General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0

yes. when the entire message for half a dozen consecutive posts is:

quote:

---

this is a lie.

​

this is a lie.

​

this is a lie.

---

etc, especially when you've been warned by the admins to quit with the accusations of lies, it really is kind of stepping over the line of contructive debate, into troll-dom. randman at least had a little content (or at least, other words) between his accusations of lies and ad hominems.still, i don't know if a month-long suspension is warranted. a week, maybe, since he was warned. permanent removal from (OR TO!) the showcase, maybe.

---

good questions.the last certainly carries less connotations of purposeful deceit (and thus, less comment on a person's character), so it's probably be acceptable.

---

why is acceptable for ray to accuse people of lies, outside of the showcase forum? when it is not acceptable for more darwinist-inclined members to accuse people of lies inside the showcase? why do you accuse people of lying, ray? because you know the mods will let you get away with it?

---

i'm one of those masochists.they way i see it is that the debate from this side of the aisle is actually masochism. we're not solving anything. we're not convincing anyone, especially not our opponents. we don't win anything. we just beat our heads against brick walls -- and when those bricks fall, there's just another wall behind. a fresh wave of fundamentalists.there's no debate in the scientific community. all of this matters for almost nothing. we're here because we like the pain, and frustration, and the challenge. it gives us something to take up our time. less interesting, though. i know i've participated less.it's mathematical. the interest of the board is function of the number and ferocity of the fundamentalists. the more we ban, the more quickly we approach our asymptote. yeah? let's ask ray.ray, nemesis_juggernaut gets along nicely with the people here, debates rationally with evolutionists. do you consider him a creationist?

---

isn't this, uh, exactly what we are saying of randman? i've always found it highly ironic debating with randman in the past. he is about the worst case of projection i have ever met -- everything we find infuriating about him (his lack of ability to see the obvious, his ridicule and distortions to avoid debate, etc) are all verbatim his complains about evos. he seems to just see everything completely bass ackwards.

---

i think this probably the case. you'll notice how common strawmen are around here. i think it's evident from the bible threads that they start with some knowledge of what it's supposed to say, read lightly, ignor context and detail, and post something they think confirms their view. careful reading, without assumption, commonly refutes their points.but when the intricacies of the text are explained at length, and they still insist, does it become something else? or are they simply not reading what we say either?

---

i'm not sure. he hasn't demonstrated that. i mean, i know he can read, but reading isn't simply understanding what letters make what sounds, and recognizing words. it's understanding what it means, too. clearly, many of our fundamentalists members don't read very well. he makes a total of 3 points, ad nauseum. clearly there is a limited scope there. he evidently has not been exposed to the legitimate claims of modern biology, only creationism's charicature of "evolutionism." whether this lack of education is due in part to reading comprehension, lack of opportunity, or if it's willful is hard to say. it might be. but i suspect randman is not just putting on a show. i think he believes everything he says. sure it is.

---

actually, ray, i agree. and that was kind of the point of my post. the board is not better off without the opposition. "creation vs. evolution" doesn't work if it's just "vs. evolution."i protested faith's band before it happened, when it happened, and i continue to disagree with it even now. does that mean that nj is a genuine creationist? or a wolf in sheep's clothing? take some time and acquiant yourself with his posts -- you can still read the rest of the board, correct?

---

i'm confused, ray. are you complaining, or aren't you?if you're not offended at all, what's the big deal, exactly?

---

you're one of those people that whines when the police evict you from the theatre because you screamed "FIRE!" aren't you? freedom of speech and all that.sorry, place matters. if you don't believe me, try talking about bombs next time you fly somewhere.and nobody else has the freedom to behave like you do in the outside forum -- or even in the showcase, for that matter. dr a. just got a MONTH suspension for acting like you in the showcase.

---

so what you're saying is that you see yourself as a martyr, and you like being a martyr? hey ray, i know you post(ed) at talk.origins, but have you ever been over to uncommon descent? don't ask me, i keep arguing against that. you know, because i'm an evil-darwinist-captor, and all that.

---

it's not spin, it's a question. i am trying to establish your position. do you take offense at being confined to the showcase, or do you like it? or do you not care? even if those banned members are each and every "darwinist" that comes on the board? i find this amusing ray, as you are well known for your substanceless one-liners. "inability to refute" et al. they didn't give a good one publically. you can find discussion of it starting here, and if i recall some more hazy details are given. there is a whole thread that documents some of the differences and admin discussions that eventually lead to her ban.i still disagree with it. being a bad candidate for a moderator isn't a good reason to be banned as a member.

---