General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0

look. i read the post and i didn't think it had a question in it. it's not about neodarwinianism, it's about being able to make a competent post. ok so we don't necessarily know why testicles dangle outside the bodies of mammals. great. since it's a terrible idea, does this make it an argument for id or something?come up with a real question to ask and then someone will promote it.

oh look. admin buz is acting in a thread he's active in against someone he disagrees with when he's incapable of defending his own baseless claims.
http://EvC Forum: Huckabee -->EvC Forum: Huckabee i don't consider "bullshit" to be a vulgar word. get over yourself.

i'm unimpressed. you mean like how you break the rules with each and every post you make by refusing to post any evidence for all your ridiculous claims and then play moral police on the rest of us? really? lets have a poll. sucks. also. i think you missed a verb. and that's nwr's style. not mine. the individual i was responding to responded to me civilly and the discussion has continued thenceforth without issue. i think the problem here is one of moralizing on your part, especially considering the subjective nature of your plaint.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

what exactly does ideology have to do with discussion moderation? NOTHING.

this is what "fair and balanced" means, apparently.

last time i checked, the argument i was involved in wasn't about creationism. it's a cute little box you've built, but it's completely irrational. it was between two christians about whether religion is the only source or morality. that has nothing to do with creationism. just because i *happen* to accept the facts of evolution and nem *happens* to deny them, has nothing to do with the discussion and therefore your "ideological" crap is unwarranted. if by ideological balance, you are instead referring to your moral policework, in a discussion on morality, it's anything but balance.even better, it's already been demonstrated that your moral policework is shoddy and haphazard, what with me being the only case of "bullshit" being called out of 78 alone this month (you know, until recently. i've seen at least 4 more).

and that still leaves unanswered why you're so haphazard in your policing of "vulgarity".just because you're biased doesn't mean i should suffer for your random self-righteousness.

what was "meanspirited", exactly, about my post? your assumptions really bother me. i think it might be related to the increase of baseless bullshit and "meansprited" polarization by people who claim that all people must be biased against those who disagree with them and only people who agree with them exactly are part of their special club and that anyone who disagrees with them is deserving of genocidal atrocities. you know, except for muslims and fake christians. they deserve to be raped with machetes and murdered. oh, i see. he thinks cite refers to the website. this must be why he refuses to give sources for his claims.

under this. but under your other name, you're a regular poster with a terrifying record of hatefulness and unfounded claims. i refuse to respect this side of you because you've given me no reason to. your insistence that i respect you just because of your position isn't buying your admin side any points. congrats, you have magical buttons. using them improperly means you're a bad admin. there's a nice game. how long are you going to use this as an excuse to target me?Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

thank you for that. who decides what is "obvious". considering the uses of "obvious" on this board, i'm unconvinced of the reality of the term.

i would think that it might be neccessary to permit posting in this thread during a suspension. it should be neccessary to endure a wrongful suspension before being able to complain about it. you know, since there's nothing to be given in recompense.and since certain admins have more obvious interpretations that others for obvious. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

it's a waste, since i can't get my 24 hours back but. since when is "ongoing crankiness" against the forum rules?or should i assume it really translates to "inconsistent use of shift key"?i would also like to mention that i was ignored by an admin upon emailing this question nearly 24 hours ago.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

like that means anything.if more members were like me, this board would be a better place. [qs]Imo this action was for your good and the good of all who participate and read.[qs] that's so quaint. but still. what part of the forum guidelines forbid "ongoing crankiness"?

sounds reasonable to me. the clencher is, though, every time he does it in the future, they'll have to suspend him. that will get tiresome since it happens so often.of course, then we'll have to talk about his claims of what liberals think too

i'm not convinced. it's like a security blanket. woven out of hate.