Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,390 Year: 3,647/9,624 Month: 518/974 Week: 131/276 Day: 5/23 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 252 of 305 (405515)
06-13-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Admin
06-13-2007 9:47 AM


Re: admins
She is referring to my Message 274 in the Museum thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Admin, posted 06-13-2007 9:47 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Admin, posted 06-13-2007 11:52 AM AdminPD has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 256 of 305 (405538)
06-13-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by molbiogirl
06-12-2007 8:23 PM


Re: admins
quote:
Chatty?
I can think of 2 things that might mean.
(1) Informal.
(2) Dropping a "personal" note (e.g. the note to Mod)
Yes? No?
I said chat style, not chatty.
IOW, short statements or short questions. Short posts don't usually present the posters position in any depth and make it hard for the discussion to move forward.
Dropping personal notes are fine if done sparingly and they don't trigger a chat cascade. Like I said in Message 274, we like to make the posts count, since there is a limit.
quote:
Cut and paste, tho? I take exception to that characterization.
AFAIK, whenever I have c&p'ed info from a website, I have credited that website*. And tho I can't be sure, after having posted, what 75? times, I would imagine nearly 3/4 of the thoughts/words are mine.
Message 253 is one example.
This is what I can discern are your words in the post.
I assert the following: The "evidence" offered in the 5 exhibits listed below is flawed and/or fictitious.
Furthermore, I assert the following: The "evidence" offered in the 2 videos listed below is flawed and/or fictitious.
Click here (Page not found – bvcsm) to view the multimedia video on the flagellum or click here (Page not found – bvcsm) to view the multimedia video on DNA and information.
As with RAZD and the flood (Message 244), I too will take it in easy steps ... with breaks for you to reply and rebut any of the evidence.
Let's start with Item #1. The geologic column.
The YEC POV
From CHINAPISSING偷窥女WC,白俄罗斯18VIDEOS极品,精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区,日本JAPANESE熟睡人妻 and http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp
From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn
Care to comment, keys?
But no supporting or reasoned argument of your own.
It is also easier for people to see the difference between your words and quotes from web sites if the quotes are put in a quote box of some sort. Again this helps avoid misunderstandings and lets readers know what words you are attributing to the site cited.
Admin has a different view than I do, but the choice is yours on how you wish to proceed, but we do frown upon numerous short posts that don't appear to further the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by molbiogirl, posted 06-12-2007 8:23 PM molbiogirl has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 288 of 305 (410184)
07-13-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Dan Carroll
07-13-2007 3:31 PM


Re: To AdminPD
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-13-2007 3:31 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by berberry, posted 07-13-2007 4:52 PM AdminPD has replied
 Message 290 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-13-2007 4:57 PM AdminPD has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 291 of 305 (410188)
07-13-2007 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by berberry
07-13-2007 4:52 PM


Re: To AdminPD
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by berberry, posted 07-13-2007 4:52 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by berberry, posted 07-13-2007 5:16 PM AdminPD has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 293 of 305 (410208)
07-13-2007 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by berberry
07-13-2007 5:16 PM


Re: To AdminPD
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by berberry, posted 07-13-2007 5:16 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by berberry, posted 07-14-2007 3:08 AM AdminPD has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 299 of 305 (410301)
07-14-2007 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by berberry
07-14-2007 3:08 AM


Re: To AdminPD
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.
TD writes:
I'm really sorry, everytime I see one of you talk about god, I just can't get past all the BS that I see you guys do and say about other people who have never done you any harm.
NJ writes:
Your reasoning goes on thus: I haven't been raped. Since no one has hurt me, rape must be extrapolated and manipulated in to terms that grant its freedom from prohibition.
Actually the person who put gay and rape in the same sentence in that thread is Dan Carroll in Message 80.
Dan writes:
Remember, kids! Being gay is the moral equivalent of rape!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by berberry, posted 07-14-2007 3:08 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by berberry, posted 07-14-2007 8:42 AM AdminPD has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024