Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report discussion problems here: No.2
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 181 of 468 (535953)
11-18-2009 9:33 PM


Ochaye in "does the book of Mormon..' thread
Ochaye is exhibiting troll-like behaviour in the "Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible" thread in Faith & Belief.
He's listed top of the number-of-posts list (96 posts) but appears to be averaging a sentence or two per post - which generally have a sincere-but-neverthelesstroll-like flavour eminating from them.
This latest twisting of things (w.r.t. his target, Bluejay), is fairly representitive of the reasons why people breathe a sigh of relief on arriving at EvC from other, wilder, debate sites.
-
Bluejay in the context of an original point writes:
If it was possible for Old Testament people to work their way to heaven, why is it not possible for us now?
Message 317
-
Ochaye, snipping/adding a couple of words from/to what Bluejay writes, suggests that Bluejay writes:
Old Testament people were able to work themselves to heaven.
In response to this rearranged rendition of Bluejay's..
Ochaye, interrogating his own twisted version of Bluejay's position writes:
Do you agree with that, or not?
Straight answer.
Message 319
Straight answer to a crooked question? God forbid Ochaye considers this helping 'the Lords work'.

CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 182 of 468 (536512)
11-23-2009 2:04 PM


Bolder-Dash is not staying on topic. It is so full of junk that I am barely able to get through his last post. I'm "invested" in that thread and want no further part in his idiocy about issues completely off topic. In other words it would be nice to just inform him about his question and not have to write an entire book of biology out to him in a response.

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Admin, posted 11-23-2009 4:23 PM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 183 of 468 (536534)
11-23-2009 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by CosmicChimp
11-23-2009 2:04 PM


After skimming through BD's posts I wasn't able to discern anything particularly amiss, but I'll keep an eye on the thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by CosmicChimp, posted 11-23-2009 2:04 PM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 7:32 AM Admin has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 184 of 468 (536630)
11-24-2009 10:48 AM


Why can't I post in the Great Debate thread?

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Huntard, posted 11-24-2009 12:14 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 185 of 468 (536665)
11-24-2009 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Dr Adequate
11-24-2009 10:48 AM


My guess...
Because you weren't invited

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2009 10:48 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 186 of 468 (536948)
11-25-2009 9:57 PM


Blocking someone
No matter how amicable, calm or collected I try to be with a certain poster here, he is insistent on being combative to the point where reason and fairness is an impossible task.
Is there any function on this forum where you can personally block certain individuals from harassment?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2009 5:26 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 187 of 468 (536966)
11-26-2009 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2009 9:57 PM


Re: Blocking someone
Hyroglyphx writes:
Is there any function on this forum where you can personally block certain individuals from harassment?
Not at this time, though Percy has mentioned he was thinking about a block function.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2009 9:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 188 of 468 (536983)
11-26-2009 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Admin
11-23-2009 4:23 PM


In response to my post about natural selection's ability to cause evolutionary change, I present the following:
1. It was my post, and I know exactly what I was asking for in my post. I asked for how it has been shown that natural selection can cause EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. Why did you allow ten different posts to challenge the assertion that I was never talking about evolutionary change in my OP?
2. As you pointed out, in post 22 I mentioned for clarification that I was talking about was modern Darwinian theory, which of course involves mutations making natural selection possible. Yet you still continued to allow the other poster to hijack the thread and control its destiny by continuing to assert that I did not have the right to talk about mutations as they relate to natural selection. If the matter was resolved in post 22, why did you allow them to continue to interrupt the thread?
3. I specifically said evolutionary change in my opening post. In your example you mentioned drastic weather immediately beginning to weed out the weaker individuals. I would suggest not only is that not evolutionary change, but if it does not involve mutations it is not Darwinian change nor is it what the ToE states-so this does meet the any of the conditions I asked for in my opening post.
4. I believe it is perfectly fair for me to expect that when we are talking about evolution on a Evolution vs. Creation website, that discussions of evolution include the theory of evolution by definition. If you wish to concede that there is no accepted criteria for what evolution means, then please state that specifically, so that in the future when someone says evolution, that this can mean any number of things.
Finally, since you are now advocating that natural selection doesn't carry any specific meaning in discussions of evolution, and is in fact just a generic term to mean any change which happens naturally-(like say a bomb exploding, or mass exterminations by dictators), then I would like you to then please explain what exactly is the meaning of the ToE when using this term in future discussions. Since it uses the term natural selection in the definition, and natural selection just means any change happening naturally (guided by a creator or not guided by a creator, etc...)
It seems we now have a synthesis of what the ToE means, to such a degree, that I have no idea what the ToE means at all. Change by natural selection?
Please give your definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Admin, posted 11-23-2009 4:23 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Admin, posted 11-26-2009 7:54 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 189 of 468 (536990)
11-26-2009 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Bolder-dash
11-26-2009 7:32 AM


