Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 121 of 312 (426060)
10-04-2007 10:07 PM


oh look, an on-topic post.
personal attacks
another wisecrack on my style, which--in case i need to mention--has been approved by the administration, and blatant name-calling.

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Omnivorous, posted 10-04-2007 11:04 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 122 of 312 (426070)
10-04-2007 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by macaroniandcheese
10-04-2007 10:07 PM


Re: oh look, an on-topic post.
At least he drops that psychotic "We" when he insults you, brenna.
I think they like you.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-04-2007 10:07 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-05-2007 9:29 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 312 (426074)
10-05-2007 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Admin
10-04-2007 12:46 PM


Re: Busy Folk
Admin writes:
I have many times posed the same question to the creationist moderators. Evolutionists firmly rebut their nuttier elements (e.g., Hoot Mon), but creationists seem to allow their nuttier elements free rein. Why aren't more creationists challenging Ray Martinez and IamJoseph and CTD and Vashgun and so forth saying something like, "Hey, dude, you don't speak for all Christians, and I don't agree with the views you're expressing or the way you're expressing them. You're making Christianity look bad."
Because we are too busy keeping up with refuting all the stuff our multiple counterparts in our own debates allege. Some ever active resident evolutionists being the vast majority seem to have lots of time on their hands twiddling their thumbs waiting for the next counterpart minority constituency debate to engage in.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Admin, posted 10-04-2007 12:46 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by anglagard, posted 10-05-2007 2:10 AM Buzsaw has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 124 of 312 (426079)
10-05-2007 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Buzsaw
10-05-2007 12:20 AM


Re: Busy Folk
Buzsaw writes:
Because we are too busy keeping up with refuting all the stuff our multiple counterparts in our own debates allege. Some ever active resident evolutionists being the vast majority seem to have lots of time on their hands twiddling their thumbs waiting for the next counterpart minority constituency debate to engage in.
Why do you persist in abusing your admin powers to debate within the Moderation Procedures Thread? Is it because that's all you have left, and you can only 'win' by further abusing such powers by declaring all rebuttals off topic?
You know what I would like to see? A thread where someone actually defines Christianity in terms of what good it has done, as opposed to any definition of Christianity that only exists as an opposition to the modern world. Is that even possible?
Can you do that? Tell us the good news and make a positive argument instead of limiting your own statements as to what is bad about science instead of what is good about Christianity?
Or is personal 'winning' more important than gaining converts?
Sorry for the somewhat off-topic post but I think Buz is getting too used to abusing his admin status.
ABE - I considered addressing this whole bit about how much supposed time I seem to have on my hands and why this debate is personally important to my family and myself, not to mention the rest of humanity, and how I don't have enough time as I would like to refute the Neo-Taliban, but that would be ruled off-topic, as would any response to this pseudo-insult.
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2007 12:20 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2007 1:30 PM anglagard has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 125 of 312 (426092)
10-05-2007 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by PaulK
10-04-2007 6:40 PM


Re: Higher Debating Standard
PaulK writes:
Hovind's got away with a lot for a long time. He's got a record of fancying himself above the law, and there was a rather unpleasant assault case he was involved in, too. I'm glad that he has finally paid the penalty for something. It needed to be done.
If it is as you say then I have no quibble with justice being applied.
iano writes:
Jar, your looking more like the sickest of psycos with every elapsing minute. God have mercy (and I do say it with extreme difficulty) on your black soul.
PaulK writes:
Quite frankly I have to say that my judgement stands. Especially coming from someone who believes in a literal Hell. Even if the court gave Hovind the maximum sentence - which he would never serve anyway - it would be nothing compared to Hell.
Your judgement never raised itself above the horizontal let alone stand. We have some conjecture about my defending (uber-alles) a man I know virtually nothing about. This I have not done.
The desire that God have mercy on Jars soul was said with difficulty because I am a sinner. I don't love my enemy as I should. But I still desire it - for if God has mercy on Jars black soul then Jar will not go to Hell. This I know because God had mercy upon my black soul 7 or so years ago. I know of what I speak.
You apparently, do not.
quote:
And quite frankly if Dawkins is the closest you can find on the evolutionist side to Hovind then evolution is in great shape. Because there really is no comparison.
I said he was the closest that sprang to mind at the time. After reading The God Delusion (or as much as I could bear) I can't say that the one comes across as anything less of a comedian than the other. One of them does it tongue in cheek (or at least he did before he justly and correctly got hisself banged up).
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2007 6:40 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2007 7:15 AM iano has not replied

AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 312 (426093)
10-05-2007 6:33 AM


Topic!
What do any of these discussions have to do with Moderation Procedures?

