Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 271 of 355 (618029)
05-31-2011 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Bolder-dash
05-31-2011 11:27 PM


And Percy, you welcomed them in there with open arms and open legs.
Did you just, essentially, call the forum owner a whore?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-31-2011 11:27 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 272 of 355 (618030)
06-01-2011 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Bolder-dash
05-31-2011 11:27 PM


It's the way it is - Take it or leave it
For a long time, we discontinued having "discuss moderation" type topics. They would tend to just turn into a "never resolve anything big mess".
It has happened again.
We now do have the "Free For All" topic, General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List'). This topic's concept should have gone there. In message 1 of that FFA topic, there is also links to all the previous moderation issue discussion topics.
Any discussion of things science and the evidence or lack of evidence for such should go to a science forum topic specific to the theme of interest. This topic may already exist (many were noted upthread), or maybe a new one is called for.
Now, comments on something else upthread.
Message 263:
Percy writes:
Having normal and admin accounts makes it much easier for everyone, including ourselves, to keep track of where we're moderating and where we're participating. Otherwise it seems to all run together. It was never intended as an aid to maintaining objectivity, something I think all moderators struggle with.
and
Message 268
Percy writes:
I can't bring moderator pressure to bear on anyone in this thread because I'm a participant.
As per Percy, the moderators having two ID's is largely a recording keeping tool. We truly strive to be transparent in how those two ID's are actually the same person (See the online list or the profiles of any admin person).
Now there certainly can be grey areas, of whether to comment using the admin mode or non-admin mode ID. Personally, I strive to make all moderation issue related comments using the Adminnemooseus ID. If I were involved in this topic, I probably would have done all my messages as Adminnemooseus. Other admins, including Percy, seem less inclined to do such.
Or something like that.
There's a good change I'm going to shut this topic down, sometime in the next couple of hours or so. If such happens, take it to the above cited FFA topic.
Adminnemooseus

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-31-2011 11:27 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 06-01-2011 2:50 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 274 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-01-2011 3:15 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 273 of 355 (618040)
06-01-2011 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Adminnemooseus
06-01-2011 12:13 AM


Called to a lower standard
Following this thread is like repeatedly hitting your thumb with a hammer. It feels so good when you stop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-01-2011 12:13 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-01-2011 3:23 AM GDR has not replied

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


Message 274 of 355 (618041)
06-01-2011 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Adminnemooseus
06-01-2011 12:13 AM


It sounds like what you are saying is that in virtually any thread, an evolutionist can pull out their same tired debating shell game of claiming that the reason every creationist is wrong about science is because they have facts on their side, while creationist can prove nothing. But as soon as that claim is challenged, that the real evidence points at the ToE, then you will jump in and say any response to that is off topic, and it must go to another thread.
And so the evolutionists just get to keep repeating the same thing over and over in virtually any discussion, that they have facts, while others have mythology, and despite Percy's silly assertions that he would demand proof, they will run into the shadows and hide after making this specious claim.
You of course try to argue that taking it to the proper thread to argue it solves this problem, but it doesn't for two reasons.
ONE, the evolutionist get to make the claim on ANY thread they want; while the creationist is limited to challenge this claim on only very limited places.
TWO, even where creationists are supposedly allowed to debunk this false claim, evolutionists are allowed to use insults, to use diversions, to challenge the meaning of every word to the point that no word means anything unless Percy says it does. So Percy can say well that's not what random means, and if you try to argue what random means, once again you will be shuttled off to still another thread... and round and round it goes.
The evolutionist can say what they want, but the person who challenges them now has to face the roadblock.
So, if what you are offering is take it or leave it, I say leave it. And clearly others who have my viewpoint feel the same. And that is why they have left.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-01-2011 12:13 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2011 4:00 AM Bolder-dash has replied

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


Message 275 of 355 (618042)
06-01-2011 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by GDR
06-01-2011 2:50 AM