Hi Bolder-dash,
I'm not a participant in the Has natural selection really been tested and verified? discussion, and as moderator I take no sides. As I said in my post, I was enumerating what I thought were the important subtopics in the discussion, and I both quoted you and described what had been suggested by others.
What prompted my reply to you was that your Message 91 was primarily a list of complaints about other participants. Please leave the moderating responsibilities to the moderators. If you're experiencing problems with other participants then please post here.
I think the thread participants need to do a bit more work reaching a consensus about the topic, and that is where I believe attention should be focused first. Otherwise the thread seems to be doing fine.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 7:32 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 8:25 AM Admin has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 190 of 468 (536998)
11-26-2009 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Admin
11-26-2009 7:54 AM


Can you please reply to my complaint in questions 1 & 2 then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Admin, posted 11-26-2009 7:54 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Admin, posted 11-26-2009 8:53 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 191 of 468 (537003)
11-26-2009 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Bolder-dash
11-26-2009 8:25 AM


Hi Bolder-dash,
Moderators can intervene when discussion roams too far off-topic, but in this case I think the participants should first attempt to seek consensus about the topic among themselves. If after a few days this doesn't seem to be working I can step in.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 8:25 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 12:21 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2009 5:46 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 192 of 468 (537423)
11-28-2009 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Admin
11-26-2009 8:53 AM


You mentioned that you will suspend those who have made the topic more difficult to discuss- in the thread that I started.
Seeing as how I am the one who started the thread, and I asked to talk about NS effect on Evolutionary change, and we had fifty people divert the topic to complain about discussing the NS that I proposed to talk about in the first place (which anyone who is being honest knows RM is THE essential ingredient of NS) and not only did you do nothing to discourage their off topic complaining, you actually fueled it be saying nothing to them, and reiterating to me, your own opinion about what I understand or don't understand, will you be suspending yourself as well?
BTW-I see you guys all pulled the same crap on Kevin123, who posed some great and thought provoking questions-all of which you people just threw a collective wet blanket on-filled with stupid snide comments, and said he didn't know what he was talking about either-go read a biology book...bla bla.
I think he ended up sticking around for about 20 posts. That seems to be the entire pattern of this forum. Consequently its more of a circle masturbation for you guys then it is a real debate. You should take a comparison between how long all of your evolutionists have stuck around compared to the creationists. Did you ever stop to think about why that might be.
If the evolutionists already have all the answers, what do they need to come here for? Certainly not for debates, because that isn't encouraged. Its someone challenging a notion, and 20 evolutionists saying you don't know what you are talking about, go read a book. Ok, never mind, see you later. Clever.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : because I felt like it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Admin, posted 11-26-2009 8:53 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 193 of 468 (537444)
11-28-2009 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Admin
11-26-2009 8:53 AM


what appears to be the problem from this side of the debate
What Bolder-dash fails to comprehend, apparently, is that his failure to define precisely what he means by "EVOLUTIONARY Change" necessarily leaves us with only the scientific definition and usage -- of evolutionary change to mean the change in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation.
Continuing to repeat his complaint/s, without attempting to further explain what he means, is obviously a futile waste of bandwidth. Trying to shout it (using caps) doesn't add to the definition of what he means.
Simply put, the problem is his lack of communication for what he means by "EVOLUTIONARY Change" and this needs to be resolved before any progress can be made.
I humbly suggest that this be the top priority when the thread re-opens.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Admin, posted 11-26-2009 8:53 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2009 3:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 202 by Straggler, posted 12-04-2009 8:06 PM RAZD has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 194 of 468 (537946)
12-02-2009 3:20 AM


Stupid fuckwit mabus is back again with a dumb topic.
See here

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

AChristianDarkly
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 468 (537985)
12-02-2009 12:36 PM


