Report discussion problems here: No.2

Hi Mr Jack,I'm sorry that the moderation seems unpredictable to you. Any posts that somehow tie the arguments back to the main topic of living fossils and the specific focus of bats should be fine. I'm sure we all want a meaningful dialog with Calypsis, but achieving this is proving somewhat challenging. If we all pitch in, meaning all the participants and the moderators, we'll have a better chance.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

SpammerEvC Forum: Why, if god limited man's life to 120 years, did people live longer?

Spammer or crank? Not sure but it looks pointless.EvC Forum: Is Jesus Christ alive right now? Also is the comment from about evolution correct?Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Looks like website spammer, certainly not discussion.EvC Forum: The Latest EVolution News

Message #179 of the "Moon" thread contains:

Werner Von Braun was a sinner before he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord. I was a sinner (& an evolutionist) before I accepted Jesus Christ.

​

There is no 'fail' with those who have eternal life through Christ. The failure is with those who never come to know Him.

Off topic and inappropriate for the science forum.This is nothing but preaching! All it lacks is an "Amen" at the end.And this is far from the first occasion.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I'm not one to complain, but am I seriously not allowed to post in the Big Bang threads over some crankyness? No warnings, no suspension, just total removal from those threads, as if I haven't debated in those threads well in the past? Even in that particular "moon" thread, disregarding the (some-what) cranky attitude (call it frustration towards someone who is mocking even the experts in the field - take a look at his reponses to cavediver) I still present a counter position and none of my posts are void of substance.Whatever you guys decide is fine, but that's some petty shit, Moose.- Oni[abe] I hope this was the right thread to bring this up. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Same here. Sure, 3 of my posts were abrasive, but the OP never addressed any rebuttal. I posed information refuting his claims to no avail. It was starting to go round and round, all sides repeating the same argument.A bar from posting in the entire sub-category and not just the thread?

Regarding this: Why not simply instruct these posters not to post again in the salient topic, and only use mechanical bans if they persist? Onifire and hooah are quite capable of doing so, I'm sure.

Just a request for a mod on The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence to lend some focus to the topic. It's another Calypsis thread out of control. I appreciate your efforts so far Nosy but it's going crazy in a short amount of time.

CreationismRules!Posting hit and run nonsense:EvC Forum: TOE and the Reasons for DoubtNot a good example for a first post.{Cleanup done, now we'll see if a second message ever happens - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Sorry about what happened at you new "Proposed New Topic". I was trying to help and it ended up that we were both doing good things but in the process we were working against each other.I'll stay out of that PNT any further. You do the fix ups.Again, sorry about my counterproductive efforts there.AdminnemooseusAdded details by edit:Peg initially posted a short message 3. I replied to that with message 4. I then saw that Peg had added by edit to message 3, making it pretty suitable as the topic starter. So I went to edit message 1 to direct attention to message 3. Unfortunately, while I was editing (hiding text) in message 1, Peg was editing (hiding or deleting text) in message 3 and directing attention back to message 1. So, last time I looked, there was no useful visible text in either message 1 or message 3. At least that's what I think happened.Moral of story - I should have stayed out of the topic after posting my message 4. Peg was doing good and I was blotching things up. Sorry about that.2nd edit: Peg re-re-edited message 3 to have the topic starting material. That version of the PNT has now been promoted to be the new open to debate topic.Far goofier than that time AdminAsgara and I were both editing a message at the same time.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

I am seeing more and more political threads.I, for one, would hate to see this site degenerate into a largely political forum.

Funny you should mention this, because a recent thought has been to start up a whole new board to host political discussions. If there's any interest then I'd need the following:

• Domain and website name suggestions.
  ​
• Someone to "own" the website. They'd have director status and would design the color scheme, select or create the little images or icons, create and name the various forums and divide them into categories, etc.

Any takers?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'm not the most programming knowledgeable person here, but I'm not a dummy, and I enjoy discussing politics, so I think the board idea is a great one, and if no one else steps up, I'd be willing to try my hand at "owning" it...but I will quickly defer if someone with more knowledge and time wants to do it themselves.

See Politics Discussion Board.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director