Re: Called to a lower standard
GDR, you were responses were considerate and well thought of, and they deserved a decent reply. Only to be honest I felt doing so would really be off topic, and more importantly, I only came back here to make a point that is so obviously true that only a liar could deny. That there is a double standard here that makes it useless for any one to wish to come here and actually debate. Its not a debate forum. There are real debate forums on the internet, where there are actual moderators who do actual jobs, and people have real debates. This is not that place.
So I would be happy to respond to you on a better run website, but I won't do so here.
Regards.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 06-01-2011 2:50 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Taq, posted 06-01-2011 3:05 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 276 of 355 (618046)
06-01-2011 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Bolder-dash
06-01-2011 3:15 AM


If you wish to stop posting here, I'm sure no-one including the moderators would miss you. Fortunately we still have a supply of creationists with enough cojones to debate evolution rather than just whine about how butthurt they feel.
An example would be Aaron, with whom we've been having a nice chat about whale evolution while you've been busy blubbing over how sorry you feel for yourself. The moderators haven't intervened once in his threads, presumably because he's been providing articulate criticisms of evolution rather than screaming random lies, nonsense, and abuse.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-01-2011 3:15 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-01-2011 9:05 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 277 of 355 (618053)
06-01-2011 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by AZPaul3
05-31-2011 10:48 PM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
AZPaul3 writes:
BD's entire OP is irrelevant. He is a god awful creationist with delusions of intellect so our expectations of him were quite low to begin with ... and he has lived up to those expectations.
Does this help?
It seems clear that Bolder-dash doesn't care how much or how often he confirms what I've been telling him all along, that it is his behavior that causes his problems, not biased moderation. His behavior in this thread would gain him suspensions at almost any moderated board. I've suspended evolutionists for far, far less. Given that his problems with moderators are central to his claims of bias, it's surprising that he doesn't realize that good behavior is essential to successfully making his case.
Bolder-dash believes his experiences here are examples of a forum-wide moderation bias so intense that creationists avoid the place like the plague, but in its short life this thread has already become the best example we have not only of his bad behavior, but also of the determination and resolve he has to continue behaving badly no matter what. Once he starts he can't seem to stop himself.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by AZPaul3, posted 05-31-2011 10:48 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Buzsaw, posted 06-01-2011 7:25 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 278 of 355 (618055)
06-01-2011 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Bolder-dash
05-31-2011 11:27 PM


Hi Bolder-dash,
Concerning discussion of this thread's topic, while I cannot play a moderator role in this thread, I will support efforts encouraging people to support their positions with evidence. This is in line with the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
For discussion of issues outsides the thread's topic then I will support efforts to keep discussion on-topic. This is in line with the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
Concerning this thread's topic all I can say is that you do not seem to be making much if any headway. Indeed, your own behavior seems to back up what I've said all along, that you're your own worst enemy. Any problems you've experienced with moderation are due to your own poor behavior, not bias.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-31-2011 11:27 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 355 (618056)
06-01-2011 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Percy
06-01-2011 7:00 AM


