Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
37 online now:
dwise1, Faith, GDR, PaulK, ssope (5 members, 32 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,979 Year: 19,015/19,786 Month: 1,435/1,705 Week: 241/446 Day: 39/98 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 211 of 1043 (631618)
09-02-2011 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Adminnemooseus
09-01-2011 10:59 PM


Re: Ignoring the Y in YEC, and other considerations
Yes, I too believe that anything having to do with young Earth creationism can be shot down with some variation of a "but the Earth isn't young" argument. But for the sake of having a debate on some aspect of "floodism" and/or "flood geology", we need to set such a thing aside.

As I see it, the Biblical "one year flood" is a consideration in that debate. That it Biblically supposedly happened somewhere in the last 5000 years is not a relevant issue.

The OP refers twice to "the ark". Subsequent posts by creationists refer again to "the ark", to the Bible, to the "Biblical standpoint", to "the Bible account", to the Book of Genesis and "the Genesis record", to Noah, to "the Noaic Flood", to Peleg (another character in Genesis); and they quote the book of Genesis frequently, giving chapter and verse.

Meanwhile the evolutionists have been answering them by referring to the Bible, to "your Biblical deluge", to the ark, to Noah, to Adam, to "2 of every species", to "the Biblical Flood", to "the Noaic flood", to calculations made by "AnswersInGenesis", to "the 8 people" (in Noah's family), to the "Young Earth", to "4000 years" (since the flood), to "the mountains of Ararat", to "the Hebrew texts", to "the Judaeo Christian narrative"; and they too quote extensively from the book of Genesis.

And all the posts I've cited were made without a single complaint from the moderators.

And now Coyote is banned from posting in that whole forum because he posted on that thread on the assumption that we weren't talking about just any old global flood, but the specific global flood mentioned in the Bible?

When Buzsaw writes: "As for the Noaic Flood, 4350 years ago is likely close", you had no problem with that, but if Coyote challenges the flood on that same assumption, using exactly Buz's figure of 4350 years ... well, that's going too far.

And this has nothing to do with whether the Earth is young --- but the date of the flood is relevant to the question of what we should see in terms of geology, in terms of genetics, in terms of biogeography, in terms of archaeology, in terms of history, in terms of that hoary old creationist argument about population growth ... the date makes a huge difference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-01-2011 10:59 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-02-2011 2:57 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3896
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 212 of 1043 (631620)
09-02-2011 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Dr Adequate
09-02-2011 2:28 AM


Re: Ignoring the Y in YEC, and other considerations
The topic in question just got a restart at message 134. Both Jar and Coyote replied to that message. Neither of their replies addressed the content of that message. Had a creationist pulled off this maneuver, the originator would be responding with something like "Did you even read my message?", or maybe even "DID YOU EVEN READ MY MESSAGE?"

By the way, did you notice I had no objections to your message 136, in reply to message 134? That's because your content actually was a reply to message 134's content. I guess maybe you deserved a "+" for that.

Maybe this all is a testament on why we should start new topics rather than reviving old topics.

I await for the opinion(s) of another admin(s).

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2011 2:28 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2011 3:28 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


(3)
Message 213 of 1043 (631622)
09-02-2011 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Adminnemooseus
09-02-2011 2:57 AM


Re: Ignoring the Y in YEC, and other considerations
The topic in question just got a restart at message 134. Both Jar and Coyote replied to that message. Neither of their replies addressed the content of that message.

Well, it does.

Coyote writes:

The date of the "global flood" is widely placed at about 4,350 years ago by biblical scholars.

At that time period you are dealing with soils, not geological formations (rocks).

Also, you are dealing with bones, not fossils. All of your examples dealing with fossils and geological strata are rendered moot by this fact alone.

Now, this is a non-negligible point. You acknowledge the merits of my post, but one of its weaknesses is that I'm giving Jbr a free pass on this --- I'm seriously discussing whether or not the frickin' Coconino Sandstone, which is 260 million years old, is evidence for Noah's flood, which supposedly happened ~4000 years ago.

Coyote tells him that he should be discussing things which are actually ~4000 years old, and then tells him about some of them. It's a fair point.

Had a creationist pulled off this maneuver, the originator would be responding with something like "Did you even read my message?"

I am trying to think of a good analogy ...

