General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0

I agree that that is relevant, but I think AdminPD shut it down because of Nemesis Juggernaut and his theocratic politics.

If that is indeed the case then perhaps I owe an apology. I suppose we'll see.

---

W.W.E.D.?

RR provided background on what spawned his question.The discussion concerns atheists and their last breath. RR feels they would turn to God. The opposite position from that is that they won't.As far as I know, Christian beliefs are irrelevant to whether an atheist will turn to God on his/her deathbed. Quibbling over who is tolerant and who isn't is irrelevant to whether an atheist will turn to God on his/her deathbed. Who babbles more about their beliefs is irrelevant to whether an atheist will turn to God on his/her deathbed.If people feel that those things are relevant to support their position concerning whether an atheist would turn to God on their deathbed, then people need to show how their argument supports their position concerning the deathbed. Connect the dots at the end of your post.What I see right now is the same old Christian vs Atheist argument.Take a new approach people.

In that case I don't believe I owe any apology at all. I repeat my earlier observation that, as you've done more than once in the past, you fail to see a moralizing, condescending attitude toward non-Christians and gays as insulting. It is only harsh language that you ever seem to notice.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Well then, I can see how what an atheist believes, how that belief differs from the beliefs of those who would turn to God, and what effect that belief has on the person believing it would be totally irrelevant. Another excellent moderating job, PD.

---

"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

I replied to your message because of the f word which is unacceptable, but the post was to everyone who was off track. Just too many things to note.You have no idea what I consider insulting. Moderating isn't necessarily based on personal preference.

The 'f' word has been used on this board for years. Again, there was nothing in that post that was any more insulting that nemjug's condescending and moralizing attitude toward gays and non-xians. You seem to be blind to that, and it calls to mind how you were only too willing to accept that man's patronizing, sham "apology" to me for comparing gays to animals in one of the Haggard threads last year.My post should not have been singled out in any way whatsoever!

---

W.W.E.D.?

quote:

---

The 'f' word has been used on this board for years.

---

And people get dinged for it depending on how it is used. From a moderator standpoint your post is a sign a situation is brewing.

quote:

---

Again, there was nothing in that post that was any more insulting that nemjug's condescending and moralizing attitude toward gays and non-xians.

---

What in Nem's post mentions gays or non Christians?

First of all, I'm not a creationist. I'm an ID'ist. Secondly, I didn't revive anything. It was a brand new thread. What are you talking about?All you have to do is address my post IN Showcase if you have a problem with it and debate the issue there instead of running in here and making slanderous accusations. You want to talk about sleazy tactics, yet here you are crying to the Admins over spilled milk. What exactly do you want them to do, Paul? Order me not to use the Showcase forum?I just so happen to respond to the threads that interest me. The one in Showcase just so happened to interest me. Seriously, what's the problem?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Berberry,AdminPD did the right thing by temporarily closing the thread. We all drifted off topic. I include myself in that indictment. This is why we have Moderators in the forums.Don't take it personally. Its not directed to you, personally. We all were drifting OT.With that said, I think it would be wise for you to tone down the aggression. We are here to debate. Debating is supposed to be both recreational and educational.Of course we are not all going to agree. (Kind of hard to debate someone you agree with). Is it going to get heated? Are some people's feelings going to get hurt sometimes, even if that wasn't the intent? Yes. But lets not lose focus of what this means. At the very least, take from it a way to sharpen your debate skills and to learn something that perhaps you didn't know before.If we can't keep it civil and in perspective, then some people are going to be banned or suspended. I think I can speak for us all when I say that we enjoy your company; we enjoy your contributions; and this place would be a little different without you in it.We want you to stay and be a part of EvC. But not at the expense of EvC drifting in to the unmoderated free-for-all's that pervade other forums.

---

Thou shalt not have any other Mods before Me

AdminPD writes:

quote:

---

And people get dinged for it depending on how it is used.

---

But they do not get "dinged" for assuming an insulting air of moral superiority and talking down to gays and non-xians, do they? Certainly not by you!

quote:

---

What in Nem's post mentions gays or non Christians?

---

Look at the passage I quoted, then look in an adjacent post where he compares gay sex to rape. You know, I should think you'd be capable of seeing this yourself, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you can't.

