|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Can you click on "Back", then click on the "reload/refresh" button, then try again? Let me know if that helps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Test
Now it works. Not ideal to do that everytime though. Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Huntard writes: Now it works. Not ideal to do that everytime though. Glad it worked! If you do find you have to do it every time then let me know, because that means the problem isn't what I think it is. What I think happened is that the first time you visited EvC after starting IE that something interrupted the loading of that first webpage, and somehow the JavaScript file never loaded. Browsers only load a website's JavaScript files once the first time the website is accessed, so from that point on you were working without benefit of EvC's JavaScript code, which is only needed for a certain subset of functions, button clicking being one of them. I think I'll add a suggestion to that message to try clicking "reload/refresh." Thanks for the info!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
new user finalsky is a spammer
{Fixed - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Also, this seems to be Theodoric's promoted thread Rapture May 21, 2011 from the "proposed new topics" forum, which now bear's Dennis's normally used title. Something went rather wrong here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I introduced a bug with yesterday's update, now fixed. I expect AdminPD will try to promote Theodoric's thread again next time she's here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
What I know is that you seem to have a blind spot for your own snark, and that despite the many times I have advised you to refrain from responding in kind so that a moderator can take action that you never do that. If you focus on the topic and follow the Forum Guidelines then the moderators will be on your side. Moderators don't care about the position, they care about whether a participant is contributing or hindering discussion, and the Forum Guidelines are our guide in this respect. One of our moderators, slevesque, is a creationist. I've CC'd him. The relevant message is Message 711, you'll have to click on "peek" to see the content, the prior message is Message 703.-- Percy EvC Forum Director Percy, I gave you a list of more than 10 posts in one thread alone, including these gems, of which you have taken absolutely no action:
Dr. A to post: "The fact that someone more knowledgeable than you finds your gibberish downright embarrassing to read ... supports your position? Perhaps you could explain why. Or perhaps you could post more gibberish. Only time will tell, although I believe that I can guess. " and this: "You are, of course, wrong. (that was his entire post!) and this: "So you are unable or unwilling to produce any argument that might even appear to support your gibberish. Yeah, well, you are a creationist. " and "The prediction that any attempt to defend creationism will be ignorant, stupid, dishonest, or all three simultaneously is once again confirmed. " (Again his entire post! This is contributing to the discussion????) and finally this: "No, apparently there is a third option. You could gibber out dishonest equivocations on the word "random", and we could laugh at you. You silly little man. " (once again, this is all he had to add to the forum! unbelievable!) Cavediver wrote: "I'm sorry, but even if he does explain himself, Shapiro is still an idiot for using the term "non-random" in this context. But then, BD has made it quite clear that he only wants to use idiot-speak, so probably best if you don't mention big words like "distribution" and "probability" as they will only upset him. Theodoric wrote: "To Shadow, Bolder and their ilk it is not important want Shapiro meant. What matters is how the can manipulate the language of what he said to meet their needs. Honesty and integrity means nothing." Now are you telling me that all of these posts are an acceptable standard to use of this forum? Are they content worthy, on topic and respectful? Because you sure as heck have not taken any action whatsoever for these posts, so one can only assume that this is acceptable? And then you send a private message to me, saying that the problem is all mine? So give a straight answer this time instead of always trying to direct the blame to me. Are these other posts acceptable or not? YES or NO? Did you take any action at all regarding any of these posts? So I can use their standard in the future since you have not repudiated these posts? Claiming your moderation is applied equally doesn't make it so Percy. Does it get any more obvious than this? Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Hi Bolder-dash,
First I want to thank you for finally using the proper venue for bringing discussion issues to the attention of moderators. Before seeing this post I posted some hopefully helpful information over at the Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution thread, see Message 723. The main point is that I'm not moderating that thread. That's why I sent you PMs instead of posting to the thread, at least until I realized you hadn't seen the PMs. My advice has not changed. Focus on the topic and follow the Forum Guidelines and everything will go fine for you. Do not respond in kind, as you've proudly boasted you're so good at. As I've said before, once a thread has become prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell who, if anyone, started it. Usually it's a gradual escalation with no clear line of demarcation. Moderators have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. Here's a simple analogy that might help you see how things look to moderators. Say you're driving on the highway and a driver forces you out of your lane, so you respond and force him out of his lane. A policeman sees all this and pulls you both over. You'll both get tickets. In other words, being transgressed upon is not a free ticket for committing your own transgressions. Plus you may have been in the other driver's blind spot, and while he most certainly should have been more careful, his offense was likely inadvertent, while yours was premeditated and purposeful. This kind of tit-for-tat escalation is common at discussion boards. It seems to be an inherent property of the format.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Message 111
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Debate in Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? has become a venture into futility, in that the one against the pack, quarterbacked by Admin constitute an uneven playing field.
