|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I said no such thing.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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:
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3977 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
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! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3977 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
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! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5907 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024