General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0

Looks like the evo camp with nosey and crash are up to their old tricks again, falsely moderating, ignoring rebuttals while claiming no rebuttals have been given, falsely accusing of rules violations, etc, etc,......Funny, but whereas I did offer rebuttals, Crash fails to substantiate his allegations, and yet nosey bans me....
Wouldn't be surprised to hear them next start laying out false smears of lying to boot.....character assisination seems the norm for some of these guys.

I have broken no rules on the BookNook thread, and you have failed to demonstrate one area of rules breaking. No specifics given by you whatsoever.....pretty much what I'd expect from someone eager to repeat a smear of someone in their camp to silence a critic.

I've addressed all of your arguments. You are just running to the mods to gain advantage in the debate.For example, the fact that consensus by scientists does not mean that the consensus is accurate as I showed by the fact that over time, scientific consensus changes.That's not dodging your argument but rather rebutting it, despite your insistence to the contrary.Also, here is a good article on Hindu beliefs, something you may want to read. Note: you offered no substantiation for your claims that Hindus do not believe in a Creator/God. Hindus themselves say they do.http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_10/msg00227.htmlNote to admin: not trying to break silence here and not commenting on this point on the moderation, but I was concerned I'd lose this link if I focused on work and came back to this later. It's fairly informative and non-inflammatory.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

OK....guess it's too late for silence, except from here on out, which I will do concerning this.

Crash, this may not be the place per admin requests, but you made claims Hindus do not believe in a Creator/God, right?Hindus say that they do.http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_10/msg00227.htmlYou didn't back up any of your claims, but merely repeated them. I offer this link to correct and inform your opinion on Hinduism better so that we can have a fruitful discussion about that aspect of your claims. Hindus do believe in God, and it is central to Hinduism, but keep in mind, Hinduism is accomadating of a wide area of beliefs, even contradictory beliefs. They do believe God creates reality, but there is a lot of nuance in understanding various schools of Hindu thought. If you hear something about a Hindu school of thought saying the world is eternal, that doesn't really mean they don't think God creates the world, as you surmise. Maybe we can discuss this later on a different thread or the BookNook thread?Unfortunately though, you tried and succeeded in cutting the discussion off in this area and just went back to insisting your claims were correctOn the point about consensus, you are arguing that rational, scientific inquiry leads one to be an atheist, and so are claiming science is an appropiate means to decide if God is real. You go on to make the claim that scientific consensus verifies the superiority of science over religion in this area. So you are claiming scientific consensus means accuracy in this area.Perhaps you didn't realize what I was rebutting, but my point on scientific concensus changing is to show that consensus does not mean accuracy, as you are claiming. This is especially so when consensus is based on an area of science with a severe lack of technology. Technology is the tool of science and is both an enabling and limiting factor for science.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

adminwk, I was civil actually on the thread despite being treated to gems like: But I did not respond in kind, or at least I don't recall doing so. I suppose I should be silent and am not doing too good at that, but really, I didn't violate the forum guidelines on the thread in question, imo.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Not surprising considering the percentage of partisan advocates for the evo side within the moderator camp. If you want to say I was overly combative or provocative several pages back from the suppossed reason for banning me and crash's complaint, fine. What's clear is that Crash's complaint was unjustified as I had answered and was answering all of his points, contrary to his claims, and he, on the other hand, was not doing the same.But an evo appealing to a mod to help them in debate has a long history here as well, and it's not surprising but par for the course, for crash, to go on in the thread to argue against my stance in his remarks, even mentioning my name and making snide comments to boot towards Ray, despite he and nosy's actions insuring I cannot answer back.

Been too busy to post, but just want to say Buzz that things like this need to be said and I am glad you stated it. It's hard to say when someone should follow the advice "a soft answer turns away wrath" and when you should treat someone like Jesus treated the Saduccees (rationalists of his day imo) and the Pharissees. I know I've been more harsh than for my own good, but even if you are kind, you will still get driven off......it's the ideas they don't like, not the style or behaviour.God speed and God bless, and don't let anything that transpired here get you down.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

the ignorance displayed on the topic of QM by most here, except a few, and they were reticient to aknowledge the opinion of many quantum physicists, was never censured. You yourself paraded a ton of misinformation without batting an eye.If Buzz has made mistakes, I can't see where he has been less informed than the average evo poster here.

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

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.

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