Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 301 (378103)
01-19-2007 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by arachnophilia
01-19-2007 3:06 PM


Re: in defense of randman
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2007 3:06 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 3:28 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 112 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2007 3:32 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 113 by Admin, posted 01-19-2007 3:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 107 of 301 (378104)
01-19-2007 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by arachnophilia
01-19-2007 3:06 PM


Re: in defense of randman
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....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2007 3:06 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2007 3:25 PM randman has not replied
 Message 111 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2007 3:29 PM randman has replied

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


Message 108 of 301 (378105)
01-19-2007 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by randman
01-19-2007 3:15 PM


Re: Let's review then....
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 3:15 PM randman has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 109 of 301 (378109)
01-19-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by randman
01-19-2007 3:18 PM


Re: in defense of randman
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 3:18 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 110 of 301 (378110)
01-19-2007 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
01-19-2007 3:18 PM


Re: in defense of randman
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2007 3:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2007 3:37 PM randman has replied

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


Message 111 of 301 (378112)
01-19-2007 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by randman
01-19-2007 3:18 PM


Re: in defense of randman
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 3:18 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 3:37 PM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 112 of 301 (378113)
01-19-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
01-19-2007 3:18 PM


Re: in defense of randman
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2007 3:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 113 of 301 (378114)
01-19-2007 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
01-19-2007 3:18 PM


Re: in defense of randman
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2007 3:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 4:19 PM Admin has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 114 of 301 (378115)
01-19-2007 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Admin
01-18-2007 7:14 PM


Reply to Admin
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Admin, posted 01-18-2007 7:14 PM Admin has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 115 of 301 (378116)
01-19-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by randman
01-19-2007 3:28 PM


Re: in defense of randman
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 3:28 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 3:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 116 of 301 (378117)
01-19-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by arachnophilia
01-19-2007 3:29 PM


Re: in defense of randman
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2007 3:29 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2007 6:33 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 117 of 301 (378120)
01-19-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by crashfrog
01-19-2007 3:37 PM


Re: in defense of randman
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2007 3:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-19-2007 7:18 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 118 of 301 (378122)
01-19-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Admin
01-19-2007 3:36 PM


Re: in defense of randman
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Admin, posted 01-19-2007 3:36 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Admin, posted 01-19-2007 4:41 PM randman has replied

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


Message 119 of 301 (378125)
01-19-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by randman
01-19-2007 4:19 PM


Re: in defense of randman
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!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 4:19 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 4:42 PM Admin has not replied

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


Message 120 of 301 (378126)
01-19-2007 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Admin
01-19-2007 4:41 PM


Re: in defense of randman
OK.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Admin, posted 01-19-2007 4:41 PM Admin 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