Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 196 of 301 (379007)
01-22-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dan Carroll
01-22-2007 3:16 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
See above. I propose that they get over their squeamishness regarding full banishment.
I happen to agree with you about randman. I believe the contents of his posts are a complete waste of bits. The problem I think though is not that the admins need to get over their squeamishness but that the EvC population needs to stop wanting to pander to crazies. Admins have already shown that they will actually ban people. Faith is gone for example. The issue is that maschocistic people here at EvC keeping demanding them back. I personally think that the board has been better without Faith. I also think it is better without randman, JAD, and Ray in the general forums. The creationists who remain are much better at constructing an argument rather than simply repeating the same thing over and over again.
Every who is banned or restricted has a mantra that they could never look past to actually engage their opponent.
Faith : Your argument is invalid because you are operating with evo assumptions. The rules declare my position to be invalid but my position IS valid because I am not claiming scientific accuracy. (round and round)
randman: Haeckel! Haeckel! Packitus! Haeckel! Fraud! QM! (repeat)
Ray: Your lack of godsense = inability to refute.
JAD: *begin post* (insert rabid insults) *end post*
I am of the opinion that they just need to be banned. NJ I think is an example of a "good" creationists, someone who will actually somewhat respond to what is being talked about rather than some meta-martyr or broken record type discourse that the above mentioned are famous for.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 3:16 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by arachnophilia, posted 01-22-2007 8:09 PM Jazzns has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 197 of 301 (379008)
01-22-2007 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Cold Foreign Object
01-22-2007 4:40 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
quote:
Most mentally ill persons do not consider themselves as such. Case in point: Darwinists believe the appearance of design corresponds to mindless process; inhabitants of nature descend from a common ancestor, and that apes gradually morphed into men; and they think these miracles are rational and reflect scientific investigation.
Wow.
Hundreds of thousands of scientists are all mentally ill.
I guess that we all better stop going to the doctor, then, coz all the scientists who've been doing medical research for the last 150 years are crazy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 4:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 198 of 301 (379009)
01-22-2007 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Cold Foreign Object
01-22-2007 4:58 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
quote:
Nope.
You and Dan Carroll said anyone who does not agree with you are mentally ill.
I said no such thing.
quote:
Why have you lied?
Is it because that you know that the Mods will let you get away with it?
I have not lied, therefore there is no question of moderator involvement. Of course if I stated that you were lying - even though you falsely accuse me of lying - I would be warned and face suspension if I persisted. It is because the moderation policy is biased in favour of creationists that you do not receive the same treatment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 4:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 6:23 PM PaulK has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 301 (379011)
01-22-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Cold Foreign Object
01-22-2007 4:58 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
You and Dan Carroll said anyone who does not agree with you are mentally ill.
Okay. I'll play it the nice way.
Show me where I said this, Ray.
Why have you lied?
Gosh. We're not in the showcase, are we?
I bet Ray gets a month-long suspension any old second now.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 4:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 200 of 301 (379013)
01-22-2007 5:12 PM


Clearing up all the confusion!
There's no off-limit word list.
The Forum Guidelines need another revision, but for this discussion, the key rules of the Forum Guidelines are rules 4 and 10:
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
  1. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
The current rule 4 emerged out of a revision that combined two earlier rules that together had made a more clear statement about the requirement to discuss constructively.
I often liken the Forum Guidelines to traffic laws. Many traffic laws are broken every day, indeed, every second. People role through stop signs, role through right turn on red, fail to yield at yield signs, pass on the right, exceed the speed limit, etc. and so forth. But by and large traffic roles along pretty smoothly.
A policeman might give someone a ticket for erratic driving because they were not staying within the lane, and the person might challenge it in traffic court asking questions like, "If I deviate from the center of the lane by 10% am I not staying within the lane? How about 20%? I ask the court, how do you define staying within the lane? And if you can't define it, then how can anyone say that I was not properly maintaining my vehicle in the lane?" I hope this argument strikes most people as one that wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, be successful.
Board administration cannot provide rules that list all the dos and don'ts. The world is far too varied and nuanced for such a list. And so the key requirement is discussing constructively.
Calling someone a liar can be constructive and appropriate in one context (more likely a humorous context than anything else) and completely counterproductive in another. The key question is whether your approach is constructive, intended to move the discussion forward, improve understanding, or clearly communicate an idea.
And it's also the totality of your approach. An accusation of lying is a bit strong for my taste but is probably not going to get you into trouble if done as part of a well reasoned presentation of evidence and argument. In other words, you travel for ten miles in front of a police car and drift over into the other lane once or twice. Probably nothing will happen. But if over that ten miles you do nothing *but* drift in and out of lanes, you'll probably get pulled over.
So it isn't that calling someone a liar is inherently bad and so no one can ever call anyone a liar. It's that by the time someone is so upset that they're calling people liars, usually reason and rationality have long since left the barn, and once that happens you usually get posts that are all vituperation and no content. We try not to allow that here.
Is this getting any clearer? What's that? You over there, you say you think it's clearer now?
Why, you little liar you!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 201 of 301 (379031)
01-22-2007 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Cold Foreign Object
01-22-2007 4:58 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
Hilarious!
The exact situation I referred to, which people thought was so unlikely it could never occur, is occuring in this very thread. Thanks, Herp!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 4:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Omnivorous, posted 01-22-2007 6:22 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 204 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 6:25 PM crashfrog has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 202 of 301 (379034)
01-22-2007 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by crashfrog
01-22-2007 6:16 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
Hilarious!
The exact situation I referred to, which people thought was so unlikely it could never occur, is occuring in this very thread.
Thanks, Herp!
Old bedouin saying:
Wait in your tent patiently, and watch another carry your enemy's body.

