speciation or anything like that, according to this definition, right? I mean the guy spells it out right here. Now, what I want to know is how heritable change absent all the other aspects of "evolution" such as common descent, claims of universal genetic relatedness, macroevolution, etc,....is the cornerstone of all biology and "unites all the fields of biology." The statement is absolutely ludicrous and imo, it's quite deceptive. Everyone knows evos are not arguing that heritable change alone is the cornerstone of all biology. Yes, the definition of evolution given here is in my view extremely inadequate, and in your view deceptive. I might even agree with you that it's deceptive, if you were to expand your argument a little. This seems to be such an uncontroversial definition of evolution that it sinks to banality. One worse definition of evolution I have seen is "change over time" which is often used by creationist groups as well as "pro-evolution groups" and is equally dull, uninspiring and uninformative. For me, a basic definition of evolution must describe a process consisting of mutation, selection and drift. Using THOSE terms.
randman writes: Are there no evos here that can't see that this is trying to suggest something more than heritable change being true, but this is an argument saying that heritable change means the larger concept of ToE is true? Isn't the larger concept the real so-called "cornerstone" in evo eyes? I see the problem. Weird. I agree with you pretty much completely! I must say I've never liked talk origins that much. They have some excellent information on the site, and I appreciate the effort it must have taken to build up such a repository of information, but much of it is so obviously reduced to a simplistic form for either the mode of pedagogy or of rhetoric, that it is often difficult to see where one mode ends and the next begins. Any one of you could have taken the time to see my point where this was debated ad nauseum and acknowledged the obvious, but instead you chose to see my point as simply smearing TalkOrigins and somehow I was lying. Note Mick's other comment:
Dang Mick, you and I perhaps could have had or still have some good discussions
There's time yet! I mean, if we were just to take the first quote you gave from the site, we have:
talk.origins writes: A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. Now in my opinion that is a very poor description of a gene. It's just ridiculously imprecise. If I was marking an exam and found that an undergrad biologist had given that as a definition for a gene, I would give him a low mark. By that definition, my great-grandmother's wedding ring is a gene! If a creationist used that definition on this forum I have no doubt it would be torn to pieces in a few minutes. http://EvC Forum: sophistry and propaganda at TalkOrigins... -->EvC Forum: sophistry and propaganda at TalkOrigins... Edited by randman, : No reason given. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I realize you think quantum physics is nuttery 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.
and appreciate your defense until the insult part (but don't really take offense as I think you guys are just as wacko, probably more so actually), that was sort of my point, actually. you are a crackpot simply because your views are not generally accepted.
but don't assume the Big Boys are hanging out in the general forum. it was a figure of speech. certainly, the showcase has an interesting method of filtering content.
It takes someone of some intellectual courage to come over to the Showcase and discuss topics where they cannot run to the moderators to silence any particularly strong arguments against them....or so it seems to me.... you have something of a history there of silencing people with particularly strong arguments against you. but you like the showcase, then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Sure, you and I and the evolutionists might get testy, but we also get serious - we respond to rebuttals, we substantiate arguments by elaboration instead of repetition, we present evidence. Randman doesn't. It isn't that his posts contain accusations of fraud and deceit and spurious insult, it's that that's all his posts contain. It's not what he's doing, it's what he isn't doing - responding to rebuttals, addressing counterexamples, presenting evidence, substantiating arguments by elaboration instead of repetition. All Randman is here to do is call everyone who doesn't agree with him a liar, and I can't think of a single reason why that's something that we should support. No useful discussion has ever occurred with Randman. The only useful discussion he's ever been involved in occurred in spite of Randman's best efforts. oh, yes, now i remember.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
crash writes: Randman doesn't. It isn't that his posts contain accusations of fraud and deceit and spurious insult, it's that that's all his posts contain. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, that's the important point. The significant result is that threads in which Randman participates are spectacularly unproductive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
This is true as far as it goes, but forum descriptions can't run on forever, and this one is already pretty long. What the description doesn't say, partly due to length constraints and partly out of consideration for those restricted to Showcase, is that it is a place for those with the inability and/or unwillingness to follow the Forum Guidelines, but whose viewpoints are so controversial or unusual that many people wish to debate them anyway. Thanks for reconciling the perceived descrepancy. If EvC administration does not want me around then I acknowledge the fact that they cannot help how they feel. I do not want to be where I am not wanted. My only issue is to expose permanent restriction for what it really is (viewpoint censorship and the perceived harm to the status quo). This is why there is a dearth of Creationists here at EvC. They see the way I am treated and they have no interest in wasting their time only to have an angry Darwinian Moderator save their own by poisoning the well (= asserting dishonesty and rule infractions). A long while back I remember a newbie who had an animated motion avatar of a woman kick boxer. She wanted to join EvC but only if PNT was dismantled. You and Ned sent her on her way. I tracked her down and found her at her own light traffic board. When I asked her why she did not join her response was: "PNT is Darwinian censorship; they would never allow smart Creos to take the agenda." Ken Demeyer does not post here, in part, for the reasons stated above. If you were to grant me full access I would, for the most part, disappear. If no one wants debate with me then, like I said, they cannot help how they feel. But as long as I am showcased or boot camped, regardless of what Darwinists say, objective persons know the real reason. Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist, lifelong student of Dr. Gene Scott Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Uh huh....I think any objective person on this site knows full well this is a false accusation.... See what I mean? Rather than providing evidence, you've simply called me a liar. In doing so, of course, you've proven me right.
No useful discussion? Again, you've completely vindicated my remarks. You've presented a useful discussion that occurred completely against your best efforts to derail it. Congratulations, I guess. And thanks for proving me right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
One thing I hope you will seriously take to heart. I absolutely have not silenced anyone with any strong argument whatsoever. Take WK. He is knowledgeable and makes a good argument for your side, and he's welcomed.
The only people booted off are those that genuinely refused to debate the topic. Your comment that I have a history of booting people off for making a good argument is wholly and completely false. You need to review the threads where you think this has happened and look at the content of what was stated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
LOL. So I am the liar despite you being the one that erroneously states I provide no evidence, and yet I just provided you an example of where I provided specific evidence of TO doing exactly as I have stated in the past where an evo agreed with me, and a useful discussion occurred.
And yet, rather than you acknowledge that, you claimed I tried to derail that discussion....and you guys have the gall to call me nutty.....unbelievable!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The significant result is that threads in which Randman participates are spectacularly unproductive. I suppose they are if your goal is to support an evolutionist agenda of ridiculing your critics. If your desire is to hear and discuss intelligent, factual reasoning of why some do not accept evo models, then I think they can be very productive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Randman,
While criticism of moderation is certainly on-topic for this thread, its intended purpose it not really for extended discussion. If you'd like to discuss the bias of EvC Forum moderation then please begin a thread in the Showcase forum. Thanks!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
OK.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024