Call to Judgement
Hi.
Could some mod perhaps slog through:
EvC Forum: Euthypro Dilemna
(Euthypro Dilemna, starting at 24)
I do not make any claim to perfection in terms of my own behavior, but this is simply foul.
I am not sure what to call (some variant of lying) what they are doing (Teapots&unicorns and Stile), but it is without a doubt a form of intellectual corruption. These two are quite integrity-less, as far as I can tell.
What it all boils down to is that I made a very simple point. (I do get really long winded, but the simple specific point was very simple and very specific. If upon reading it, it seems complex to the mod, enough the warrant the replies made by those two, then please tell me that I am stupid, and I will leave. I have now finally had it up to here with this brand of bullshit.)
These two -keep on- ~twisting~ what I've written, trying to put words/arguments in my mouth. (Destruction of reality combined with creative reinvention has is place. Somewhere else.) And very specifically not even bothering to vaguely mention the actual points I tried to make.
When I tried to tell them (with great vigor) that they were mis-reading what I had written, they started saying that I am somehow to blame: the whole classic stupid+insane+incompetent, i.e. drooling-religious-moron, gambit.
(If I may say so, the simple use of this gambit should justify a serious ban. How do such comments in ANY way promote anything worthwhile? Is not its SOLE purpose to demean and degrade?? Why is it against the forum rules to call someone a liar, but Ok to call them stupid+insane+incompetent? WTF?
I kind of accepted it in free for all, but this did not take place there. More to the point, I really do not think that it was -at all- justified. It was used SOLELY as an attack-tool. Solely to bypass/ignore the requirements of rational discourse.)
Reading through Teapots&unicorns crap I am struck by how obvious his disregard is for any attempt, save to present the facade of such, of honest debate/discourse. Ditto for comrade Stile, who appears to be even more divorced from reality. (Or am I alone in finding their little games transparent?)
Normally, it would be quite difficult to make such an accusation stick but, in this case, the point being sodomized is very, very simple. I think that in a court of law, neither of these two could possibly defend their 'misunderstooding.' No normal person is that stupid.
The final straw was #40 by Stile. Assuming he had read my last reply to Teapots&unicorns (or had otherwise followed my suggestion in my last reply to him to go and re-read what I had written) I truly fail to see how any reasonable person can STILL fail, to such a degree, to so 'mis-understood' what I said.
Am I being unreasonable is stating that a reasonable man would not keep on ~warping~ arguments as he/she/it is doing? Am I being unreasonable in drawing the conclusion that they are deceptive, and not deluded or stupid?
(Is the reasonable man standard upheld here? If there ANY recourse for addressing the behavior of slick little bastards like those two???)
I especially liked Stile saying the following:
I think I'll have the police keep a close eye on you if you don't think other people matter.
Given that I HAD stated, as part of the argument at hand, that people don't matter... Kindly note the context within which this was said. Perhaps this is a joke. Perhaps it is not. Would it be Ok if I started talking like that? Without clearly indicating that I am joking? (God bless good old Wildey :-)
Note that I had let the above slide; like I said, nasty I can take: I give and I get. Rinse and repeat. Fair enough. But I have put in a great many hours in composing my little posts, and I am quite angry at having my time so badly wasted by the intellectual dishonesty of a pair of sub-human rat-fucks. If the purpose of this forum is to encourage dialogue, then they should both be banned. Period. Perhaps I & Mouth should both be banned too - but at least we do not practice the arts of deception. We do not play little fuck-the-head games. Their behavior is somehow physically sickening.
1) I would like a judgment-call on whether I was being "stupid+insane+incompetent". Note, I am not asking for an opinion on what I wrote: just whether the accusations machine-gunned at me by those two fuckers have merit.
2) I would like a judgment-call on whether Teapots&unicorns had -sufficient- reason to scream (in big red and yellow) that I am a Troll.
3) I -WANT- a judgment-call on whether they were, considered reasonably, being intellectually corrupt.
If they are found guilty on the last point, then I would suggest that they be banned for life. Now. (If they are found 'innocent', or even just 'naughty', then I'm gone: no great loss, I'm sure.)
The 2nd doesn't really matter that much to me, but it is still not right, in my opinion.
As for the first point, I would also imagine that they should both be banned if their history shows habitual use of that little 'trick.'
I just fail to see how any forum could possibly function if behavior like theirs is not executed on the spot.
Regards,
R.
(PS: Note that I have accused others of identical (and I mean identical) behavior before, in my now-dead-thread on LAVA. There too I found it impossible to get an actual response on an actual question. And etc. Took me a very long time to reach these conclusions then: this time it was just like having the in-laws visit, again.
But that was free-for-all, after-all. Perhaps I was being silly in the hope that outside of there, lies of whatever type would be frowned upon.
Either I am paranoid, or else unlucky, or else you guys have a serious epidemic on your hands: rat-fucks are breeding out of control.
Question: if it turns out that I am not a paranoid moron, would it be too late to ask for a similar investigation of the LAVA posts?
I can not properly express the amount of effort I put into that thread: if it was destroyed unjustly, as I am certain it was, then I want vengeance.
I discovered EvolutionFairyTale end of Sep... and was banned. But some of their rules made a lot of sense: I think one them was specific in that questions had to be answered, not side-stepped. EXACTLY my problem here.
Unfortunately, I have to ask this as well: is this state of affairs intentional on your part? If not, may I ask for examples of the execution of those who have transgressed as these two have? Because if there are none, then this site is a trap. Fact. And I am a very good, and very vocal, hater... and I might continue living for years yet... I get obsessive...)

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2009 12:49 PM AChristianDarkly 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