Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 9:24 AM
31 online now:
AlexCaledin, AZPaul3, JonF, Larni, Percy (Admin), Tangle (6 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,810 Year: 8,846/19,786 Month: 1,268/2,119 Week: 28/576 Day: 28/50 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
21Next
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 304 (412363)
07-24-2007 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Hyroglyphx
07-24-2007 2:13 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
Its unassailable at this point that I was, and always have been, making an argument against moral relativism.

We've been asked to discontinue debating this point. Suffice to say, while that may have been the argument you intended to make, you did so in an offensive manner, and you really should have known better (since you've done it before to the exact same reaction.) At the very least, using trigger language like you did makes people respond to your language instead of your argument, so you should reconsider making such comparisons simply from a practical standpoint of not giving your opponents an excuse to avoid your points.

If I say something like "a nigger leaves a train station going south at 50 mph, and a spic leaves another station 50 miles south, going north at 30 mph, how fast are they going when they drive-by each other?" it doesn't really matter that I'm trying to make a point about algebra, not about race. I've been deliberately offensive and opponents, obviously, are going to ignore my much less interesting point and react to my bigotry. Why should I expect them to do any different?

I invite you to use other comparisons in the future, if only out of self-interest.

Please don't take out your frustrations for me out on him.

I haven't been. My criticisms of his moderation have been squarely about his actions (and inaction), not yours.

I actually thought, this, of all things, was going to be what you most agreed with them on.

You quoted a movie. It was appropos of the "confusion" about exactly what sex Berb is. Heck, we get that wrong here all the time. Not everybody chooses a name like "Fred the Dude" which makes their gender abundantly clear.

I didn't really see the issue specific to quoting movies. It was a little frivolous in a thread about moderation, sure, but it was pretty clear to me that what was going on was that you were going to be suspended for the "comparison" issue, but Percy didn't want to appear to contradict the other moderators, and you gave him the tenuous excuse he was looking for.

Maybe that's just the presumption of shady dealings on my part, but c'mon. You guys are falling all over yourselves to present a unified front, here. Look how you're defending Mod, for instance.

Berberry seems to be flustered by just about anything. He seems to be a very touchy fellow.

Or, alternatively, there exists language that is highly provocative to some people but not to you because it stigmatizes a group you don't belong to. You're probably more puzzled than offended if someone were to call you a "nigger" right to your face. If you were a black person, you might feel a lot differently.

When you're thinking about how your language affects other people - which you should be, if you're writing things to other people - you should be thinking about how it would affect a person not at all like you - not how it affects a white, middle-aged cop living in California. I don't expect that's easy to do, so when you invariably offend someone unintentionally, the proper response is to apologize and rethink your language in the future - not put the whole issue on the person who was offended. That's a juvenile way of avoiding responsibility.

if what trivial thing I've said offends him, he's going to blow a gasket when somebody actually uses some derogatory comments about homosexuals against him.

You were the somebody using derogatory language. That's what we've been trying to get across. That it didn't seem derogatory to you is irrelevant - you're not gay. How the hell would you know what is derogatory to homosexuals?

This discussion is concluded. Please Do Not Respond!
Any response to this post or continuation of this subject will lose access to this forum for roughly 24 Hours.

--AdminPD

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-24-2007 2:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 304 (412440)
07-24-2007 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Admin
07-19-2007 1:47 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
quote:
It was only after the suspension that someone made clear that she's a she.

That is a goddamned lie! Anyone who would have made such a thing "clear" is someone who doesn't know what the fuck he or she is talking about. If I were a woman, don't you think (assuming you do think, which isn't at all clear) that I would have corrected all the masculine pronouns that have been used in reference to me?. You just wanted an excuse to attack my manhood by portraying me as an hysterical, menstruating woman. Rrhain was right. That comment was one of the most sexist, homophobic things I've ever seen on this board.

Clearly, you were sending me a message that this is the sort of treatment I can expect if I continue to post here. Message received. Fuck you!

This discussion is concluded. Please Do Not Respond!
Any response to this post or continuation of this subject will lose access to this forum for roughly 24 Hours.

--AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


W.W.E.D.?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Admin, posted 07-19-2007 1:47 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by AdminPD, posted 07-24-2007 8:17 PM berberry has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 198 of 304 (412457)
07-24-2007 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by berberry
07-24-2007 6:31 PM


Gender Neutral Language
quote:
If I were a woman, don't you think (assuming you do think, which isn't at all clear) that I would have corrected all the masculine pronouns that have been used in reference to me?
No.

