Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,811 Year: 3,068/9,624 Month: 913/1,588 Week: 96/223 Day: 7/17 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 301 of 1049 (635120)
09-26-2011 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by hooah212002
09-26-2011 8:27 PM


Re: Buz shines again.
hooah writes:
every single member tells you the exact same thing
Yada, yada. Every single member does no such thing. Just like PaulK you go on demeaning/attacking my person without addressing my whines. Paul hasn't responded to my question. Nor have you.
Tell me, Hooah. Which evidence is more physical, falsifyable, and observable? Multi-Verse theory or the cited Exodus corroborated evidences, both on land and sea?
Hooah, it's you same few vindictive members; about three or four of you who stalk me so as to attack my MO every time something like this comes up. You all simply waive off the fact that more is being required of me than of the general membership. Why? Because my evidence of the supernatural ID and creationism presents a real challenge to your secularistic, godless bent.

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 300 by hooah212002, posted 09-26-2011 8:27 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2011 12:19 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied
 Message 303 by hooah212002, posted 09-27-2011 12:28 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(4)
Message 302 of 1049 (635122)
09-27-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Buzsaw
09-26-2011 11:58 PM


Re: Buz shines again.
Which evidence is more physical, falsifyable, and observable? Multi-Verse theory or the cited Exodus corroborated evidences, both on land and sea?
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?
You all simply waive off the fact that more is being required of me than of the general membership.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2011 11:58 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 303 of 1049 (635123)
09-27-2011 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Buzsaw
09-26-2011 11:58 PM


Re: Buz shines again.
Which evidence is more physical, falsifyable, and observable?
I'll start off saying that you don't even know what multi-verse theory fully entails, so I would advise against you continuing to bring it up, much less in this thread. Second, I'll also advise against you arguing evidence since you have such a unique standard for it that you are the only person in existence that has the Buz standard, making it impossible to hold you to any claim. Third, calling you out your bullshit claims is not stalking. You come around for a bit and fling a bunch of poo, then hope everyone forgets your brand of crazy so when you come back you can pretend you accomplished something the last time you were here, when in reality, you left a lot of loose ends then whine incessantly about unfair treatment. It's old, just like you. Fourthly, of the two options (multi-verse or exodus): of course the multi-verse has more evidence than the exodus. You've never provided evidence for the exodus nor have you debunked multi-verse. Neither do you understand what evidence is so as to successfully provide any for any position you claim that isn't specifically and solely rooted in the bible.
Because my evidence of the supernatural ID and creationism presents a real challenge to your secularistic, godless bent.
Ahh, good old christian delusions of grandeur interspersed with persecution.
godless bent.
You say that like it's a bad thing lmao.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2011 11:58 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 304 of 1049 (635128)
09-27-2011 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Buzsaw
09-26-2011 8:06 PM


Re: Buz shines again.
I have some trepidation about continuing but absent moderator intervention, I suppose that it's OK. But I will try to restrict myself to the actual problems relevant to your bans.
quote:
Nobody could show that my evidence was no good because it could not be debated.
Well that is a lie for a start. There was plenty of debate in the Exodus thread, and a lot of valid points raised against your "evidence". True, a lot of it consisted of you repeating your assertions rather than providing any sort of reasoned defence of them, but if you want to support your contention of "no debate" on that ground you only confirm my point.
quote:
Your all the people was not all of the people. It was a few of you more vindictive secularistic non-creationist people who think evidence of stuff like multi-verses (none) is really, really good, to be touted while researched physical evidence at Aqaba, along with corroborating land evidence is not even supportive evidence.
Of course I did not say "all the people". I said "all the people who showed that your evidence wasn't any good". So there's one glaring misrepresentation. Because this isn't a discussion forum I won't deal with the multiverse issue here except to point out that you misrepresent my position and that off-topic ranting about cosmology is another of your bad habits.
As I said elsewhere, the problem is that your evidence doesn't stand up to even basic critical examination and deserves to be rejected. If you can't come up with even one thing that is at least probably true AND probably something to do with the Exodus then you don't have much of a case. And the fact that you don't understand that is one of the issues you need to address.
quote:
Tell me, PaulK. Be honest. Which evidence is more physical, falsifyable and observable, the Exodus or Multi-Verse theory?
In fact I would say the multiverse theory by a nose - knowing that it is mainly a piece of theoretical speculation without a solid evidential foundation. But this is not a discussion forum so I don't propose to get into that.
So let us sum up. To regain your privileges you have to:
1) Honestly discuss the nature of evidence, so that you understand why your arguments in the Exodus thread were rejected. (Note that I said "understand" not "agree").
2) Convince Admin that you won't waste moderator time by producing PNTs that don't meet the requirements and then scrapping the topic when you are asked to fix your proposal. If you aren't prepared to produce acceptable proposals
That's it. So long as you show that you are completely unwilling to address these problems and that you intend to continue to act badly in other ways, too you won't be allowed back in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2011 8:06 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by AdminPD, posted 09-27-2011 7:42 AM PaulK has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 305 of 1049 (635148)
09-27-2011 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by PaulK
09-27-2011 2:17 AM


Enough About Buzsaw
See Message 293.
Continuing to give Buz advice veers off the main purpose of this thread.
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2011 2:17 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(2)
Message 306 of 1049 (638125)
10-20-2011 12:24 AM


What's in a name?
quote:
As of Tuesday 10/18, 10:35 pm (US eastern time), the My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism) topic is in the "one final summary message per member" phase.
These messages should not be replies to previous messages.
Adminnemooseus
If bluescat and Dr Jones had labeled their post-summary notice replies to previous posts a Summation, as did Chuck77, would it have been okay?
For future reference, may I also reply to others' summaries in my summary?

