Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 166 of 312 (432500)
11-06-2007 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Admin
11-06-2007 10:14 AM


Re: The 24/7 In Your Face One
The edit was to add the first two verses from Genesis 1 to make it clear that day and night, morning and evening existed before the sun or moon.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Admin, posted 11-06-2007 10:14 AM Admin has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 167 of 312 (432701)
11-07-2007 8:24 PM


Admin Nem's Decision
I disagree with his decision labelling pointmanzero's topic as not a topic. This board has promoted similar arguments in the past, both for creo and evo positions.
If anything, refer him to those.

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by AdminNem, posted 11-07-2007 10:31 PM kuresu has not replied

AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 312 (432724)
11-07-2007 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by kuresu
11-07-2007 8:24 PM


Re: Admin Nem's Decision
I disagree with his decision labelling pointmanzero's topic as not a topic. This board has promoted similar arguments in the past, both for creo and evo positions.
I don't understand why you are objecting to that. Requesting a list of creationist arguments is not a topic. There's no argumentum, there's no question, there is nothing to discuss other than doing all the work for his class.
I then provided him a link where he can get all of the creationist arguments in a single source.
What's the problem?
http://EvC Forum: I need a list of all creationist arguments. -->EvC Forum: I need a list of all creationist arguments.
Edited by AdminNem, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by kuresu, posted 11-07-2007 8:24 PM kuresu has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 169 of 312 (434759)
11-17-2007 7:01 AM


AdminPD
Might you be inappropriately using your Admin status to lean on me, perhaps because you are resentful of what happened to you in the Misunderstanding Empiricism thread?

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by molbiogirl, posted 11-17-2007 8:20 AM nator has not replied
 Message 171 by AdminPD, posted 11-17-2007 8:23 AM nator has replied
 Message 172 by Admin, posted 11-17-2007 8:24 AM nator has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 170 of 312 (434770)
11-17-2007 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by nator
11-17-2007 7:01 AM


Re: AdminPD
Nator, I had that exact same thought last night when I read AdminPD's comment.
It's so blatant!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by nator, posted 11-17-2007 7:01 AM nator has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 171 of 312 (434771)
11-17-2007 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by nator
11-17-2007 7:01 AM


Re: AdminPD
No Dear.
My Admin Message was very clear concerning the issue.
Members do have a choice of who they respond to.
Continuing to demand a response is badgering.
Now we have a useless thread because you didn't get the hint that the member doesn't wish to respond to your post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by nator, posted 11-17-2007 7:01 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by nator, posted 11-18-2007 9:35 AM AdminPD has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 172 of 312 (434772)
11-17-2007 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by nator
11-17-2007 7:01 AM


Re: AdminPD
Let's all just try to get the thread (mind reading) back on the rails. I'll see what I can do to help.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by nator, posted 11-17-2007 7:01 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 173 of 312 (434954)
11-18-2007 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by AdminPD
11-17-2007 8:23 AM


Re: AdminPD
quote:
Members do have a choice of who they respond to.
Yes.
Nobody forces anybody to post here.
Posting here is 100% dependent upon the person choosing to post.
There is no possible way that someone can post here unless it is of his or her own utterly and completely free will.
quote:
Continuing to demand a response is badgering.
Please show where I "demanded" a response.
Quote me directly, please.
Even if I did "demand" a response, though, I just agreed with you that:
Nobody forces anybody to post here.
Posting here is 100% dependent upon the person choosing to post.
If he doesn't want to respond, then nothing in the world can force him to, right?
quote:
Now we have a useless thread because you didn't get the hint that the member doesn't wish to respond to your post.
Useless? Not at all.
Pointing out hypocrisy and fallatious reasoning is never useless.
We can discuss Pertophysic's claims without him, and we can discuss how easy it is for people to self-delude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by AdminPD, posted 11-17-2007 8:23 AM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by AdminPD, posted 11-18-2007 12:17 PM nator has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 174 of 312 (434970)
11-18-2007 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by nator
11-18-2007 9:35 AM


Re: AdminPD
Your original post in the transcendent thread was Message 55 to which Petro did not respond.
Your friendly reminder in Message 95 to which he also did not respond.
nator writes:
Hey, Petro, any thoughts on my critique and questions found in message #55?
Another inquiry in Message 119
nator writes:
Petro, I wondered if you missed this message?
His response in Message 121 was that he did not miss the post, which should tell you that he chose not to respond to it. (October 25th)
He also felt pursuing it would be off topic and he was backed up by AdminQuetzal.
Petro did not intimate that he wanted to continue a discussion with you in a new thread.
On November 14th in Message 89 of the Rationalism thread you invited Petro to the mind reading thread you would be starting.
nator writes:
Speaking of irrationality, why don't you join me over at the thread I'm going to start on mind reading and the people, like you, who think they can do it?
Again Petro did not respond in that thread or the new mind reading thread.
In Message 5 of the Mind Reading thread you even said the only reason you called him out was because he called liberals irrational.
nator writes:
The whole reason I called him out on this thread is because he took a shot at liberals in another thread, specifically calling most of us "irrational".
After two days of no response from Petro you bump the thread with Message 6.
C'mon, don't you want to discuss your mad skillz?
When he finally responds with the inappropriate Midol comment, you seem surprised that he is upset. Message 15
nator writes:
Petro, how do you think it looks to everyone that you have resorted to calling me a bitch instead of actually addressing the OP? I haven't called you any names, yet here you are, getting all emotional and lashing out, um...irrationally.
Is it really irrational to lash out at someone who is goading you and can't take the hint to back off?
Holding someone's "feet to the fire" usually smacks of demanding.
nator writes:
I am not a "bitch" for holding your feet to the fire regarding your claim of being a mind reader, nor for starting this thread in response to your incredibly ironic accusation that liberals are irrational.
You didn't take the subtle hints, so he had to get aggressive, not that that excuses his inappropriate response.
quote:
If he doesn't want to respond, then nothing in the world can force him to, right?
That's easy for an antagonist to say. At some point people will try to defend themselves especially if they wish to continue on this board and the issue is brought up in unrelated threads and hinders discussion.
Per the forum guidelines though, the antagonist does not have the option to cast aspersions or deride those who do not respond. That is not respectful behavior.
Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
You may not be calling anyone bad names, but you were trying to needle him into responding. Hence your persistence.
I do feel that this tactic of yours is in violation of Rule #10.
IMO, each thread is new (aside from continuations obviously), with no debating mistakes. Even though a member may have painted themselves into a corner in another thread, they have a chance to use better tactics in a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by nator, posted 11-18-2007 9:35 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by nator, posted 11-20-2007 7:19 AM AdminPD has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 312 (435055)
11-18-2007 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Admin
11-06-2007 10:14 AM