Suppose someone said that the Gospel of John couldn't have been written by St John because he gets his head chopped off in Mark 6, then it would be reasonable for a creationist (or other Christian, or indeed me, 'cos I like accuracy) to reply that he should be talking about John the Evangelist and not John the Baptist. It would not be unreasonable to follow this up with a brief life of John the Evangelist per the Bible. It would be unreasonable to reply to that with: "Didn't you even read my message, it was about John the Baptist".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-02-2011 2:57 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12631
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 214 of 1043 (631649)
09-02-2011 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Adminnemooseus
09-01-2011 10:59 PM


Re: Ignoring the Y in YEC, and other considerations
Adminnemooseus writes:

Much of what he got suspended for (and I did give a "-" to Admin's suspension message) was building on Jar's and your messages.

IamJoseph was suspended for ignoring moderator requests to stop discussing the Bible in science forums in these three threads:

Discussing the Bible in science threads is a longstanding IamJoseph problem, and combined with his inability to stay on topic or clearly articulate anything he is a significant disruptive force in threads and I am actively trying to discourage his participation here.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-01-2011 10:59 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1921 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 215 of 1043 (631661)
09-02-2011 9:19 AM


You keep trying to engage with IAJ, so I want to finally say a few words about this.

The creation/evolution controversy has a long record of attracting loons. IamJoseph is just one of many here. Dawn Bertot, Robert Byers, Bolder-dash and John 10:10 are others who have posted recently.

Before Dover the presence of the certifiables was balanced by others who could articulate a position and argue it rationally, but after Dover their numbers gradually dwindled until today there are almost none here. ID disgraced itself at Dover and is no longer effectively promoting itself, and creationism has decided to keep a very low profile, refraining from any overt actions that might bring it into court but working hard to influence school boards and individual teachers. The result of the cessation of overt efforts to convince the public of their views is that the creationists who come here are either woefully unprepared, or they're seriously disconnected from reality, or they speak English so poorly they understand little that is said (by themselves or anyone else), or all of these and more.

There seems something about holding beliefs contrary to reality that forces disassociation. Just look at TrueCreation, an early and highly active YEC participant in EvC Forum's early days who performed his own intense and highly detailed research. He now says he is no longer YEC, but he can't answer a direct question and has become highly circumspect in all his replies, almost like he's waging an internal battle to keep himself from thinking about certain things.

What originally drew me in to the creationism/evolution controversy was creationism's inability to articulate a rational position while insisting it deserved inclusion in public school science programs. It was the legal battles that first garnered my attention. In the old days many creationists who came to sites like this could muster very strong arguments for their position that required careful attention, but today we get a lot of creationists who seem crazy right from their first post.

I've taken the long way around to say something simple: some of the creationists here who seem crazy really *are* crazy, at least in this discussion board context. Probably in real life they're not really crazy, but religious devotion and sincerity combined with a complete ignorance of science seems to produce the appearance of complete irrationality. Long experience has taught me, and many others here, that's there no point in arguing with a crazy person, and besides, onlookers often can't tell the difference.

There's one key sign, not always exhibited but still helpful, that tells you when it's time to disengage. When you find yourself explaining the interpretation of simple English, head for the hills.

I fully understand the impulses pressing you to engage with IAJ and straighten out his confusion, which seems simple and straightforward and easy to resolve. It appears to you that the presentation of a few simple facts and the walking through of a few logical inductions should straighten everything out. But it doesn't work that way with creationists. When they exhibit a few simple and fundamental errors it isn't because they've just accidentally picked up a few incorrect facts that can be easily corrected, but because they have a whole pathology that prevents them from ever connecting evidence to any ideas contrary to their central beliefs.

--Percy

Quick, what's the topic this is posted under? Can you guess it right away without looking? Be honest.

Topic "The problems of big bang theory. What are they?"

Oh what humor Percy uses for his duplicity!

I think the next time anyone on this forum gets warned or reprimanded about being off topic, they should be able to just slap this load of crap post in response, and all accusations of ever being off topic should be thrown out immediately via the doctrine of Percy's Stare Decisis.


Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Panda, posted 09-02-2011 9:39 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 218 by Theodoric, posted 09-02-2011 10:28 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 219 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2011 10:49 AM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 280 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-21-2011 9:29 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 216 of 1043 (631662)
09-02-2011 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2011 9:19 AM


Bolder-dash writes:

I think the next time anyone on this forum gets warned or reprimanded about being off topic, they should be able to just slap this load of crap post in response, and all accusations of ever being off topic should be thrown out immediately via the doctrine of Percy's Stare Decisis.


You should make a stand and then vote with your feet.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2011 9:19 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 1043 (631665)
09-02-2011 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Coyote
09-01-2011 8:46 PM


Re: Moderation problems
Moose, your moderation is getting increasingly erratic.
This is becoming a serious problem for this forum, and for me.

If it wasn't for the extremely superior software, I would have abandoned this board long ago simply because moose is such a jerk.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2011 8:46 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6691
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 218 of 1043 (631668)
09-02-2011 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2011 9:19 AM


and all accusations of ever being off topic should be thrown out immediately via the doctrine of Percy's Stare Decisis.

First of all I didn't realize that privately run forums were subject to the rules of jurisprudence.
Second of all it would be incumbent upon you to show that all the "facts are substantially the same".

quote:
the doctrine that rules or principles of law on which a court rested a previous decision are authoritative in all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same.

Source

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2011 9:19 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 219 of 1043 (631674)
09-02-2011 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2011 9:19 AM


I think the next time anyone on this forum gets warned or reprimanded about being off topic, they should be able to just slap this load of crap post in response, and all accusations of ever being off topic should be thrown out immediately via the doctrine of Percy's Stare Decisis.

But devises charged with consolidated quodwrits of quitbar or seigny-poke subsist thereafter in fee of grossplaysaunce, notwithstanding all copyholds of mesnemanor, socagemoign, interfee, mortlease, grand bastardy in copygross, subescheats of scutage quousque, refeoffed disseisor of sub-seisin in seignyfrankalpuis and vivmain of copycharged serjaunty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2011 9:19 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2011 11:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1921 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 220 of 1043 (631678)
09-02-2011 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Dr Adequate
09-02-2011 10:49 AM


Some words of advice for all readers to live by, if it ever appears that Dr.A has written anything whatsoever that might be considered funny, intelligent, creative, or even remotely unique or interesting...

...you can be sure it was plagiarized.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2011 10:49 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2011 11:19 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 221 of 1043 (631679)
09-02-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2011 11:14 AM


Some words of advice for all readers to live by: if it ever appears that Bolder-dash has written anything whatsoever that might be considered honest ...

... look out for the Four Horsemen of the fucking Apocalypse.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2011 11:14 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1934 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(5)
Message 222 of 1043 (631704)
09-02-2011 2:23 PM


Any chance we can end the petty vindictive moderation...?
It would do wonders for the professional appearance of the board.

quote:
Jar and Coyote restricted out of the "Geology and the Great Flood" forum

quote:
Jar, 4 weeks suspension

I mean, how pathetic can this get?


Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-02-2011 3:23 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 224 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2011 3:28 PM cavediver has responded
 Message 231 by Buzsaw, posted 09-03-2011 7:57 AM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 237 by Bailey, posted 09-03-2011 1:47 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 1043 (631707)
09-02-2011 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by cavediver
09-02-2011 2:23 PM


Re: Any chance we can end the petty vindictive moderation...?
Any chance we can end the petty vindictive moderation...?

Nope.

"Vote with your feet"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by cavediver, posted 09-02-2011 2:23 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


(1)
Message 224 of 1043 (631710)
09-02-2011 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by cavediver
09-02-2011 2:23 PM


King Log And King Stork
I don't know about "petty" and "vindictive" --- that suggests that there's something personal in it. But it does seem that Moose in particular is using his moderator powers to reprimand and suspend where he should just have voted to dislike the post or posted a response. The use of moderator powers should only be exercised in the case of a flagrant breach of forum rules or moderator warnings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by cavediver, posted 09-02-2011 2:23 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by fearandloathing, posted 09-02-2011 3:32 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 233 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2011 11:05 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 2436 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 225 of 1043 (631711)
09-02-2011 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Dr Adequate
09-02-2011 3:28 PM


Re: King Log And King Stork
And it should be professional, not personal (moose seems like it's a little personal with some people, jmo), I could give a shit what a moderators personal opinion is about anyone.

Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.


"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
— Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2011 3:28 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2011 4:06 PM fearandloathing has 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