---

W.W.E.D.?

If you wish to communicate with me then respond to the message I wrote you. Otherwise, shut the hell up!

---

W.W.E.D.?

quote:

---

First of all, I'm not a creationist. I'm an ID'ist. Secondly, I didn't revive anything. It was a brand new thread.

---

Virtually all IDists are Creationists. So that's not much of aa distinction. And your second point is disproven by the dates in the thread itself. The first post was possted on 04-08-2007. Your reply was posted on 07-08-2007. That's three months. April to July. So you did revive a months-old thread, and - given the way this forum works - it would be hard for you not to know it.

quote:

---

What are you talking about?

​

All you have to do is address my post IN Showcase if you have a problem with it and debate the issue there

---

Not true. I believe that I currently have access to Showcase, however that was granted to pursue one particular thread - not that one. So by replying to you I would be going against the conditions under which the access was granted. Unless access has been generally opened - which I have no memory of - then many people have no access to Showcase.

quote:

---

instead of running in here and making slanderous accusations. You want to talk about sleazy tactics, yet here you are crying to the Admins over spilled milk. What exactly do you want them to do, Paul? Order me not to use the Showcase forum?

---

I would like the Admins to close the thread and make you go through the usual process to start a thread. i.e. actually follow the forum rules rather than let you take advantage of the Showcase forum. What is wrong about that ?And I love the double standard. Telling the truth about you is a "slanderous accusation" - while you feel free to make vicious and baseless accusations against anybody who doesn't agree with your views. It's just so typical.

quote:

---

I just so happen to respond to the threads that interest me. The one in Showcase just so happened to interest me. Seriously, what's the problem?

---

There are two problems that I believe should be addressed by moderation. The evasion of forum rules. The abuse of the Showcase forum.

I do my best to keep debates from getting personal, but this is a debate board and the nature of the beast is opposition. Being generically candid, as opposed to being politically correct, is allowed. The rules require that it be done as inoffensively as possible. There's not much we can do if you find disagreement offensive.

quote:

---

Look at the passage I quoted, then look in an adjacent post where he compares gay sex to rape. You know, I should think you'd be capable of seeing this yourself, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you can't.

---

Your quote came from Nem's Message 81 and doesn't mention gays, non-Christians, or rape.Now in Nem's Message 79 gays are mentioned, but he was quoting TD's Message 44. Taken at face value, Nem's comment in Message 79 concerning rape had nothing to do with gays. It was a response to a different comment by TD. Actually the person who put gay and rape in the same sentence in that thread is Dan Carroll in Message 80. Participants and Moderators on this board come from various backgrounds, cultures, beliefs, and gender differences. There are catch phrases, slang, innuendos, etc. that we may miss due to these differences.Getting annoyed with me because I don't see what is obvious to you, doesn't help me see your position.
Sometimes we find that because of our own background, culture, etc., that an insult is seen where none is intended.So if I have still missed the phrase that offended you, yes, you are going to have to be very specific.
Provide the link, quote it, star it, underline it, and circle it!Then clearly explain how it was offensive within the context of his complete message and the message he was responding to.

AdminPD writes:

quote:

---

There's not much we can do if you find disagreement offensive.

---

I don't know how much more clearly I can state it, but I'll say it once again: It is the condescending air of moral superiority that I find not merely offensive but deeply insulting. I am not offended by disagreement and I resent the implication that I am.See if you can follow this:Here's Taz: It should be clear that Taz is referring to "other people" who do not share that idiot's "moral framework". That would include gays. If it isn't clear enough, then read the entire post, which specifically mentions nemjug's condescending attitude toward gays.nemjug responds: The comparison of gay sex to rape is crystal clear. If it isn't clear to you, then just what do you think that moralizing bastard was talking about?You can go back to my post, the one that started all of this, for an example of his presumption of moral superiority over non-xians.This is a long-standing pattern with nemjug, going back much further than even his comparison of gays to animals last year (then as now, by the way, it was not his insult but my response which drew your ire). I should think anyone of even the meanest intelligence, if not "washed in the blood of jesus" or what the fuck ever, would be able to detect nemjug's condescending and patronizing attitude toward anyone, and especially gays, who do not share his narrow-minded and unabashedly bigoted world-view.

---

W.W.E.D.?