Re: Non-Evo Viewpoint
Percy writes:
AZPaul3 writes:
BD's entire OP is irrelevant. He is a god awful creationist with delusions of intellect so our expectations of him were quite low to begin with ... and he has lived up to those expectations.
Does this help?
It seems clear that Bolder-dash doesn't care how much or how often he confirms what I've been telling him all along, that it is his behavior that causes his problems, not biased moderation. His behavior in this thread would gain him suspensions at almost any moderated board. I've suspended evolutionists for far, far less. Given that his problems with moderators are central to his claims of bias, it's surprising that he doesn't realize that good behavior is essential to successfully making his case.
Bolder-dash believes his experiences here are examples of a forum-wide moderation bias so intense that creationists avoid the place like the plague, but in its short life this thread has already become the best example we have not only of his bad behavior, but also of the determination and resolve he has to continue behaving badly no matter what. Once he starts he can't seem to stop himself.
--Percy
Bolder-dash was determined to leave EvC before this thread. Thus his inhibition to tone it down. Perhaps the thread has surfaced some frustrations which will be good for the board at large for future consideration, assessment and improvement.
At least, the ToE constituency has got an eye full from a non-Bible thumper on the existing bias on their behalf. Leave it to the feisty tough Chinese types to liven things up. My two cute little adopted Chinese grand-daughters attest to that.
If Bold should stay, hopefully he will take care to follow the Forum Guidelines. Hopefully if he leaves he will leave un-banned to drop in for a visit now and then (adequately and even-handedly moderated, of course.)
Edited by Buzsaw, : Noted in color.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Added comment.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Percy, posted 06-01-2011 7:00 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 06-01-2011 7:43 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 280 of 355 (618059)
06-01-2011 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Buzsaw
06-01-2011 7:25 AM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
Buzsaw writes:
Bolder-dash was determined to leave EvC before this thread. Thus his inhibition to tone it down.
That could be true. Maybe this is his "Let's trash the place and split" tour.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Buzsaw, posted 06-01-2011 7:25 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2011 8:42 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 284 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-01-2011 8:44 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 281 of 355 (618062)
06-01-2011 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by GDR
05-30-2011 1:33 PM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
Hi GDR,
Sorry for the delayed reply, but as you've probably noticed, I've had my hands full with Aaron's whale thread.
Well both sides have that issue to deal with but from a Christian perspective one would think that Christians should be held to a higher standard.
From any point of view. Christians claim a moral authority from God. On that basis anyone would expect them to be held to a higher standard.
I wouldn's categorize it as silly but misguided. It is all based on a serious misunderstanding, IMHO, on how we are to use the Bible.
Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think that the Bible, being a work of disparate parts, can be said to have any single correct way of approaching it. There must have been multiple intents by the multiple authors. Some of what creationists and literalist take as being literal probably was intended as a literal statement of fact. Some of it they are taking out of context.
I think the biggest single mistake made by Christians interpreting the Bible is the idea that it forms a cohesive whole. I don't think it does. Sure there are themes that come up repeatedly, but there are big departures as well, especially between Old and New Testaments.
I do agree with your point though that I think a great many non-Christians believe that creationism is the Christian norm, which does certainly create issues.
Really? Do you think so? I wouldn't have thought so, but then, i am in Britain, where the moderate Church of England is the biggest player. Round my way the Muslims are probably the biggest creationist group!
Well I don't see that method as working but on the other hand I haven't had a lot of success in trying to show them that their views are not consistent with the Bible itself.
Yeah, how's your attempt to reason with Bolder-Dash going?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by GDR, posted 05-30-2011 1:33 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by GDR, posted 06-01-2011 11:13 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 282 of 355 (618064)
06-01-2011 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by slevesque
05-30-2011 2:52 PM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
Hi Slevesque,
Again, sorry for the delay in replying.
This misunderstanding comes from a misconception about how scientists, or humans in general, work in regards to evidence. The key concept to remember is this: evidence is always interpreted. Evidence never dictates anything, it never says anything, it never 100% forces a conclusion. Even in those rare cases where a set of evidence seems to allow a single interpretation, science must always allow a door open for future evidence that can come in and completely change that picture.