I don't correct those who refer to me as a "he" unless they are curious. I understand that they are using gender neutral language.

Remember, in English grammar, "he," "him," "his," "man," etc. all can refer to either the male gender or be gender neutral based on context.

Women are used to that and don't usually worry about it.

I don't usually refer to someone as a "she" unless someone has told me the person is a woman. Someone had stated that you are a woman.

We apologize for the mistake. No offense was intended by the gender mistake.

Hopefully you will accept this apology in the spirit it is intended.

This discussion is concluded. Please Do Not Respond!
Any response to this post or continuation of this subject will lose access to this forum for roughly 24 Hours.

--AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by berberry, posted 07-24-2007 6:31 PM berberry has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 199 of 304 (412525)
07-25-2007 8:54 AM


Rrhain and riVeRraT
To Rrhain and riVeRraT:

I removed your permissions in this forum while AdminPD handed out only warnings to others, so for the sake of consistency I've restored your permissions in this forum.

To Everyone:

In the interest of allowing a free rein of expression with no hint of censorship, I think anyone should be able to express themselves in any way they like about moderators and moderation, but not here in this thread. This thread is for discussion with moderators on issues concerning moderators and moderation. If you desire a dialogue with moderators in this thread then please keep it civil and constructive or you could lose your permissions in this forum.

We'll always try to provide sufficient warning, but at this time I believe that more than sufficient warning has already been given, not once but many times. Over at least the next few days, intemperate messages will likely bring a loss of permissions in this forum.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 200 of 304 (412528)
07-25-2007 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by MartinV
07-24-2007 12:56 AM


Re: Readmitting of John Davison
Well, I've thought about this for a bit, and given that half the board has been acting like there's been a full moon for the past week, what the heck, sure. Tell John his full permissions have been restored.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by MartinV, posted 07-24-2007 12:56 AM MartinV has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Brian, posted 07-25-2007 9:13 AM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 202 by John A. Davison, posted 07-25-2007 3:02 PM Admin has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 201 of 304 (412531)
07-25-2007 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Admin
07-25-2007 9:06 AM


Re: Readmitting of John Davison
While you are in this generous mood, any chance of making Ray a moderator, you know to offset the evolutionist bias in the team since Faith (who was more disruptive than Ray), packed her bags?

Brian


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Admin, posted 07-25-2007 9:06 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 202 of 304 (412618)
07-25-2007 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Admin
07-25-2007 9:06 AM


Re: Readmitting of John Davison
Thank you Percy and Martin as well. My position has remained pretty much the same as it was when I was last here. I have rejected both an evolution driven by chance and Fundamentalist Creationism. To simplify my perspective and bring it up to date I direct you to the following -

http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=49#000728

which pretty much summarizes my position with respect to both factions and their major forums from which I have been banned. They include Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb, Uncommon Descent, Dawkins' fan club and ARN. I am not even allowed to view the last two from this computer.

I welcome the opportunity to present my convictions at any venue where that is allowed. Forums that must ban potential critics no longer interest me. They all too often prove to be intolerant "groupthinks."

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Admin, posted 07-25-2007 9:06 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Admin, posted 07-25-2007 4:08 PM John A. Davison has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 203 of 304 (412631)
07-25-2007 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by John A. Davison
07-25-2007 3:02 PM


Re: Readmitting of John Davison
Hi John, welcome back!

John A. Davison writes:

I welcome the opportunity to present my convictions at any venue where that is allowed. Forums that must ban potential critics no longer interest me. They all too often prove to be intolerant "groupthinks."

I presume most discussion boards have the same take as this one, namely that the more interesting, intriguing, controversial, etc., are the viewpoints presented, the more popular the board will be. I'm sure all the boards you mentioned, and certainly this one, welcome viewpoints like yours. You get banned everywhere because you refuse to follow the rules everywhere.

