General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')

It's typical Moose - ham-handed and solves a "problem" that wasn't one.Been this way for years, though. Nobody's going to do anything about it. He's a menace, always has been, but people will always cheer on a bully.

Nobody thinks that's true. Not even the creationists.

Buz, if this is really all an ideological crusade against you by people like myself who deny the existence of the supernatural, then how do you explain your "evidence problem" in all other threads?Jon and Coyote, for instance, are both conservatives like you. Why do they then join the chorus of people telling you your "evidence" is no evidence at all, in these political threads? Like your thread about monetary devaluation, for instance.How do you explain the fact that even the people who agree with you think you have this problem where your "evidence" isn't any kind of evidence at all? Are even the people who agree with you out to get you?I think a thread where you share your perspective on what evidence is would really be fruitful in correcting many of your misunderstandings, as well as your tendency to be completely credulous of any source at all, just so long as it appears to confirm something you already believe. (This, of course, is always the greatest challenge facing the evaluation of evidence. It's something we all face. We've learned how not to fool ourselves when it comes to evidence. Wouldn't you like to? Don't you think it would decrease the likelihood of you falling for hoaxes and charlatans, like it appears you did in this instance? It's not something to be ashamed of, it happens to all of us. But it happens more to you because you don't seem to learn from it.)A lot of people are trying to help you. You've enjoyed a considerable amount of latitude here at EvC for a very considerable amount of time. I continue to be surprised by your apparent willingness to repay that help and discretion with accusations.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I was referring to your evidence that Barack Obama is engaged in a socialist takeover of the US by means of monetary devaluation, blah blah blah. Not to Moller. Isn't it at all significant that even the people who agree with you on a subject - any subject - don't find your evidence credible?Again, I'm simply pointing out that the issue here has nothing to do with the ideological motivation of your audience, and everything to do with the fact that, conservative or liberal, atheist or Christian, evolutionist or creationist, everyone agrees that you don't seem to understand why or how propositions are supported by evidence (or not supported.) Or seems to agree. How is it that you don't seem to notice that, despite several prominent creationists here, despite several prominent conservatives who are themselves convinced that Obama is a socialist, when it comes to evidence every single other person at EvC is arguing that you haven't presented any? That you've presented speculation and innuendos as fact?Don't you think that Coyote and Jon would be receptive to the position that Obama is playing monetary tricks to impoverish the US? Or that he forced Seal Team Six members onto a certain kind of helicopter so that it would crash and weaken the military, thereby opposing US military hegemony (which we all know lie-bruls oppose)? How then do you explain their utter incredulity at your "evidence" that these things are true? How do you explain that, when it comes to your problem with evidence, Jon and Coyote and other conservatives are in four-square agreement with us liberals? Yeah! Because "my kind" certainly includes a large number of people who believe in the supernatural: Jar, Percy, CS (I think), many others. Just because they tell you you've not presented real evidence, doesn't mean that they're saying that in bad faith. A lot of us find you significantly interesting that we would like to see you present and defend your views in the best way possible. Fighting stuffed dummies isn't any fun; we come here to do battle and we want opponents who can challenge us. I do, anyway.So I ask you: who's opinion at EvC do you take seriously enough that if they told you you had an "evidence problem", where you exhibit zero skepticism of any source if it agrees with what you already believe, you would believe them? Please, name the person. Do aliens count as "supernatural"? I've admitted to evidence of communication by extraterrestrials.Maybe that doesn't count, though.

Buz, the subject here isn't why your cohorts won't accept your evidence for a supernatural God actively working in the universe; the subject here is why your cohorts won't accept your evidence for anything at all, including propositions that they themselves support such as the apparent-to-conservatives proposition that Obama is a Kenyan socialist with a fake birth certificate, or whatever. Or that Bill Clinton had Vince Foster killed to cover up some kind of Whitewater shenanigans. (Remember how none of your fellow conservatives believe that?) Or that Obama is sending Seal Team Six members on broken helicopters to weaken the US military. Or that Obama has caused sky-high inflation during his term of office.Surely conservatives who oppose liberal Democrats should find these propositions attractive, provided that they can be supported by evidence. So how do you explain the failure of your "evidence" to convince any of your fellow conservatives?And you never answered my question. I don't expect you to take my word for the fact that you have this profound evidence problem. But please, do answer this - whose word would you take? Surely there must be someone at EvC you respect enough that if they said "uh, yeah, Buz; maybe there's something to what they're saying" that would be cause for self-examination?

