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 2:43 AM
22 online now:
Heathen, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (2 members, 20 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
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 10 of 305 (382596)
02-05-2007 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by arachnophilia
02-05-2007 10:03 AM


Re: how is that off-topic, exactly?
Since you really didn't say anything in your post, tagging it was a tough call. I didn't feel that you addressed the topic.

OP writes:

Why do many people feel it's ok to cherry pick the laws they like from the bible, yet ignore others. Do they know which laws god is still enforcing? ...

I think we can start with the Leviticus laws and discuss why people think it's ok to follow some, but not others.

Your followup in Message 78 is what pushed me towards tagging message 76 as off topic.

arach writes:

does an argument need to be made here, or does it sufficient demonstrate the complexity of leviticus and its place in the torah?

Your question did not lead me to view your point in message 76 as dealing with why people follow certain laws in Lev and ignore others.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 02-05-2007 10:03 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 02-05-2007 10:44 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 66 of 305 (386394)
02-21-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by nator
02-20-2007 3:37 PM


Re: Regarding the "morality & society" thread
Sorry, just saw this.

quote:
It is entirely relevant to the OP, which claims that societies do not determine what is moral, but that people "just know" what is moral.

In fact, I think that discussing objective vs. subjective moraily is EXACTLY on-topic.


How?

In Message 64 anastasia is discussing society and morals. Basically stating that he feels society determines morals.

In Message 78 you state:

Your morality is relative, as is the morality of every person who has ever had a morality.

There is no, and never has been, an objective morality. It's all subjective, and always has been.

But you don't address what that has to do with whether society determines morals or not.

Which leads anastasia off on the "morality is objective" trail with no discussion of of how that pertains to society.

Then your "says who" and a request: Can you give an example of an "objective morality"?

But you never got to the point of what that has to do with whether society determines morals or not.

So since you feel that there is no objective morality, how does arguing about it further the discussion on whether society determines morals or not?

Make your point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 02-20-2007 3:37 PM nator has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 76 of 305 (387866)
03-03-2007 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by cavediver
03-03-2007 7:45 AM


Not a General Discussion Thread
Just a reminder that this is not a general discussion thread.

It is for discussion of moderation procedures.

Since Buz suspended himself, I'm not sure what could be up for discussion since everyone has the right to make themselves inactive.

But if there is a need for discussion, please make sure it concerns the moderation action.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by cavediver, posted 03-03-2007 7:45 AM cavediver has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 92 of 305 (388312)
03-05-2007 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by AdminBuzsaw
03-05-2007 1:46 PM


AdminBuz/Buz Discussion Closed
The discussion concerning the suspension of Buzsaw by AdminBuz is closed.

Since the discussion is not truly dealing with concern about a moderator action; if AdminBuz or others feel they must continue this discussion, please take it to the "Clarfying the Buzsaw Position" thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 03-05-2007 1:46 PM AdminBuzsaw 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

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 121 of 305 (391372)
03-24-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by LinearAq
03-21-2007 12:23 PM


Re: Concerning the off-topic warnings in Abortion - Moments of (Mis)Conception
nator writes:

Why is ending life OK in one instance and not OK in another?

riVeRrat writes:

It's never ok nator, as I said earlier in this thread.

If it's not ok then why do you support the killing of the child of the person who was assaulted?

From the point of view of the human-at-the-point-of-conception crowd, isn't that the same as supporting a mother killing her two-year old son because her husband beat her up?

I don't see where your post or the others were heading towards whether anyones argument against abortion relied on defining the moment of life.

If you feel I have misread them, then make your case with appropriate links.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by LinearAq, posted 03-21-2007 12:23 PM LinearAq has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 124 of 305 (391989)
03-28-2007 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Fosdick
03-28-2007 11:57 AM


Re: Can you cut me a little slack?
quote:
Don't know where to put this reply to Percy's Message 301 (Thread What exactly is natural selection and precisely where does it occur?). It was blocked when the AdminQuetzal closed the thread (per my request).
Once a thread is closed there is no place to get in the last word.

The only other option is a continuation thread if someone feels there is more to be said concerning the subject, not just your personal last response.

This thread concerns problems with moderation action or praises.

So I ask that on one continue the closed thread discussion in this board or discuss Hoot Mon's need for slack.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Fosdick, posted 03-28-2007 11:57 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by ringo, posted 03-28-2007 12:53 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 158 of 305 (396219)
04-19-2007 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Dr Adequate
04-18-2007 8:10 PM


Re: Just Promote ArchArchitect's Topic Already
If you are talking about Where Science And The Bible Meet surely you can contain your yodeling until the originator has time to refine the OP, which does need work.

ArchArchitect is a new member and if promoted, that would be his first originated thread on this board.

I ask that if and when it is promoted, you jump gently and argue constructively.

So please be patient and allow AA the time to present the best OP possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-18-2007 8:10 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 162 of 305 (396271)
04-19-2007 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by graft2vine
04-19-2007 11:35 AM


Re: Image and likeness is on-topic
The point of your topic is that Adam was created on Day 3. You veered off into the NT and didn't clearly explain what the difference in likeness or image has to do with Adam being created on Day 3.

Also remember that your thread is in the Science Forum and per the rules: Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation.

You state:

He was made in the image of the earth and the likeness of the heavens.

But gave no evidence or support of that statement or what it has to do with the creation of Adam.

From what I could tell your post made no point relative to the topic.

