Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
42 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, frako, jar, JonF, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle, Theodoric, WookieeB (10 members, 32 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,487 Year: 20,523/19,786 Month: 920/2,023 Week: 428/392 Day: 44/74 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 1043 (596713)
12-16-2010 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by purpledawn
12-16-2010 6:53 AM


Re: Great Debate
Politely, no. This is not the subject on which I want to pop my Great Debate cherry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by purpledawn, posted 12-16-2010 6:53 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 1043 (598425)
12-30-2010 8:05 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus Message 201
Spell check changed my original draft from priori to priory so I mistakenly took that that I had been spelling it wrong. Had I stayed with my original spelling, there would have been a problem. I have made a statement in the thread for the benefit of those with whom I was dialoguing.

I will edit the mistakes for correction.

ABE: In making corrections I discovered that spell check only flagged it when it was capitalized which was the case in my message title. That's what threw me off.

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.


  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 93 of 1043 (606345)
02-25-2011 1:01 AM


Suspension of DrJones* is too severe
According to Message 114 in Suspensions and Bannings Part III, DrJones* is suspended for 1 week due to his post at Message 163.

I suspect that the offending post was seen as an insult. But I don't think it was. Rather, I am seeing it as a reductio ad absurdum of the "I maintain that ..." style of argument.

I'll grant that DrJones* chose an example that some would find offensive in his reductio, so I am not objecting to a suspension. But I think 1 week is a bit excessive.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 1:07 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 95 by Taz, posted 02-25-2011 2:10 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 94 of 1043 (606347)
02-25-2011 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by nwr
02-25-2011 1:01 AM


Re: Suspension of DrJones* is too severe
I agree with nwr. If I'd been writing the post, I'd have used murder rather than sex with sheep as my example. It's not an accusation, it is, as nwr says, a reductio ad absurdum of the shifting of the burden of proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nwr, posted 02-25-2011 1:01 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1606 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 95 of 1043 (606351)
02-25-2011 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by nwr
02-25-2011 1:01 AM


Re: Suspension of DrJones* is too severe
I agree with nwr. 1 week is a bit excessive.

Edit.

If adminmoose must hand out 1 week suspension, I volunteer to take half of that time so Jones can get back faster. Heck, I'll be spending the most of my time buried in work in the next few weeks anyway.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nwr, posted 02-25-2011 1:01 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 96 of 1043 (607151)
03-02-2011 10:15 AM


Adminnemooseus, on the "the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)" thread
Adminnemooseus asks:

Just for the amusement of the peanut gallery, how about answering the message 120 questions anyway?

This is my answer:

Hi Adminnemooseus,

The topic of this thread is whether or not bluegenes has a theory. This includes him providing evidence that supports the transition from hypothesis to theory in the scientific method.

Just for the amusement of the peanut gallery, how about answering the message 120 questions anyway?

(A) it is not the topic of this thread: the topic of this thread is for bluegenes to support his assertions with objective empirical evidence.

(B) why don't you ask bluegenes to provide the evidence -- he claimed he had "plenty" of it so why is it not already presented?

It's been 7 months without objective empirical evidence, a rather extreme breech of forum guidelines if you ask me.

(C) why don't you ask bluegenes to answer the questions in:

  1. Message 121:
    quote:
    Why are you unable to present evidence to substantiate your claims? Why do you need to ask questions if you cannot provide the evidence necessary to support your claims and be DONE with it? Why did you not present overwhelming evidence on your first or second post, as you claimed to posses? What prevents you from providing objective empirical evidence? Were your assertions lies?

  2. Message 119
    quote:
    Why are you afraid to admit that you haven't done the science that would be necessary to develop a scientific theory?

    For review, once more, from Message 4 your assertions AND your failure to support them are (emphasis added):

    • claim (1) ... "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" ... This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (2) ... "This is a high level of confidence" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (3) ... "This is a ... theory" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (4) ... "and support the theory with plenty of evidence" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (5) ... "The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (6) ... "this is a strong theory" ... Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this. ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?


  3. Message 117: same questions re claims
  4. Message 115: same questions re claims
  5. Message 113: same questions re claims
  6. Message 111: same questions re claims
  7. Message 106: same questions re claims
  8. Message 102: same questions re claims
  9. Message 100: same questions re claims
  10. Message 96: same questions re claims
  11. Message 82: same questions re claims
  12. Message 100: also "If you have a strong theory, why can't you produce reams of documented objective empirical evidence to support it? If you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY evidence to support it?"
  13. Message 78: "If it is a strong theory then why can't bluegenes provide any objective empirical evidence to support it?"
  14. Message 77: "Are you ever going to ... (a) present objective empirical evidence that spells out why a supernatural being concept, one found in religious literature, is a human invention, OR (b) admit that you have no objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?
  15. Similar questions repeated in many many other posts, all asking for the evidence to support the assertions, all unanswered

(D) note that I've said I'll answer the questions once bluegenes provides the objective empirical evidence that supports his six (6) claims.