Right, no, we know your secret theory already, Buz, because you've told us. You believe that everyone who says they don't find your evidence convincing is lying, because they really are convinced but can't bear to admit it to you.But my question to you is the same: how do you square that with the fact that even the people who agree with you, who are completely on your side about things, are telling you you have this problem with evidence?I wish you'd answer my other question, too. Is there really no one else whose opinion you respect enough that you would consider believing them when they tell you you have an evidence problem?

Why are we closing threads at 300 now? Imagine my surprise at bumping a thread only to have it immediately closed.

Complaining that people won't accept your evidence isn't at all the same thing as actually citing it.

Why don't you make a good-faith effort to list the evidence for both, in a relevant thread? Or perhaps you could open one to that purpose? It would be a tenuous basis to hold a discussion on what you think evidence is, and how propositions are supported by it, but it sounds like the best opening for it so far.The truth is, Buz, we're desperate to find out why you think you've produced evidence for the Biblical exodus, or for Obama's plan to devalue the dollar. We're curious how you think you can simultaneously argue that you aren't going to bother to produce evidence because you know we won't believe it, and also that you already have produced exactly the evidence we asked for. I don't see how both could be true. You can either explain the lack of evidence or present the evidence; you can't do both. Can you? In fact, substantially less is being required of you than of the general membership. From day one, we were required to substantiate our positions with evidence. You've been allowed the run of the place coming on ten years, now.

Buz, I'll be honest - I've never seen Hooah say anything nearly as offensive as the things you've said about Native Americans, Hispanics, African-Americans, and other minorities.I think someone as possessed of ignorant, racist diarrhea of the mouth as you has no business to complain about how others choose to express themselves. A board that has tolerance for your racist screeds has plenty of room for Hooah's exuberant obscenity. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I tell you what, Buz - no. I'm not going to do that. Every time you've polluted the board with racist nonsense, I've been there to call you on it, so don't act like you've been caught out by surprise or that there's not a documented history of your degenerate racial animus on the board.That you even think that it could be material worth a thread by itself speaks to your enormous self-centeredness, as well as proof that, to a conservative, it's a far worse thing to be called a "racist" than to actually be one. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I can't deliver? Buz, you were racist in the post where you denied being racist. I mean, it's amazing! You're like the guy who says "you know, I'm no racist, but a nigger just can't hold down a job, right guys?" Given the overwhelming desire of racists to avoid looking like racists, I'm surprised nobody's passing the word around your little racist get-togethers and barbecues and stuff: bragging about how "some of your best friends are black" is the number one indicator that you're a racist. I mean, at this point it's something we parody about racists, its such a reliable guide. Of course, the problem is, as always, your amazing lack of anything that could be considered self-awareness. I have potted plants here who have a clearer notion of how they're perceived by others than you do. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I guess it just goes to show the importance of viewpoint - I've long believed that the board has suffered from Moose's hamfisted "moderation."

Well, I think you're misunderstanding my critique of Moose simply because the only lens through which you judge moderator action is whether they hammer my side just as much as yours.I'm talking about something that is beyond sides; I think Moose's problem was that he was a bit of a sleeping bobcat - for a week or two at a time there'd be no indication that he was even following the board, some situation would slowly devolve over a couple of days, and then finally Moose would bestir himself to hand out suspensions based entirely on one or two most recent messages, completely divorced from context. There was just no telling what would set Moose off, but once he was, you could rely on him taking exactly the wrong action. I'd be surprised if there was any moderator so frequently overruled as Moose.

Edited by AdminModulous, : offtopic content hidden - AdminModulous