Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 2:35 AM
28 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,982 Year: 9,018/19,786 Month: 1,440/2,119 Week: 200/576 Day: 3/98 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0
Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 106 of 305 (388814)
03-07-2007 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Brian
03-07-2007 6:29 PM


Re: AdminBuz's action just more whining
Brian somewhere sometime writes:

Jesus, Buzsaw, what the hell is wrong with you? You haven't learned a damn thing in years of people trying to get things through your thick, religion-addled skull of yours! When people try to help you get better, all you do is get pissy and whiny and play the "poor, picked on me" game. Why don't you just shut up, becasue you're clearly incapable of keeping your posts from being composed of complete and utter drivel!!

I missed this first time around, but seeing it creates a good opportunity to make an important point. Rants like this are often cited as evidence that moderation here is unfair. What such criticism fails to note is that the rants are provoked. It's like criticizing drivers for yelling, blowing their horns and flipping the bird at someone who insists on walking down the middle of the highway everyday during rush hour, and can't be dissuaded from doing this by any among of haranguing.

This is what discussions with Buzsaw feel like after a while. People cannot be blamed for reacting with frank frustration to insatiable ignorance and blithe obliviousness.

I regret having to be so blunt, but the goal of maintaining civility does not mean we allow ourselves to be abused by those who have some bizarre interpretation of the rules. Returning to the highway analogy, someone can't walk down the middle of the highway and insist that no one criticize him because it's impolite. Clear communication requires that sheer idiocy be called sheer idiocy, and the police are responsible for persuading the individual to either begin using the sidewalk or, if he insists on using the highway, to get in a car, and if he refuses all suggestions then action must be taken so that traffic can flow.

So continuing the analogy, when I told Buzsaw he could participate in a couple science threads it was equivalent to saying we'd tolerate a little middle-of-the-highway walking. And his brief return to participation was fine. What caused his discouragement and self-imposed exile was arguing with bystanders who had no reticence telling him what an idiot he was being. And he was. Moderators really can't come to the defense of someone so determined to not have a clue.

Edited by Admin, : Spelling.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Brian, posted 03-07-2007 6:29 PM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 03-08-2007 1:40 AM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Brian, posted 03-08-2007 5:16 AM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 111 by AdminPD, posted 03-08-2007 7:38 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3063 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 107 of 305 (388823)
03-08-2007 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Admin
03-07-2007 9:31 PM


Re: AdminBuz's action just more whining
What such criticism fails to note is that the rants are provoked.

The problem is your concept of being provoked is just failing to agree with you or other evos.

Moderators really can't come to the defense of someone so determined to not have a clue.

Or more accurately, biased evolutionist moderators fed up with having someone point out how they are wrong get angry and foster some bull-crap that their critic or critics don't have a clue and begin to verbally harass them so they can have some bogus reason to try to ban their critics, all the while falsely claiming their critics are unreasonable when it's patently obvious it's the other way around.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Admin, posted 03-07-2007 9:31 PM Admin has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3063 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 108 of 305 (388824)
03-08-2007 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Admin
03-07-2007 12:11 PM


Re: AdminBuz's action just more whining
This reflects only your opinion, not something that has been established to anyone's but your own satisfaction.

Actually that is patently false as others afterwards posted conclusions in agreement with the view of QM I discussed which is not surprising because I was just quoting quantum physicists themselves.

Additionally, nearly every IDer and creationist, or actually all of them, that have visited this board that I know of are in full agreement on the nature of the biased moderation and general phoniness employed by evos here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Admin, posted 03-07-2007 12:11 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2007 2:28 AM randman has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15037
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 109 of 305 (388825)
03-08-2007 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by randman
03-08-2007 1:50 AM


Re: AdminBuz's action just more whining
quote:

Actually that is patently false as others afterwards posted conclusions in agreement with the view of QM I discussed which is not surprising because I was just quoting quantum physicists themselves.

In the case I remember it was I who posted quotes from one of your favoured experts showing that he agreed with my view and disagreed with yours.

quote:

Additionally, nearly every IDer and creationist, or actually all of them, that have visited this board that I know of are in full agreement on the nature of the biased moderation and general phoniness employed by evos here.

Generally such claims result from the creationist or IDer breaking the rules and getting caught - or at least behaving badly and then behaving worse when it is pointed out that they are behaving badly. In Buz's recent case the primary issue from the admin side was his refusal to even consider vetting the websites he used to "support" his case more effectively. Although Buz admitted that it was necessary to filter out unreliable sources and it was obvious that he was not doing a good job at it he refused to even try to do better. Naturally this promoted a rebuke from Admin who - rightly - expects participants to make a good-faith effort to try to produce productive discussion. So where's the bias ? You tell me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by randman, posted 03-08-2007 1:50 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by randman, posted 03-21-2007 1:45 AM PaulK has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 110 of 305 (388827)
03-08-2007 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Admin
03-07-2007 9:31 PM


Re: AdminBuz's action just more whining
You do know that this was a joke, I didn't actually post that! :laugh:
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Admin, posted 03-07-2007 9:31 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 111 of 305 (388835)
03-08-2007 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Admin
03-07-2007 9:31 PM


Thread Purpose
Speaking of walking down the middle of the highway...

This discussion concerning AdminBuz/Buz isn't really an attempt to resolve a concern with an admin action which, as I understand it, is what this thread is for.

