Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

If you set the code aside for a month or two (which happens not infrequently because of short-term emergencies) then the errors stand out later.--Percy

In Message 55, Moose corrected an error where I referred to the "Reply to" part as being in the top-left when it was supposed to be the top-right.I thought that was cool.

Aye (upon pain of suspension). Because you have to actually read it. But deadlines do not always accommodate that method.

I think that new member OpticalIllusions is just a prank, a "Poe", a troll. I don't think that he sincerely believes what he's saying.I have two reasons for thinking so. One is the sheer stupidity of his posts, eclipsing the usual stupidity of creationists. The second I will communicate by PM to the moderators at their request, because I don't want to broadcast to all trolls how to look unlike a troll.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I'm ok with AdminPD saying that my discussion with PaulK is off topic. My point was that in order to make a case for the OT messianic prophesies you first have to understand Jesus in His messianic context of the NT in order to be able to make a case for OT prophesy.In addition, the title is "Scriptural Evidence that Jesus is Messiah" which sounds like we should be able to include NT evidence.However, as I say it's no problem and I will desist.Thanks PD for taking on the rather thankless task that you have.

Spammer Message 190

qaz111 is a link spammer e.g. Message 157

Got him, thanks!

I was wondering is this can be addressed: Message 164I was under the impression that one line insults didn't constitute debate, which in fact that is what the purpose of this site is for, to debate.If I have insulted anyone in that thread like the way I am being insulted whatever penalty is given out to the members doing it to me i'll accept the same.I wonder why expressing our Creationist views here is always mocked, insulted and laughed at instead of addressed. It difficult to express ourselves here while always being under siege.Modulous post (the one I responded to) is a good example of the way to debate. I would probably be much more active here if I didn't have to put up with the rest of the insults.It's really gotten to the point where it's not worth debating here anymore. Almost all the Creationists leave, no one sticks around, because of the constant bullying and insulting and mocking.Thanks.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

That is not an insult. It merely raises, again, a point I have already made in that thread --- that the the home-brewed epistemology with which creationists want to defend themselves from evidence of past events would be laughed out of court if a defense attorney tried to use it to defend a client from evidence of past events.When I wish to insult you, you will know about it.

Can this also be addressed? Message 166PaulK quotes my message from this thread on that thread, why? He brought my previous comment from here over into that thread discussion.What is going on here?

We aren't meant to discuss things in this thread.
*cough* oops *cough*Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Hi Chuck,I wish I could help you, I really do, but Dr Adequate and PaulK do not seem to be violating the Forum Guidelines. It's one thing to use ridicule as a substitute for debate, it's quite another to call attention to the ludicrous elements of a position.I confess I share the same wonderment as Dr Adequate, not as an evolutionist but just as a normal thinking person. My role as moderator does not call for me to suspend my powers of thought - in fact, it requires them of me, because EvC Forum like to pride itself on requiring rational discussion.So one thing I know for sure is that things that happen leave evidence behind. Many things can be established without eyewitnesses having been present, a principle that creationists understand and apply as readily as everyone else, except perhaps when it comes to evolution.Now I understand that for a creationist evolution seems an incredible claim, and most of us would probably agree that incredible claims require incredible evidence, but demanding eyewitnesses? Seriously?I'm sure this message feels unfair to you. All I can offer is an opportunity to discuss the need for eyewitnesses in a thread in the Is It Science? forum. If you propose a topic over at Proposed New Topics I'll give it some attention as quickly as I can.

This site used to be about the creation v. evolution debate.The Coffee House and Free for All have taken over, and now about 90-95% of the posts are on other topics, particularly politics.I think it is time to either dump those two forums or change the name of the site, as it is becoming just another political debate site.And those are a dime a dozen (overpriced at that).

Much as I do enjoy the political and ethical debates from time to time...it would be nice to return to a focus on Creationism vs Evolution or even just science vs religion in general.