Nothing has changed here regarding the Forum Guidelines. Follow the Forum Guidelines and you'll keep your permissions. Become a moderator headache by committing constant Forum Guidelines violations and you won't.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by John A. Davison, posted 07-25-2007 3:02 PM John A. Davison has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by John A. Davison, posted 07-25-2007 8:05 PM Admin has responded
 Message 207 by MartinV, posted 07-26-2007 3:31 PM Admin has responded

  
John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 204 of 304 (412688)
07-25-2007 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Admin
07-25-2007 4:08 PM


Re: Readmitting of John Davison
Percy

Do you suggest that P.Z. Myers has ever welcomed me at Pharyngula, that William Dembski has ever welcomed me at Uncommon Descent, that Wesley Elsberry has ever welcomed me at Panda's Thumb? So it would seem from your response. I am sorry that you insist on laying the reponsibility on me as you have just done. I don't see much future for me here on my return to EvC. I have always entered every forum with the same intention I have when I submit a paper for publication. It is to enlighten that audience with my convictions and those of the several distinguished sources on which my own are so firmly established. With virtually no exceptions, including my past reception here, I have been met with vitriol, denigration, isolation and ultimate bannishment. I will continue to hold forth in my usual forthright manner, ridiculing the Darwinian myth and its primary spokespersons, P.Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins, Wesley Elsberry and all others who still support the most failed hypopthesis in the history of science. I will do the same with those that try to force the fossil record into a Fundamentalist straight jacket. If that is unsatisfactory to the moderators here at EvC, feel free to ban me again right now.. One more blog more or less means very little to me at this stage in my career. The truth is not subject to debate, only to discovery and exposure.

I am not on trial here or anywhere else. It is my "prescribed" destiny to expose both sides of this idiotic debate, a debate that should never have taken place.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Admin, posted 07-25-2007 4:08 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Admin, posted 07-25-2007 8:35 PM John A. Davison has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 205 of 304 (412694)
07-25-2007 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by John A. Davison
07-25-2007 8:05 PM


Re: Readmitting of John Davison
Well, it was a short stay. Bye.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by John A. Davison, posted 07-25-2007 8:05 PM John A. Davison has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Chiroptera, posted 07-26-2007 1:33 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6616
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 206 of 304 (412851)
07-26-2007 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Admin
07-25-2007 8:35 PM


Re: Readmitting of John Davison
Heh. I would have waited until he actually began to hold forth in his usual forthright manner, but your way is good, too.


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Admin, posted 07-25-2007 8:35 PM Admin has not yet responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3991 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 207 of 304 (412870)
07-26-2007 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Admin
07-25-2007 4:08 PM


Re: Readmitting of John Davison
quote:

You get banned everywhere because you refuse to follow the rules everywhere.

I am not sure this is the case. Some forums like AtBC or Pharyngula are full of people who only denigrate the others. They are allowed to do so because they are darwinists - they do not break any rules whatever abuses they use. If you pay with the same coin - that's what John Davison has done - he has broken rules. It is weird discussion when you are denigrated but when you response the same way you break the rules. This is the problem of Pharyngula no doubt.

Same for me - I was banned from AtBC and Pharyngula under stupid
pretext I am John's sockpuppet. Obviously admins were able to chceck my IP address but they didn't do so. Now they readmitted me at AtBC but main bulk of darwinists there only use abuses. They do not braek any rules.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Admin, posted 07-25-2007 4:08 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Chiroptera, posted 07-26-2007 3:53 PM MartinV has not yet responded
 Message 213 by Admin, posted 07-26-2007 8:14 PM MartinV has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6616
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 208 of 304 (412873)
07-26-2007 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by MartinV
07-26-2007 3:31 PM


Re: Readmitting of John Davison
They are allowed to do so because they are darwinists - they do not break any rules whatever abuses they use.

Abusive language is not necessary in an argument using evidence and logic. If your argument is based on logic and evidence, you do not need to be abusive. Therefore, it does not put you at a disadvantage if you are not allowed to be abusive while those arguing against you are.

So, if you or Davison don't want to be banned, don't be abusive. You and Davison don't need to be, and, in fact, your argument looks better when you keep to the high ground.


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by MartinV, posted 07-26-2007 3:31 PM MartinV has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4011 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 209 of 304 (412875)
07-26-2007 4:01 PM


Nosy over extending his nose....
Nosy:
Since you find the topic so uninteresting that you can't stay on it I have indefinitely removed your access to "Origin of Life".

Now that's rich...

I was actually very much sticking (after a brief departure into preaching which was adequately dealt with by said Admin) to the topic of origins. Right on the topic in fact. What I wasn't doing... was offering ideas on how to synthesize nucleotides.