Re: The 24/7 In Your Face One
My apologies for the response delay. I've been on the road and visiting relatives across the country.
If it was an isolated thing I'd have no problem. It's consistent personal cheap shot insults that get problematic. I doubt that such conduct would be tolerated by the minority membership.
Item 10 of the guidelines reads, "Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics. "
The message you cited is quite typical of Jar's disrespectful abrassive MO. The title begins with, "Gotta quit misrepresenting the Bible Buz." It ends with, "Have you ever read the Bible Buz?"
This member who consistently denies about every one of the scores of supernatural events in the Bible needles and goads Biblical literatists with this disrespectful personal insult, harrassment and abuse rather than simply debating the position.
I'm not advocating any admin action at this time but would appreciate some admonition from admins if this conduct continues to be problematic.

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 165 by Admin, posted 11-06-2007 10:14 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 11-18-2007 9:27 PM Buzsaw has replied

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


Message 176 of 312 (435071)
11-18-2007 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Buzsaw
11-18-2007 6:50 PM


Re: The 24/7 In Your Face One
I assume you have some evidence to present showing where I have attacked the poster instead of the content?
Is pointing out where you misrepresent the Bible an insult?
Since your posts misrepresent what is actually in the Bible is it unreasonable to ask if you have read it?
The particular post you are whining about says:
Genesis writes:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning”the first day.
So each day was light and dark, even before there was a Sun.
No need of a Sun or Moon.
Have you ever read the Bible Buz?
Is there anything in there that is not addressing your Message 14 where you said:
Buz writes:
"The Bible does not designate the length of the days before day 5 after the sun and moon were created."
It is quite clear from what I posted that the Bible does specify the length of a day in EXACTLY the same method as used after the Sun and Moon are created.
See Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights”the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning”the fourth day.
Look at Genesis 1:5
"5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning”the first day."
and Genesis 1:19 which is after the creation of the Sun and the Moon:
"19 And there was evening, and there was morning”the fourth day."
Exactly the same description is used both before and after the creation of the Sun.
Buz, if you are going to get upset when folk point out that you misrepresent what is in the Bible, there is a simple solution; stop misrepresenting what is in the Bible.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2007 6:50 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Buzsaw, posted 11-19-2007 7:49 PM jar has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 177 of 312 (435188)
11-19-2007 6:05 PM


Simple aka reversespin
Admins.
Is it true, as RAZD suggests, that "simple" is one and the same with "reversespin"?
If so, "reversespin" needs to be banned indefinitely as well.

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2007 6:10 PM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 180 by jar, posted 11-19-2007 6:54 PM molbiogirl has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 178 of 312 (435189)
11-19-2007 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by molbiogirl
11-19-2007 6:05 PM


Re: Simple aka reversespin
hover over his name and you will see a list that starts with Bret, Charley, Craig, johnfulton, the Golfer ... his aliases in alphabetical order, so if it listed all of them would include Tom, Simple and whatever (the first name I knew him by).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by molbiogirl, posted 11-19-2007 6:05 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by DrJones*, posted 11-19-2007 6:20 PM RAZD has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 179 of 312 (435195)
11-19-2007 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by RAZD
11-19-2007 6:10 PM


Re: Simple aka reversespin
I don'think simple = whatever/reversespin. Simple tends to the "it was all different in the past" arguement, while whatever takes scientific studies/articles (like the peat moss one) and claims that they support his arguement even when they clearly don't. Both of them do continually create new IDs and retrun after they've been suspended/banned.

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2007 6:10 PM RAZD has not replied

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


Message 180 of 312 (435199)
11-19-2007 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by molbiogirl
11-19-2007 6:05 PM


Re: Simple aka reversespin
It is unlikely that simple and whatever are the same person. However, they both use multiple ips, create new aliases, register new accounts while banned, tend to show back up and leave at the same general times, post nothing but absolute rubbish, and contribute nothing except disruption.
In his, her, their defense, over the years they have posted some of the funniest messages ever at EvC, exceeding the humor contributions of such notables as Buz, Ray, JimSDA (certainly a contender), Lysimachus or even Eddy Pengelly. I miss Eddie.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by molbiogirl, posted 11-19-2007 6:05 PM molbiogirl 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