Most of your posts in this thread almost give an answer. Please try to provide some clear support for your position concerning Adam being created on the 3rd day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by graft2vine, posted 04-19-2007 11:35 AM graft2vine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by graft2vine, posted 04-19-2007 1:46 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 193 of 305 (398537)
05-01-2007 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Taz
05-01-2007 12:18 AM


Enough Capitalization
That's enough on brenna's capitalization since it really doesn't concern a moderation problem.

No need to examine Brenna's visual history. Suffice it to say there is a reason behind the little letters.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Taz, posted 05-01-2007 12:18 AM Taz has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 194 of 305 (398538)
05-01-2007 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Rob
05-01-2007 1:44 AM


Rob's PNT
Actually you have missed the point, repeatedly.

The point: Rewrite your opening post to clearly state the topic to be discussed and present your position on the subject.

In the PNT, admins do not care what the originator's position is. Our concern is that the opening post presents a clear topic, the title is descriptive, and that the originator has presented their position on the subject and hopefully some support or reasoned argumentation for that position.

Instead of using the suggestions given by admins to help you prepare your OP for promotion, you chose to start debating the subject with the admin trying to work with you.

Your PNT's have been closed because you argued with the admins instead of reworking your OP's.

If you truly want any of your closed topics to be promoted you need to rewrite the OP's per the suggestions from the respective admins. You obviously have reasonable command of the English language, so there is no reason you can't write a clear and concise opening post.

If you are ready to do that, then make a request in the Thread Reopen Request thread for the PNT to be reopened so you can edit the OP and then notify the admin working with you that you are ready for them to review your OP again.

If you do not wish to rework your OPs, then your topics will not be promoted and this issue is closed.

Do not continue debating the PNT issue in this thread or other threads.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Rob, posted 05-01-2007 1:44 AM Rob has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 219 of 305 (400221)
05-11-2007 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Jon
05-10-2007 7:11 PM


Re: @ AdminPD re the 'For the Record' Thread
quote:
I see two options, really. As far as I'm concerned, the entire purpose of message one in that thread was to 'point out' my incompetency in reading/comprehension. Now, nator asked, in message one,
Essentially the thread is about the misrepresentation of her/their position. You also know that she wasn't just talking about you.

quote:
Nator has said: "guns make the violence that is going to happen anyway much more lethal." Apparently she didn't think I understood it when it was worded that way, so she decided to word it this way: "guns make the violence that is going to happen anyway much more lethal." In fact, she posted the same post twice. She also said that she was arguing that GUNS = INCREASED DEATHS, which has been my take on her position from the beginning.
Now you have stated her position correctly, but the issue she had was your misrepresentation of that position in Message 292 of the first gun thread in which you stated:

Jon writes:

Anyway, I now present my statistics. A claim that has been made here over and over again is that increased guns = increased violence, or G=V. A claim that I have and other pro-gunners² have made is that the violence goes much deeper, and is not tied to increased gun ownership; in other words G!=V.

I'm curious where you feel that claim was made. I couldn't find it.

If I have read her posts correctly, Nator's position is that guns do not equal violence or increased violence, but guns do equal increased deaths in violent situations when guns are present. (The scenerio I gave you in chat is an example of that.)

Do you understand the difference between what you said and what her position is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Jon, posted 05-10-2007 7:11 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Jon, posted 05-11-2007 9:29 AM AdminPD has responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 221 of 305 (400239)
05-11-2007 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Jon
05-11-2007 9:29 AM


Re: @ AdminPD re the 'For the Record' Thread
quote:
STOP USING THIS QUOTE MINE! Modulous and I went through this, and I explained that even though the quote said violence, it was MEANT IN THE CONTEXT OF MURDER.
Don't yell at me again.

That quote was the point of the thread whether you like it or not. Did you at any time explain to Nator clearly that your statement in Message 292 was taken out of context? I didn't see that you did.

Your discussion with Modulous wasn't until message 181.

You need to take time to write clearly. Right now you are making blanket statements and having to argue you way out of them, such as:

Message 209

Jon writes:

People only use guns when their intent is MURDER! AND, if what they want to do is KILL, then they will do so however they can. Guns are an easy way to do it, but they are by no means the only.

Then you say that two people misunderstood that statement. Quite frankly it very clearly says, "People only use guns when their intent is Murder!"

Instead of accepting that your statment is in error, you make excuses. Poor excuses at that.

I gave you no warning in the admin msg, my comments were to bring to your attention that you are not communicating clearly. Even though Mod tried to help you, you still were having difficulty.

The bottom line: Pay attention to what you're writing. Learn to communicate clearly with your writing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Jon, posted 05-11-2007 9:29 AM Jon has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 227 of 305 (401472)
05-20-2007 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Buzsaw
05-18-2007 10:56 PM


Re: Questioning AdminPD's Action
As I understand it, the thread is about logical arguments.

Opening Post
Therefore, logical arguments and logic itself simply do not have the power or purview to prove the existence of god or anything about god.

Not just what you consider reasonable:

Imo, it's logical that since his book predicts so many events of world history as accurately as it has shown, this is evidence of his existence. This is corroborated by other factors relative to experience as people of faith et al.

The thread is not about discussing/providing evidence for or against the existence of God.

You still have an old thread open on Bible Prophecies and there are others still open.

If I missed your point concerning logical arguments, please show me what I missed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2007 10:56 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2007 6:53 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 240 of 305 (404934)
06-10-2007 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by RAZD
06-10-2007 11:57 AM


Re: great debates 2 against 1?
Not a problem. If participants are agreeable, invite another to join the debate.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2007 11:57 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2007 6:25 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019