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!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2007 6:16 PM crashfrog has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 203 of 301 (379035)
01-22-2007 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by PaulK
01-22-2007 5:05 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
PaulK writes:
I said no such thing.
previously PaulK writes:
http://EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0 -->EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0
I know what he's like. And I argue that they are evidence of mental illness, not dishonesty.
You are left with two choices:
1. Admit
or
2. Lie some more and insult everyones intelligence.
You should admit, PaulK.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2007 5:05 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Omnivorous, posted 01-22-2007 6:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 207 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2007 6:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 232 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-23-2007 12:02 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 235 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2007 2:46 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 204 of 301 (379036)
01-22-2007 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by crashfrog
01-22-2007 6:16 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
Hilarious!
The exact situation I referred to, which people thought was so unlikely it could never occur, is occuring in this very thread. Thanks, Herp!
Straw man.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2007 6:16 PM crashfrog has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 205 of 301 (379038)
01-22-2007 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Dan Carroll
01-22-2007 3:15 PM


The name is "showcase"
If it's a waste of time, why not just ban the people who would otherwise be confined to the Showcase?
Because it is "showcase". It hasn't happened for a long time now but once upon a time I found the creo posts in EvC rather useful. A few friends (and others) thought that "balanced treatment" was the right way to go with the "controversy". I may not have any of that left but I'm sure others do.
They were very quickly convinced that there was nothing to the other side of the controversy after browsing creo posts here. The showcase captures really great examples of the astonishing nuttiness of the creo supporters. Just left to rant themselves they supply such wonderful ammunition if you do have someone thinking there is something to consider.
There is, of course, also need for more rational detailed discussion of the arguments put forward by the more thoughtful representatives of YEC, ID and other positions. This is to expose the flaws and it is very educational to all.
We owe gratitude to all those knowledgable folk, on BOTH sides, who take the time to supply reason and facts. It's too bad there is something of an imbalance between the two sides in that regard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 3:15 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 206 of 301 (379040)
01-22-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object
01-22-2007 6:23 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
Herepton writes:
You are left with two choices:
1. Admit
or
2. Lie some more and insult everyones intelligence.
You should admit, PaulK.
Ray
Quote the whole post. Your quote-mining=inability to refute.
PaulK writes:
I faced Randman arguing that an essay on talkorigins.org claimed that universal common descent was a fact when it explicitly said that universal common descent should not be considered a fact. And Randman continued blustering and arguing long after it was pointed out. I know what he's like. And I argue that they are evidence of mental illness, not dishonesty.

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!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 6:23 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 207 of 301 (379041)
01-22-2007 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object
01-22-2007 6:23 PM


Precise statements
As PaulK told you he said that when someone denies an obvious, objective truth (in the particular case what was written in plain Engish at TO) that is evidence of a mental illness.
No where did PaulK say that it was a sign of mental illness to disagree with him.
As asked if you wish to make the statments you are making you are going to have to read (with comprehension) exactly what was written.
It is PaulK's considered opinion that rand is denying obvious, objective truth. I can't believe that even you would disagree that doing so is a sign of mental illness -- it is about the basic definition of what it means to be mentally ill.
Now you can start a thread (or review the existing one) to demonstrate that PaulK is wrong in his assessment of rand's comprehension of the TO articles. If so you have made a point. If you can't demonstrate that you have helped make PaulK's case that rand exhibits some signs of mental illness stronger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 6:23 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 6:46 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 209 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 6:52 PM NosyNed has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 208 of 301 (379044)
01-22-2007 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by NosyNed
01-22-2007 6:38 PM


Re: Precise statements
No where did PaulK say that it was a sign of mental illness to disagree with him.
Yes, that is exactly what he is saying. Take off your blinders and stop acting like you don't see or know it.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2007 6:38 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by sidelined, posted 01-22-2007 6:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 209 of 301 (379045)
01-22-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by NosyNed
01-22-2007 6:38 PM


Re: Precise statements
As PaulK told you he said that when someone denies an obvious, objective truth (in the particular case what was written in plain Engish at TO) that is evidence of a mental illness.
You are mistaken; this was PaulK's opinion and to imply that disagreement with his opinion to be a sign of mental illness is irrational and a sign of mental illness or wickedness ("but I rather not consider that").
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2007 6:38 PM NosyNed has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 210 of 301 (379046)
01-22-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Cold Foreign Object
01-22-2007 6:46 PM


Re: Precise statements
Herepton
Yes, that is exactly what he is saying. Take off your blinders and stop acting like you don't see or know it.
Italics Mine
It would make your case stronger if you were to now show where PaulK said exactly " It is a sign of mental illness to disagree with me."
Otherwise your words ring hollow Ray.
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 6:46 PM Cold Foreign Object 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