Behavioral discussions tend to wipe out threads and since this discussion concerning Buz is not truly discussing a problem with a moderation procedure or action in Message 92 I closed the discussion on Buz and asked that it be taken to "Clarfying the Buzsaw Position" thread.

I feel it is more appropriate and leaves this thread open for real concerns about moderation procedures.

So again I ask that all those wishing to discuss or give farewells to AdminBuz/Buz please step to the sidewalk and let your fingers do the walking to the appropriate thread and continue your discussion there.

Edited by AdminPD, : Delete closing sentence

Edited by AdminPD, : Typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Admin, posted 03-07-2007 9:31 PM Admin has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 112 of 305 (390442)
03-20-2007 12:33 PM


Sorry AdminQ but exactly how is my post Off Topic?
In Message 107 AdminQuetzal posted an Off Topic, do not reply notice.

Not exactly sure how the message is off topic. Could you explain?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by AdminQuetzal, posted 03-20-2007 2:47 PM jar has responded

AdminQuetzal
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 305 (390471)
03-20-2007 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by jar
03-20-2007 12:33 PM


Re: Sorry AdminQ but exactly how is my post Off Topic?
Sure. The entire discussion of the Michael Shermer presentation was off-topic for the thread. I already spoke to the person to whom you responded - s/he is going to open a new thread to discuss this. My suggestion would be to wait until that topic is proposed and promoted - then copy your response to the new thread.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 03-20-2007 12:33 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 03-20-2007 2:52 PM AdminQuetzal has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 114 of 305 (390473)
03-20-2007 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by AdminQuetzal
03-20-2007 2:47 PM


Re: Sorry AdminQ but exactly how is my post Off Topic?
LOL

But the only part of my post that dealt with Michael Shermer was to say that that subject was Off Topic.

The bulk of the post dealt with the issue of Intelligent Design yet you marked the whole post as OT. Still don't understand what in Message 107 was Off Topic?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by AdminQuetzal, posted 03-20-2007 2:47 PM AdminQuetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by AdminQuetzal, posted 03-20-2007 3:28 PM jar has responded

AdminQuetzal
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 305 (390479)
03-20-2007 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by jar
03-20-2007 2:52 PM


Re: Sorry AdminQ but exactly how is my post Off Topic?
Apologies. I jumped the gun. Post is now re-opened to comment.

Edited by AdminQuetzal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 03-20-2007 2:52 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by jar, posted 03-20-2007 3:44 PM AdminQuetzal has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 116 of 305 (390484)
03-20-2007 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by AdminQuetzal
03-20-2007 3:28 PM


Re: Sorry AdminQ but exactly how is my post Off Topic?
No Problem. Thank you sir.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by AdminQuetzal, posted 03-20-2007 3:28 PM AdminQuetzal has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3063 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 117 of 305 (390539)
03-21-2007 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by PaulK
03-08-2007 2:28 AM


PaulK, you failed to even understand what the scientists on various links we discussed concerning quantum physics even stated, much less grasped where they agreed or disagreed with me. I have learned that trying to educate you was a waste of time because you basically didn't have either a willingness or perhaps an intellect that would allowed a discussion based on understanding to occur.

Contents OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Contents rendered invisible. If you must view, use the peek button; but do not respond.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2007 2:28 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 03-21-2007 4:36 AM randman has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15037
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 118 of 305 (390548)
03-21-2007 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by randman
03-21-2007 1:45 AM


Everything you say is false.

Consider for instance, this thread the underlying assumptions rig the debate perhaps the most significant since the OP explicitly spells out your views.

(We can add that my philsophical objections in message 8 went unanswered even though they sink your thesis as anything more than an apologetic excuse)

By Message 16 you falsely assert that your opponents deny entanglement - a completley unfounded misrepresentation - as is shown in later posts in the thread.

By Message 20 we have a resident expert disagreeing with you.

In message 174 I provide explicit quotes from your own expert which contradict your claims.

This is not the place for further discussion of this issue. However I am certainly willing to defend myself in any more suitable forum on this bord that you might suggest. And if you are seriously inteested in discussing the issues then I strongly suggest that you start by dealing with a point that you never managed in the thread - why are Quantum Erasers needed ? Your view relies on far bigger changes than the path of a single photon occurring without any such thing.

Contents OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Contents rendered invisible. If you must view, use the peek button; but do not respond.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by randman, posted 03-21-2007 1:45 AM randman has not yet responded

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 2840 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 119 of 305 (390652)
03-21-2007 12:23 PM


Concerning the off-topic warnings in Abortion - Moments of (Mis)Conception
Why are discussions about the reasons particular individuals or groups oppose abortion considered off topic when the OP states:

quote:
3) Does the argument put forward by opponents of abortion rely on defining such 'moments', 'points' or 'instantaneous boundaries' between that which should be considered human life and that which should not??

I would think that the discussions that were stated as off-topic were a means of defining that very argument.


Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by AdminPD, posted 03-24-2007 7:44 PM LinearAq has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 120 of 305 (391332)
03-24-2007 3:37 PM


SpongeLikeBattleAxe
to whom it may concern:

I forgive SpongeLikeBattleAxe for his insults on Message 6 and turn the other cheek. He is new here and so this can be expected. I've asked him to take any such concerns as he expressed here.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019