Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

i don't get it either. the argument makes sense to me, and is quite on topic.

---

אָרַח

My impression is that it was a pretty lame message. Maybe it was because it was a response to another pretty lame message.I may or may not be correct, but regardless, I'll concede to your perspective and undo my previous edit.Adminnemooseus

We let him go and he's come back to us. (Message 83) Does that mean he is ours forever?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Can we get some people who speak English to the Obama thread, please? We've gone on long enough, and I've supported my contention with abundant evidence to which Dronester has been able to marshal no reply, but now he's enlisted xongsmith and Onifire to pretend that plain statements in English have no discernible meaning.Everybody knows what "it's not going anywhere" means.

I don't see a Moderation issue in that thread other than the discussion getting a little too personal at times.If you're having difficulty understanding your opponent's position, I suggest you retire from the thread.Thanks
AdminPD

Maybe try a different tack?Ask Dronester what he thinks should be done?
(But in the form of "What do you think should be done?" rather than "Do you think that [insert action] should be done?".)

Rule 8 pretty clearly states:

quote:

---

Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

---

and what Dronester, Oni, and xongsmith are doing is a form of misrepresentation. I'm having no difficulty whatsoever. I'm merely wondering how long admins are going to allow participants to misrepresent statements in plain English.

I don't see any misleading with the intent to deceive or be unfair. I see what seems to be more misunderstanding on your part than misleading on their part. I see that they have tried to correct what they feel is misunderstanding on your part.I've noticed that sometimes you misconstrue an opponents position and are unwilling to adjust when corrected.The thread is in the Coffee House, which is a place to take a break and participate in lighter discussion. Not so cut throat.I don't see an infraction. If you don't like what they're saying, then stop conversing with them. I can't make them agree with you.If you are unhappy with my lack of action, then take it to the Whine List.Thanks
AdminPD

When someone says "it's not going anywhere" in reference to a building, what "misunderstanding" do you feel is possible? Please be specific for my edification.I've not misunderstood, I've merely seen through Dronester's attempts to misrepresent something he's said, and xong and Oni have not. Panda has agreed with my interpretation, asked a pointed question, and Dronester folded. Unless you're asserting that Panda and I both "misunderstood" in precisely the same way, doesn't that indicate that no misunderstanding has occurred?Question - do you think it's possible for someone to say something, regret saying it, and then misrepresent their own words so as to convince others they didn't mean what they meant? I'm prepared to give examples of this. No, I've not ever done this, because it would be in violation of Rule 8 for which I would have received some suspension or other punishment. When people explain that they've made an error in language and said something they didn't intend, I don't hold them to the original position. But when people misrepresent their own positions after critical weaknesses have been exposed, I don't feel under any obligation to play along. The things we say on this forum are a matter of record and can easily be referenced. Why people insist on playing the "oh, I didn't say that!" game is beyond me. Words mean things.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Then don't play along. As I said before, if you don't like what they're saying, don't converse with them.If you are unhappy with my lack of action, then take it to the Whine List. Our discussion is over. I see no enforceable infraction.Do not continue discussing it in this thread.Thanks
AdminPD

No webpage found at provided URL: nicecaty, Message 1, "CSI: Miami is a excellent wonderful tv show"And here: Message 1, "Cold Case" -- a perfect tv show!And here: Message 1, Law And Order SVU is filmed on location in New YorkAnd here: Message 1, The original seriesEdited by Rrhain, : More detailsEdited by Rrhain, : Does the anchor tag no longer work?Edited by Rrhain, : Boy, this one really wants to make a run for it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Many of the recent threads are off-topic in a EvC forum.This is not supposed to be a political board.Please stop promoting threads that are pure politics.(And discourage them in the Coffee House.)Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

I tend to agree.
There is so rarely any clear cut 'facts' (or maybe too many) in politics that discussions go around and around with no-one any the wiser. Politics is black and white - with all shades of grey in between - but without any black or white - and with different shades of different colours mixed in with the grey - in a dark room.

Despite my considerable respect for Coyote and Panda (both on my short list of members whose posts I always read), I disagree.I've seen the board sometimes dominated by science threads, sometimes not. The rising tide of political threads tends to occur during high-pitch political moments and tends to recede on its own.Like it or not, science is a political issue. The fact of evolution and its denial are political issues. Demonstrable global warming and its denial are political issues. The teaching of ID or creationism in schools is a political issue.There are few places on the web where you can access political commentary on these issues by working scientists with an allegiance to reason and evidence. I'd hate to see this one diminished.There are facts in politics as surely as there are facts in physics--and far more lies that require refutation. Many of those lies are told either to denigrate science for political ends, or they are told with a reckless disregard for their subversion of science in particular and reason in general. The days when a scientist could emerge from the lab like an apolitical Rip Van Winkle and find that science's status and funding have improved yet again are gone.I think the appropriate solution for folks who want more directly science-oriented threads is to start them.

---

I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Completely true.
TBH: I find little to fault in your post.
(Pretend that I quoted your whole post and then nodded in agreement.)But the kind of topics that I (and I think Coyote) are asking to be monitored/limited are the political threads that rarely involve science nor religion.
e.g.
Obama
WikileaksI must admit: the level of discussion often displayed in this forum (helped by the light touch of moderation) does make me want all subjects discussable on this forum.
I have learned quite a bit from both of the example threads listed above.
But I fear that a lack of focus would lead to a drop in quality.