Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 468 (537987)
12-02-2009 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by AChristianDarkly
12-02-2009 12:36 PM


Re: Call to Judgement

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by AChristianDarkly, posted 12-02-2009 12:36 PM AChristianDarkly has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 197 of 468 (538015)
12-02-2009 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by RAZD
11-28-2009 5:46 PM


Polite Request
This is not a report of a problem as such. Just a polite request that I did not want to bung up the thread in question with.
In Message 508 RAZD quotes me, and replies to, the following:
Straggler writes:
C) Agnostic - There is no evidence. There is a complete vacuum ...
However the sentence being quoted in the post being replied to is as follows:
Straggler writes:
C) Agnostic - There is no evidence. There is a complete vacuum of all objective evidence pertaining to the existence of your god (including any historical, cultural or psychological objective evidence that might be relevant to assessing the likelihood of human invention) and the only rational response is therefore pure agnosticicm.
Now I know full quotations in full context are not always appropriate or even necessary but if we start cutting each other off in mid sentence in ways that completely change the meaning of the statement then all chaos will ensue. Meaningful debate will become impossible.
Can I therefore politely request that RAZD modify this specific quote and that when any of us quote each other we stick to at least full sentences unless there is exceptionally good reason not to?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2009 5:46 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by iano, posted 12-02-2009 4:15 PM Straggler has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 198 of 468 (538023)
12-02-2009 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Straggler
12-02-2009 3:28 PM


Re: Polite Request
Seeing as it's suggestions and questions.
Can I suggest that yourself and RAZD don't discuss anymore (because you clearly have a bee in your bonnet about each other - according to one who only skims past your conflict.)
And the question? Why on earth haven't you figured to execute the above suggestion already? Yer both smart enough.
(I can recall only one real online fight in many thousands of posts on many forums. It weren't pretty and I was glad to be shot of it when it finally ended. Conduct unbecoming and all that . Best thing is to just drop it )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2009 3:28 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2009 4:30 PM iano has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 199 of 468 (538024)
12-02-2009 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by iano
12-02-2009 4:15 PM


Re: Polite Request
A) But how else are we going to keep ourselves entertained on these long dark winter nights?
B) Nobody has to read or participate if they don't want to. But the discussions in question seem to garner a lot of interest and some very good posts from numerous sources and all sides of the debate are often forthcoming.
C) I may well be irrationally deluded but I think (painfully) slow progres is being made.
Iano writes:
Yer both smart enough.
Well I will take that as a compliment of sorts. And with regard to RAZD - I have never queried his intelligence. Just the veracity and validity of his arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by iano, posted 12-02-2009 4:15 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by iano, posted 12-02-2009 4:51 PM Straggler has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 200 of 468 (538027)
12-02-2009 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Straggler
12-02-2009 4:30 PM


Re: Polite Request
A) But how else are we going to keep ourselves entertained on these long dark winter nights?
Dunno about you, but when I click on Straggler and see a "RAZD writes" box I click straight off.
B) Nobody has to read or participate if they don't want to. But the discussions in question seem to garner a lot of interest and some very good posts from numerous sources and all sides of the debate are often forthcoming.
Indeed. But all you two do, it seems to me, is fight.
C) I may well be irrationally deluded but I think (painfully) slow progres is being made.
Perhaps you can tell. Me? I just switch off.
-
Well I will take that as a compliment of sorts. And with regard to RAZD - I have never queried his intelligence. Just the veracity and validity of his arguments.
If ever he wanders down into Faith & Belief: Christianity - the unreasonablness of same" I'll let you know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2009 4:30 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2009 5:03 PM iano has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 201 of 468 (538032)
12-02-2009 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by iano
12-02-2009 4:51 PM


Re: Polite Request: (Hate Crimes - Against Deists)
Iano writes:
Indeed. But all you two do, it seems to me, is fight.
Even if true - It keeps me off the streets where I would otherwise doubtless be off committing hate crimes against deists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by iano, posted 12-02-2009 4:51 PM iano has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 202 of 468 (538247)
12-04-2009 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by RAZD
11-28-2009 5:46 PM


2nd Polite Request
This really should not be neceesary but the same thing has happened for a second time in a row. In Message 531 RAZD quotes me (and responds to) the following:
RAZD writes:
Straggler writes:
Could you tell me what direct empirical objective evidence you have that contradicts the existence of magical Santa Claus concepts,....
This concept is originally based on a real person that actually lived and was of very benevolent (year round) disposition, someone worth emulating, and worthy of inspiring others to emulate. The mythos that has grown up around him is easily traced to various sources, including the recent additions of flying reindeer and living at the north pole being due to known fictional story-telling by documented individuals writing and illustrating documented poems and pictures.
When in fact the full sentence of mine was:
Straggler writes:
Could you tell me what direct empirical objective evidence you have that contradicts the existence of magical Santa Claus concepts, The Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy?
I would like to request once again that RAZD edit his post to include at least the full sentence he is responding to. And that he treat this as standard practise in future.
Honestly we cannot start quoting each other in half sentences merely because full sentences don't comply with our counter arguments. This is just ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2009 5:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2009 9:21 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 204 by AdminPD, posted 12-05-2009 7:54 AM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 203 of 468 (538251)
12-04-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Straggler
12-04-2009 8:06 PM


Re: 2nd Polite Request from the pot calling the pan black
you first bucko
complaining that I do what you have done all along is hilarious.


see Message 307 for an expose of just this behavior done by Straggler in a way to actually misrepresent what I said.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added below line