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Chuck77, posted 10-20-2011 1:18 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 307 of 1049 (638130)
10-20-2011 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Omnivorous
10-20-2011 12:24 AM


Re: What's in a name?
For future reference, may I also reply to others' summaries in my summary?
Hmmm, I have an even better idea. How about you have one SINGLE post on a thread or you're not allowed a summation?
Seems reasonable to me ehe? Not one single post on the entire thread but your "summation" and I use the term loosely, and you're whining about me. Funny. Atleast I contributed.
You on the other hand? Not so much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Omnivorous, posted 10-20-2011 12:24 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Omnivorous, posted 10-20-2011 9:53 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(4)
Message 308 of 1049 (638153)
10-20-2011 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Chuck77
10-20-2011 1:18 AM


Re: What's in a name?
Actually, I'm whining about two other members being suspended for 24 hours for doing the same thing you did without suspension.
I have no problem with what you posted. I have no issues with you posting a response to someone else's summary.
Let a thousand flowers bloom--I don't in general support restrictions on anyone's speech. Nor did I voice any criticism of your post in my query to the admins above. I don't object to you criticizing my summary in that thread: fine, whatever.
My objection is not to what you said or how and where you said it.
My objection is to the inconsistent ruling by a moderator.
Edited by Omnivorous, : Removed snark in favor of substance.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Chuck77, posted 10-20-2011 1:18 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-20-2011 6:28 PM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 309 of 1049 (638237)
10-20-2011 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Omnivorous
10-20-2011 9:53 AM


Bad and even worse
My evalution is that Chuck's message was poor, but it was marginally a summary message. At least he did recognize that the topic was in the "summary messages only" phase.
Bluescat's and DrJone's messages were even worse - They were snipey little (essentially) one line replies to previous messages. Bluescat's reply seems to be badly off-topic, and DrJone's reply was to a highly dubious first message from a new member.
And concerning off-topic - When someone goes off-topic in a message or has some off-topic content in an otherwise on-topic message, it would be nice if others didn't "chase the off-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 308 by Omnivorous, posted 10-20-2011 9:53 AM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by bluescat48, posted 10-22-2011 9:30 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 310 of 1049 (638502)
10-22-2011 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Adminnemooseus
10-20-2011 6:28 PM


Re: Bad and even worse
One reason my message was not a summation, was that I didn't even know that a summation had been called for. I was responding to IAmJoseph's response to one of my earlier posts, which was from the email that was sent to me showing a response, thus going right to the post I responded to it. I didn't find out about the summation until I logged in after the suspension was almost up.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-20-2011 6:28 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by AdminPD, posted 10-23-2011 7:46 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 311 of 1049 (638529)
10-23-2011 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by bluescat48
10-22-2011 9:30 PM


Re: Bad and even worse
So would you consider it appropriate for a thread to be closed for 24 hours to allow participants time to become aware of the call for summations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by bluescat48, posted 10-22-2011 9:30 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Panda, posted 10-23-2011 8:08 AM AdminPD has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 312 of 1049 (638532)
10-23-2011 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by AdminPD
10-23-2011 7:46 AM


Re: Bad and even worse
AdminPD writes:
So would you consider it appropriate for a thread to be closed for 24 hours to allow participants time to become aware of the call for summations?
Would you consider that to be the only possible option?
Maybe a flag could be set on a thread which displays a 'special message' when people are replying (in this case a "summary only" message)?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by AdminPD, posted 10-23-2011 7:46 AM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by AdminPD, posted 10-23-2011 8:24 AM Panda has not replied
 Message 314 by Admin, posted 10-23-2011 8:32 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 313 of 1049 (638533)
10-23-2011 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Panda
10-23-2011 8:08 AM


Re: Bad and even worse
That's more of a programming solution which could be suggested to Percy.
Until something is part of the programming, how can one who is only responding to the email they received know the thread is in summation mode?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Panda, posted 10-23-2011 8:08 AM Panda has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12996
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 314 of 1049 (638534)
10-23-2011 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Panda
10-23-2011 8:08 AM


Re: Bad and even worse
I am, as we speak, automating summation mode. A thread in summation mode will only allow a participant one additional message, and it must be a General Reply, not a reply to a specific message.
I'm also implementing access restrictions for threads. Right now member permissions can be controlled only at the forum level. The new capability will allow participation in individual threads to be controlled in one of two ways:
  • Participant List: Only members on the participant list can post.
  • Non-participant List: Members on the non-participant list cannot post.
Any thread will be able to have a participant list or a non-participant list, but not both. Moderators will always be able to post or reply to any thread or message, unless the thread is closed.
Comments, suggestions welcome.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Panda, posted 10-23-2011 8:08 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by bluescat48, posted 10-23-2011 9:03 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 315 of 1049 (638536)
10-23-2011 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by Admin
10-23-2011 8:32 AM


Re: Bad and even worse
If that works more power to it.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Admin, posted 10-23-2011 8:32 AM Admin 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