I think that you are overstating the importance of Popperian tentativity and understating the number of situations where the evidence leaves us minimal room for interpretation or doubt. You speak as though all evidence could, with equal logical validity, be interpreted in different ways. You seem to think that we should be universal agnostics, doubting everything equally. That is not how tentativity is supposed to work. Usually, evidence points one way or another. There is room for interpretation perhaps, but not as much as you are suggesting.
Dawkins is akin to a detective arriving at a crime scence, and after looked at the evidence, concludes that person A killed person B with object C. But then, when another detective, after having looked at the same evidence, comes to a different conclusion, he calls this person deluded, stupid, or a lier. Obviously, the real reason is that the data was interpreted differently, and each detective happened to come to different conclusions.
But only one of them is right.
You can talk about world-view and interpretative frameworks all you like, but, even if we rule out stupidity, dishonesty, etc., there still remain only a limited number of possibilities;
  1. Detective A is right. His "world-view" led him to the correct explanation. Detective B's "world-view" led him astray, led him to the wrong conclusion. A is correct, whilst B is deluded.
  2. Detective B is right. His "world-view" led him to the correct explanation. Detective A's "world-view" led him astray, led him to the wrong conclusion. B is correct, whilst A is deluded.
  3. Both A and B are deluded.
I do not see any other option. Either God is fictional and I you are deluded to believe in him or God is real and I am the deluded one. What else can we call a person who believes something which is not true other than deluded?
All that Dawkins seems to mean when he talks about people being deluded in this context is that they have been induced, by whatever means, to believe something that is not true. That is not the insult that you seem to think it is. In fact, if you believe that you are correct about any issue that anyone else disagrees with, then you are, by necessity, saying that those people are deluded. it is a matter of logical necessity. For one person to be right, all those with mutually exclusive ideas are wrong. It's that simple.
Yes, in fact I do. I realize that you are interpreting the evidence in a wholy different paradigm then I am, and therefore you come to widely different conclusions.
That is irrelevant. Only the conclusion matters. How one gets there does not. You may have been led by your paradigm, but if your conclusion is wrong, then you are still just wrong. Just because one is led to a false conclusion by a paradigm does not matter. All it means is that one's paradigm may well be at fault.
Nowhere is this more apparent then in the case when someone makes a complete 180 degrees turnaround, a complete paradigm shift, such as was the case of Dr. Sanford.... {snip} The only option then, is that he is honest when he thinks that the evidence supports creation more then evolution.
Yes. He is an honest man who just happens to be labouring under an honest delusion.
Look, I think that evolution is real. You think that it is false. Those two opinions are mutually exclusive. Therefore one of us must hold an opinion about reality that does not match reality. thus, one of us is deluded. There is no other option and your attempts to create one only revolve around being slightly more polite about calling someone deluded.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by slevesque, posted 05-30-2011 2:52 PM slevesque has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 355 (618071)
06-01-2011 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Percy
06-01-2011 7:43 AM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
Percy writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Bolder-dash was determined to leave EvC before this thread. Thus his inhibition to tone it down.
That could be true. Maybe this is his "Let's trash the place and split" tour.
--Percy
His recent posts remind me of the last few messages from Archy-426.
I'll note that Bolder uses a completely different tone and approach when discussing topics unrelated to evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 06-01-2011 7:43 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-01-2011 8:54 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 284 of 355 (618072)
06-01-2011 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Percy
06-01-2011 7:43 AM


Percy, until you can explain how every other thing that was said on this thread, like you talking about the Exodus, and all the other nonsense was on topic, and ONLY my REPLY to a comment that made extraordinary claims about evidence was off topic, everything you say here is just *** to try to save face.
I can give you 10 examples of things that were much more off topic on this thread than my replying to someone else's unsubstantiated claim. You ignored them all and continued to try to blame me.
Shame Percy, shame shame shame on you, you are morally bankrupt.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 06-01-2011 7:43 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 285 of 355 (618074)
06-01-2011 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by NoNukes
06-01-2011 8:42 AM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
Have you not noticed the tone of Hooah, of Rhavin, of Theoderic, of Dr. A, of Granny, of Huntard, of Anglagard or Jar?
Just because Percy says it is me who is causing a problem doesn't make it so. Read the posts. Read about Taq calling all creationists evil, about Granny calling them belligerent ***, read about the 50 posts of nonsense, and then explain how you have such blinders for them? ead what hoohah writes. read what AZpaul writes. You act surprised that someone would call them on their bluff, because you are so used to people being able to abuse creationists here and them just taking it or leaving.
Read the posts. Pull the wool off your eyes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2011 8:42 AM NoNukes has seen this message but 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