Note that I have asked for the evidence since "Now try the topic: can you defend your theory?" (Message 4), that it was recapped\repeated in Message 78 and I haven't seen any moderator step in to ask bluegenes "for the amusement of the peanut gallery" to answer these questions.

I think bringing this thread to a close, by demanding that bluegenes actually provide the "plentiful" objective empirical evidence he should have, and claimed he had, -- or to withdraw the claims -- would be a much more productive use of moderation.

This should have been done 7 months ago, imho.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : punc,uation

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle glitch

Edited by RAZD, : again

Edited by RAZD, : link to msg 4

Edited by RAZD, : subfrickintitle again


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) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Straggler, posted 03-15-2011 9:47 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3908
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 97 of 1043 (608865)
03-14-2011 7:54 PM


Hey idiots
Re: This

Message 1 of the "Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0" topic:

This thread is to report discussion problems and bring them to the attention of the Moderators.

This is not a discussion thread.

If you aren't reporting a problem or commenting concerning an Administrative message you received, you should not be posting in this thread.

Thanks
AdminPD

In the "Index to certain important topics (updated for traditional beginning of the month blink)":

Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 - Report problems, but not a moderation procedures discussion topic ('The Whine List', below, is the discussion topic).

General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List'). - Free For All forum whine cellar. Please, only quality on-topic whines.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Take link out of subtitle and add the "Re: This" line.


Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Omnivorous, posted 03-14-2011 8:13 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2011 7:45 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 107 by AZPaul3, posted 03-15-2011 1:25 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 98 of 1043 (608868)
03-14-2011 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Adminnemooseus
03-14-2011 7:54 PM


Re: Hey idiots
Moderation in all things.

-Terence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-14-2011 7:54 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Coyote, posted 03-14-2011 9:04 PM Omnivorous has responded
 Message 100 by ringo, posted 03-14-2011 9:38 PM Omnivorous has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 421 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 99 of 1043 (608874)
03-14-2011 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Omnivorous
03-14-2011 8:13 PM


Re: Hey idiots
Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1974.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Omnivorous, posted 03-14-2011 8:13 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Omnivorous, posted 03-14-2011 10:31 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17531
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 100 of 1043 (608877)
03-14-2011 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Omnivorous
03-14-2011 8:13 PM


Re: Hey idiots
Moderation in moderation, like nesting matryoshka dolls, and turtles all the way down.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Omnivorous, posted 03-14-2011 8:13 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Omnivorous, posted 03-14-2011 10:33 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 101 of 1043 (608888)
03-14-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Coyote
03-14-2011 9:04 PM


Re: Hey idiots
I've lived by that sentiment, but I stand by my advice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Coyote, posted 03-14-2011 9:04 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 102 of 1043 (608889)
03-14-2011 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by ringo
03-14-2011 9:38 PM


Re: Hey idiots
Yes, and that's one big bale of turtles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ringo, posted 03-14-2011 9:38 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 103 of 1043 (608917)
03-15-2011 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Adminnemooseus
03-14-2011 7:54 PM


Re: Hey idiots
In the "Index to certain important topics (updated for traditional beginning of the month blink)":

Possibly somewhere out there there's someone who looks at flashing things on the Internet. Once he was actually going to post here, but then he got distracted by something shiny.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-14-2011 7:54 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 104 of 1043 (608925)
03-15-2011 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by RAZD
03-02-2011 10:15 AM


Re: Adminnemooseus, on the "the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)" thread
Did you miss Message 63?

Now rather than doing your usual trick of seeking to moderate your own debates by blitzing daft accusations around the moderation threads why don't you actually engage bluegenes in the debate in question?

the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)

Try explaining why the evidence he has cited doesn't qualify without proclaiming that unsupported and unfalsifiable beliefs somehow constitute counter-evidence. Try answering his questions regarding your own nonsensical position that baseless beliefs do somehow constitute counter-evidence.

Stop hiding behind "off-topic" as if this somehow justifies your silly stonewalling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 10:15 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 1043 (608928)
03-15-2011 11:05 AM


Hey idiots

I'm reminded of this thread:

Message 1

I was drunk...


Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by ringo, posted 03-15-2011 11:23 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019