What Is A Discussion Board Anyway?

  • New Topics should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Keep them short and don't attempt to explain your entire point in the first post. Allow others to respond so that you can expand your discussion.
  • If you are warned by an administrator or moderator for any reason that is not explained in the Forum Guidelines you can argue your case here.
  • If you are not promoted, feel free to discuss your reasons with the administrator in the Proposed New Topics Forum who responded to your topic proposal. Feel free to edit and modify your topic and inform the administrator that you have done so.
    You may also take your argument here and get feedback from other administrators.
    Usually, we leave topic promotion to the first administrator that responds, unless that administrator invites others to comment.
    ************************************
    "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU"
    AdminPhat

  • PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 127 of 312 (426097)
    10-05-2007 7:15 AM
    Reply to: Message 125 by iano
    10-05-2007 6:13 AM


    Re: Higher Debating Standard
    This point is off-topic so I will simply comment that your response completely ignores my case.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 125 by iano, posted 10-05-2007 6:13 AM iano has not replied

    macaroniandcheese 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
    Posts: 4258
    Joined: 05-24-2004


    Message 128 of 312 (426116)
    10-05-2007 9:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 122 by Omnivorous
    10-04-2007 11:04 PM


    Re: oh look, an on-topic post.
    i doubt that. i'm another fake, devil-worshipping "christian".

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 122 by Omnivorous, posted 10-04-2007 11:04 PM Omnivorous has not replied

    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 129 of 312 (426556)
    10-07-2007 1:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 124 by anglagard
    10-05-2007 2:10 AM


    Re: No Abuse Of Status By Either Of Us
    Anglagard, I was responding to Percy's comment, offering a bonafide reason why Biblle-creos don't critique one another's input. If my response was an abuse of admin power, you're implicating Admin as well. I don't think either were inappropriate for the thread as they both have to do with moderation matters of conduct, behavior and moderation proceedures.

    BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
    The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 124 by anglagard, posted 10-05-2007 2:10 AM anglagard has not replied

    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 130 of 312 (426879)
    10-09-2007 12:25 AM


    Geology & The Great Flood Admin Moderation
    http://EvC Forum: Seashells on tops of mountains. -->EvC Forum: Seashells on tops of mountains.
    Admin writes:
    There's no problem with beginning a rebuttal with something like, "According to the Biblical record," as long as it is followed at some point by the evidence supporting the accuracy of the Biblical account. If no evidence is offered then there is nothing to rebut but the Bible, and the science threads are for scientific discussions, not religious ones.
    The problem which arises here for Bible-creos is that the great flood account is considered by the majority as a story related to religion whereas we see it as a historical event according to what we consider to be a Biblical historical account. The Bible has much history, both verifiable and unverifiable. The more literal of us see Genesis as history. If we are not allowed to refer unverifiable segments of it as such in science threads I think any threads pertaining to the Biblical record should not be in science.
    For example, According to what I believe to be the Biblical historical record sets forth the implication of a global canopy and I purpose to debate my reasons for this. This is unverifiable, but in the canopy thread we debate reason, logic, physics and some evidence in support of the canopy hypothesis. Nevertheless, certain aspects of my statements in that debate include both non-religious and religious phrases. Bible-creos regard both as inclusive in the historical record.
    My point is that the bottom line of Bible-creos debate in the geology/flood threads is that the Bible is a historical record. This is one of the big issues Faith addressed from time to time, adamantly debating for the historicity of the Biblical record.
    If this is not acceptable to you, I propose that we move the threads regarding the flood and the canopy to Faith and Belief.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 131 by anglagard, posted 10-09-2007 1:05 AM Buzsaw has replied
     Message 132 by PaulK, posted 10-09-2007 1:33 AM Buzsaw has replied
     Message 134 by jar, posted 10-09-2007 9:42 AM Buzsaw has not replied

    anglagard
    Member (Idle past 836 days)
    Posts: 2339
    From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
    Joined: 03-18-2006


    Message 131 of 312 (426887)
    10-09-2007 1:05 AM
    Reply to: Message 130 by Buzsaw
    10-09-2007 12:25 AM


    Re: Geology & The Great Flood Admin Moderation
    Sorry Buz, if you and your ilk seek to control education by making any scientific, or for that matter any historic, findings contrary to your dogma, ultimately illegal, I think you owe the rest of us an explanation that works within the parameters of science or history, namely evidence outside of your exclusive interpretation of the Bible.
    I find this forum just fine for balance, especially considering you and your allies have to be treated with lower standards of personal conduct than anyone else, as has been pointed out by jar. Remember, no other religion, be it Deism, Pantheism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, or even the branches of Christianity that are not fundamentalist such as Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox, or the majority of Protestantism, nor are Atheists or Agnostics, allowed the same dispensation.
    IMHO I think you are complaining about not being able to force others to believe as yourself. Your are already treated as special, what now, you want us to provide you a helmet and transportation in the short bus?
    Edited by anglagard, : nevermind
    Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

    Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
    The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2007 12:25 AM Buzsaw has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 135 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2007 9:59 AM anglagard has not replied

    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 132 of 312 (426892)
    10-09-2007 1:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 130 by Buzsaw
    10-09-2007 12:25 AM


    Re: Geology & The Great Flood Admin Moderation
    quote:
    My point is that the bottom line of Bible-creos debate in the geology/flood threads is that the Bible is a historical record. This is one of the big issues Faith addressed from time to time, adamantly debating for the historicity of the Biblical record.
    Or to sum up you don't have logic or reason on your side. You don't have evidence. All you have is a faith in Biblical authority and your own emotional reactions. Yes, this would make it impossible for your side to usefully participate in the Geology and the Great Flood forum.
    Accordingly it seems that your whole post amounts to an admission of defeat. And a vindication of Jar.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2007 12:25 AM Buzsaw has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 133 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2007 9:40 AM PaulK has replied

    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 133 of 312 (426954)
    10-09-2007 9:40 AM
    Reply to: Message 132 by PaulK
    10-09-2007 1:33 AM


    Re: Geology & The Great Flood Admin Moderation
    PaulK writes:
    Or to sum up you don't have logic or reason on your side. You don't have evidence. All you have is a faith in Biblical authority and your own emotional reactions. Yes, this would make it impossible for your side to usefully participate in the Geology and the Great Flood forum.
    Accordingly it seems that your whole post amounts to an admission of defeat. And a vindication of Jar.
    1. Paul, the moderation forum is not for debating who's logic, reason and evidence is credible. In order to determine that conclusively one must address the specific evidence, science, logic and reason in question posted within the debate thread itself as to who has substantially refuted who.
    2. If the side of the debate which espouses the Biblical record regarding the flood is disallowed from debate on the Biblical flood, who's to be debated in the thread?
    3. What do you propose, one sided discussion in the geology/flood science thread, moving the thread to Faith and Belief or some other solution to the problem at hand?

    BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
    The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 132 by PaulK, posted 10-09-2007 1:33 AM PaulK has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 137 by PaulK, posted 10-09-2007 2:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

    jar
    Member (Idle past 393 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 134 of 312 (426955)
    10-09-2007 9:42 AM
    Reply to: Message 130 by Buzsaw
    10-09-2007 12:25 AM


    Not all opinions are equally valid
    My point is that the bottom line of Bible-creos debate in the geology/flood threads is that the Bible is a historical record. This is one of the big issues Faith addressed from time to time, adamantly debating for the historicity of the Biblical record.
    Buz, you and Faith might believe such nonsense but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually true.
    If you want to have things like the Biblical Flood account considered as anything more than a fairy tale you will have to provide the body of evidence and models that support such a position better than the vast body of evidence and models that show the Flood never happened.
    If this is not acceptable to you, I propose that we move the threads regarding the flood and the canopy to Faith and Belief.
    This is simply a continuation of the tactic of demanding special pleading where you declare that your fantasies should be accepted as valid.

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2007 12:25 AM Buzsaw has not replied

    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 135 of 312 (426960)
    10-09-2007 9:59 AM
    Reply to: Message 131 by anglagard
    10-09-2007 1:05 AM


    Re: Geology & The Great Flood Admin Moderation
    anglagard writes:
    IMHO I think you are complaining about not being able to force others to believe as yourself. Your are already treated as special, what now, you want us to provide you a helmet and transportation in the short bus?
    My message was not a complaint. It was addressing a problem as to whether Bible-creos should be allowed to refer to the Bible as record according to our flood/canopy ideology which includes aspects regarded as religious or whether the thread should be moved to Faith and Belief where we can participate in the debate without compromising our ideology.
    Bible-creos regard the religious aspects of the Biblical flood as part and parcel of the Biblical record and as historical. If counterparts want to debate that record, why should we be required to compromise our ideologial views regarding the record. The debate should either be moved to a faith based forum where we can function as Bible-creos or that we should be allowed to debate the flood/canopy inclusive of the whole record which we are debating.

    BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
    The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 131 by anglagard, posted 10-09-2007 1:05 AM anglagard has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 138 by Quetzal, posted 10-09-2007 3:59 PM Buzsaw has replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024