This sort of "riding herd" on the scanty creationist constituency here at EvC, Admin, actively debating the opposition PoV in debate on the topic is a new dimension of moderating, so far as I am aware. Is that what we are to expect in the debates where a lot is at stake, ideologically for both sides of the debate here at at EvC (Evolution vs Creationism)? In Admin's last admonition, I'm even singled out for my spelling of "empirically," because I got one letter wrong in the word.I've been doing spell check throughout the thread, clicking "ignore" for the numerous spelling mistakes of some of the pack. I'm no more empirically correct in spelling than others in the pack who occasionally miss spell check. Certainly there's not enough spelling errors in this thread to be singled out for a mistake. Not one iota of my cited evidence has been deemed even a tad bit supportive to the Exodus event when, in fact, my counterparts frequently debated strawment evidence for their own positions. Of course, I fully understand what's at stake in this thread for the pack. All it would take to topple their secularist mindset is one itty bitty bonafide Biblical miracle. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I originally posted this in the"Peanut Gallery", but having thought it over I think that it belongs here rather than there:
Petrophysics, who declares himself a deist, wishes to debate RAZD, also a deist. Fair enough. But in his OP petrophysics does not quarrel with anything at all that RAZD has ever said. Instead, petrophyiscs says: * "the atheists here, who have no evidence for their position"* "strong or absolute atheists are hidding behind their keyboard" * "I have looked for months here where the atheists could present no evidence." If he has a beef with atheists, then he should man up and pick an intellectual fight with atheists. Instead, he has used the "Great Debate" forum as a way to hit at atheists where we are not allowed to answer back. And having hidden behind the forum rules, he tops this off by accusing atheists of "hidding behind their keyboard". This is an abuse of the "Great Debate" format. Suppose that Straggler and I asked for a "Great Debate" where we should discuss whether creationists are knaves or fools. Suppose that you allowed that. I think that the moderators should not allow that, but even if they did it would be an abuse of that privilege for me to say that creationists were "hiding behind their keyboards" because they did not answer me on a thread on which the moderators forbade them to answer me. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Off-topic poem hidden. --Admin
For reasons you alone know why you slander, slur and vilify and libel and malign and lie and thick and fast the insults fly at those whom you demean; in words four letters long you prate about the people whom you hate; you smear, traduce and denigrate and cast aspersions and create an ugly scene. But if some voice of protest's heard ---some angry or dissenting word to tell you that you're quite absurd or give the finger or the bird or dare to answer back or goad you on with words that nettle, you hypocrite, you show your mettle by calling on the mods to settle just which utensil, pot or kettle, is deeper black. You two-faced fool, you prate and piffleand talk a lot of silly drivel and sob and scream and whine and sniffle how other people should be civil as though your posts don't stink. You throw your childish fit of pique and stamp your little feet and shriek, have tantrums 'til you're hoarse and weak and get so angry you can't speak or even think. You moan of what you must endure:a terrible ordeal, I'm sure for one so deeply immature to get to taste the stuff that you're so fond of dishing out. With neither honesty nor wit you throw your little hissy fit and babble out your prissy shit and prove yourself a hypocrite beyond all doubt. Feel free to scratch my name uponyour potty little ostracon and tell the mods I should be gone and see if you find anyone who gives a tinker's damn. You silly whining little pest, though long and loudly you protest I think MacMahon put it best: "I'm here, I stay" ("j'y suis, j'y reste") --- and here I am. Edited by Admin, : Hide content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Monsterspaghettiflying is a lower than whale snot spammer.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024