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 202 by Straggler, posted 12-04-2009 8:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Straggler, posted 12-07-2009 5:03 PM RAZD has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(1)
Message 204 of 468 (538287)
12-05-2009 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Straggler
12-04-2009 8:06 PM


Re: 2nd Polite Request
Using an ellipsis to let the reader know that part of a quoted sentence has been omitted is a valid use.
Readers can go back to the original post for the rest of the quote if they desire.
Not using the ellipsis would be incorrect and potentially misleading.
I think the "Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?" thread has run its course and I'll be closing the thread.
Thanks
AdminPD

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Straggler, posted 12-04-2009 8:06 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 205 of 468 (538520)
12-07-2009 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by RAZD
12-04-2009 9:21 PM


Re: 2nd Polite Request
I can say with absolute certainty that I have never intentionally half quoted anyone so as to intentionally misrepresent or evade the full meaning of a given quote.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2009 9:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2009 9:27 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 206 of 468 (538557)
12-07-2009 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Straggler
12-07-2009 5:03 PM


Look in the mirror before you cast stones ...
Then neither have I.
Nobody always answers all the points in a given thread, and you have "avoided" your share of those (see complaints by others, not just me in this regard), so avoiding part of your thread is not abnormal.
People also frequently reply to a post in bits and parts, and an example of this is your frequent multiple posts responding to one post when a more appropriate response is to either combine them initially, or edit the first to add the second. My response to clarify your mistaken impression of the issue of "santa" was not appropriate for the rest of the sentence, ergo there was no "value added" to have used the whole sentence. As noted, the ellipses (" ... ") is a standard written symbol to denote that there is more than just what was quoted, and I always quote sources if it is not clear what the source is from the post.
One of (several of) my complaints about your posting method is making multiple responses instead of one reply. Having several responses to one post tends to fragment the thread, draw people off onto side topics and use up the 300 limit while making it appear that you are responding to a lot of different posts (perhaps it's an ego thing eh?).
Certainly other posters have complained about some of your posting behavior.
Bottom line, if you want to complain about someone's posting style, then you better be a model poster for the forum (and a model poster wouldn't complain, so there's a catch-22 involved).
Why don't you deal with the issue/s, say the one involving the poor logical position you are in? (see Message 247, green area, for reference).
Enjoy.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
That's okay: I'm done here.
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic
Edited by RAZD, : note to moderators
Edited by RAZD, : spling

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 205 by Straggler, posted 12-07-2009 5:03 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by AdminPD, posted 12-08-2009 6:03 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 207 of 468 (538593)
12-08-2009 5:28 AM


Problem in the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread
Hi Moderators,
Straggler and RAZD seem to be engaging in off-topic discussion in the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread. Maybe someone could suggest to them that they should take the discussion elsewhere, or perhaps exchange email addresses. Or they could take advantage of the private messaging facility that should be released soon.
--Percy

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 208 of 468 (538597)
12-08-2009 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by RAZD
12-07-2009 9:27 PM


Take It Elsewhere
RAZD and Straggler,
Your continued issue with debating styles is off topic for this thread. Please take the discussion elsewhere.
Perhaps you could exchange email addresses or take advantage of the private messaging facility that should be released soon. Maybe Nerf pistols at 30 paces!
Thanks for your cooperation.
AdminPD

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2009 9:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 209 of 468 (538726)
12-09-2009 12:32 PM


moderating not impartial
Percy has decided to insert himself as the moderator in a thread where he is not-and furthermore, he has tried to use the excuse of blaming me for degrading a thread, when I contend it was degraded long before me.
What right does Percy have to make these generalizations of me, when he allows Dr. A to insult, interrupt, and belittle every discussion on this board.
If this forum is to portend to allow both sides of an issue be discussed-it needs to demonstrate that it treats those who challenge the status quo with the same respect others are afforded.
My own thread was hijacked by numerous dissenters who didn't like my opinion, and now Percy is using that as a rationalization to once again insert his opinions and deny mine.
I posted on that thread to suggest that the other posters were not addressing the issue (of what creates new information in the genome), and remind them of the topic-and Percy calls me out to say it is I who is off topic!
Unbelievable. Why don't you change the name to "Evolutionists Can Insult All Others".com
AbE: For moderators, Bolder-dash is referring to thread Adding information to the genome..
Edited by Admin, : Add link to thread.

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Son, posted 12-09-2009 12:54 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 210 of 468 (538728)
12-09-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Bolder-dash
12-09-2009 12:32 PM


Re: moderating not impartial
Bolder-Dash writes:
message 259:I find it very impressive that after 100 posts something could become clear to you....that's sounds premature for you.
Care to explain how YOU believe new information can be added to the genome, or did you just come here to moan?
message 263:You mean I can join the discussion in the manner of Dr.A? Like I can just say, "When I read gibberish like this, I thoroughly understand why thinking people believe all evolutionists are stupid and wrong."
post#39
Is that how I should contribute?
message 265:
If you are going to be the moderator in a thread where you are not even the moderator, perhaps you could at least do so in a fair and unbiased manner.
Those were your three lasts messages and out of all those,only one line could even be remotely linked to the topic and you then complain that Percy is telling you that you are off-topic?
By the way, Dr.Adequate has already been suspended when the moderators thought he was out of line, admins are not heavy handed though or you too would have been suspended with the 4 messages that you put in this thread.
Edited by Son, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-09-2009 12:32 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-09-2009 1:05 PM Son 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