If your going to ban me from origin of life discussions, please do so on that basis. For simply being off topic for the sub-topic (a pattern that I confess persists). Ban me for refusal to bow in submission to your 'theo' and it's stringent and incoruptable rules. Holiness is not something I am supposed to violate!

:laugh:

What I was doing, was showing the blatent inablity of the problem being solved. I was also exposing evolution for the fraud that it is in temrs of 'emperical credibility'. And the true reason for my banishment from the arena of ideas, is for the simple reason that I am continuing and learning to do so, effectively.

I refuse to take the mark, play by unfair rules and presuppositional bias, and am therefore not permitted to buy or sell or trade in the marketplace of EVC. Such is the nature of the beast.

So be it...

The rest of you beware. Either be beaten into submission and chained like some 'mind slave' to demigods like Nosy Ned, or learn to think for yourself.

No trying to 'prove' anything here... but it's definitely fascinating.

Then again, maybe it's all just coincidence...

All of this will easily enough be cast aside as the rant of a mad man. Don't worry Ned, your have them right where you want them; under your thumb.

I think I was beginning to lift the veil in a couple cases. You stepped in, right in the nick of time...

It was a close one...

So, good luck to all the newbie creationists... it's gonna be a long ride for you here at EVC.

It will temper you or break you. Erring now on the side of temperment, you'll start out optimistic, be severely dissapointed, learn more than you could possibly imagine in a very short time about your adversary, you'll marvel at the beast, and then eventually walk away, laughing at it's incompetance and obstinance.

Yet always be willing to reach out again and tell the truth...

I guess molbiogirl, Doddy, Matt P, and Kuresu are not strong enough in the mind of Nosy to keep me under control. Do you four concur?

Perhaps I Am the beast who needs to be banished in the end. One thing is certain; a beast will be banished.

As other members and past members of EVC have told me privately... it's the same old thing. It's truely fascinating.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by kuresu, posted 07-26-2007 5:14 PM Rob has responded
 Message 217 by Doddy, posted 07-27-2007 2:54 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 675 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 210 of 304 (412889)
07-26-2007 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Rob
07-26-2007 4:01 PM


Re: Nosy over extending his nose....
I'll note that in your yet again incomplete and false refutation of my argument that you did not go all the way back. Your source stopped at the greek "theorein". It goes further back, though.

Again, from http://www.etymonline.com/:

from L.L. theoria (Jerome), from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see.

You'll see that the etymology goes back at 2 more words. From theorein, which is from theoros, which is from thea + horan. And notice how all those "theo" words have nothing to do with god? Until you can refute that theory comes from "thea + horan", you'll have to accept that. And a refutation is not "But is has "theo" in it!! See! See! That does mean it comes from the word for god!!"

Oh, and now I see that the martyr is back:

What I was doing, was showing the blatent inablity of the problem being solved. I was also exposing evolution for the fraud that it is in temrs of 'emperical credibility'. And the true reason for my banishment from the arena of ideas, is for the simple reason that I am continuing and learning to do so, effectively.

Grow up.

learn more than you could possibly imagine in a very short time about your adversary, you'll marvel at the beast, and then eventually walk away, laughing at it's incompetance and obstinance.

If this wasn't directed at people like me, I would have thought you wre describing yourself, especially in regards to your continued, and false, argument that theory comes from theo, when it actually comes from "thea + horan". You have yet to deal with the fact that the furthest back either of us can find is that the root is "thea + horan". And the fact that all the greek words with "theo" in it [in reference to all the etymology of 'theory'] have to deal with contemplation, speculation, or looking at something.

Can you find an earlier root word that contradicts or refutes? I doubt it, considering all you do is bring up the etymology that stops at "theorein".

Finally:

What I wasn't doing... was offering ideas on how to synthesize nucleotides

Um, Rob, that is the topic. See, the big forums, like "Origin of Life" is just a way to organize all the threads that get started. Otherwise, every single thread would be in a place like the coffee house forum. The actual topic is based off of the thread title and the OP. I wasn't being on topic either, but I'll be damned to see you use words like 'theo'rizing when its been shown to you that theo has no place in the etymology of theory.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Rob, posted 07-26-2007 4:01 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by AdminNosy, posted 07-26-2007 5:31 PM kuresu has responded
 Message 212 by Rob, posted 07-26-2007 5:52 PM kuresu has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019