Effective Posting Styles (And Suggested Improvements)

quote:

---

Dr Adequate, I don't consider you to be a troll, but this here's a classic example of a trollish message; a one liner saying narry a bloomed thing about what in my message was false, poorly articulated or otherwise awful.

---

I think that anyone who reads it can see that it's far worse than the post that you are objecting to. The bragging is bad enough (and false enough) even before it turns nasty.

quote:

---

See, Doc, this is the kind of trollish yada that Admin, PaulK et al blame me for when it's you people and the trolls who drag out and slow down the forward movement of threads. It not only comes from the classic trolls, but from good members like you, Coyote et al.

---

No, it isn't. We can just skim over those posts without much effect at all. And we certainly don't blame you for other people's posts. Indeed, since the lack of progress seems to be your idea of successful debate, shouldn't you be thanking Dr. Adequate for helping you, if he really was slowing the debate to any noticeable degree? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I like that word, "effective" in the thread title. Long, lively and red hot threads should be an indication of some effective posting styles, should it not?

---

Trollish posts - or successful trolls would be "effective" by that measure. Effective argumentation can't be measured in that way. Numbers are rarely a good measure of quality.

quote:

---

Creationists who draw interest are often the ones who get criticized by members and admins the most.

---

Probably because they tend to produce trollish posts. Which doubtless appeal to other creationists but do nothing to persuade anybody on the other side.

quote:

---

What's considered factual is often relative to one's paradigm

---

I would like you to elaborate on this. Perhaps you can explain why ideas that you have simply made up, without any real knowledge or understanding should be considered "facts" in your paradigm.

quote:

---

It may not be considered scientific to the satisfaction of the mainstream's science methodology. That, of course has to do with the nature of scientific evidence[ which I've been thinking long and hard on.

---

Do please tell us why it is unfair to exclude falsehoods as valid evidence.

Buz, I dont think that all this empty bragging is either productive or effective.

quote:

---

I do not go beyond what topics I can handle. There are science threads which I know I am incapable of debating, aside form, perhaps a post or two.

---

The evidence says otherwise. For instance your dismal performance in this thread: Which More 3LoT Compatible, Cavediver's Temp.Non-ID Or Buzsaw's Infinite ID Universe