|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator
|
Participants:
Free for All does not mean topic free. As AdminMoose noted in Message 528, this line of discussion has left the realm of this threads purpose, which is to whine about moderation procedures. Individual creationists or evolutionists are not the topic. Please stop all off topic discussion in this thread. ThanksAdminPD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 602 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
off topic
Edited by foreveryoung, : off topic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4248 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
1) This is the "Free For All" forum, but the big traditional exception to the "no moderation" rule is that things should still stay on topic. Much of what is being said is pretty remote to critiquing moderation actions or non-actions. its just seems so weird, that there is a taddle tale thread so that the little kids and tell on the big kids.
2) My impression is that mixing it up with the perceived offender (aka "Feeding the troll") doesn't help the moderators deal with the situation. Instead of having one clear cut offender, we also have a bunch of others contributing to the mess. I like how you have perceived up there. I also like how you don't take the words so serious of those who tell lies against me. Sure I am guilty of calling people names (that call me names 1st), and I realize that "two wrongs don't make a right", but I am happy to see that you realize there are indeed two wrongs.
ps - I probably would have slammed AE hard, when this was first reported by Theodoric, but I am still a little miffed about his sniveling after the Hooah affair. Thanks for the link, its so funny for me to see the antics of Theo and his crusade against me. to see him campaigning to you to get rid of me, i was definitely correct when i called him a ______. well at least correct in description, it may have been against the rules to call a spade a spade. but i digress. thanks again for being objective. Edited by Artemis Entreri, : calling theodoric what he really is is against the rules so i used a blank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evangelical Humanists Junior Member (Idle past 4273 days) Posts: 14 Joined: |
I made a response to the below thread:
EvC Forum: Login I would like to know what part is off topic? The OP mentions Josh McDowell and I was pointing out about how some of this works are not very trustworthy. I do not see it as off topic. Please explain which part you consider off topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Agreed. AdminPD doesn't seem to have any notion of what the topic actually is. For instance, my Message 15 was ruled "off-topic", but in message one, it clearly states:
Second, these folk will have to define and defend the criteria behind labeling one canon as superior or better than another. What is it about a canon that would make it superior? For example, foreveryoung seems to think that supernatural inspiration is a criterion for a superior canon. Ergo a discussion about criteria for historicity as used by historians and Biblical historians is precisely on topic. PD your moderation is completely out of control in that thread. Very inappropriate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Hi EH!
I think you were ruled off-topic because the post you were replying to was ruled off-topic. You say the OP (Opening Post) mentions Josh McDowell, but it doesn't. The first mention of Josh McDowell is the post you replied to, Message 12. But some clarification from AdminPD for what it is about suggesting historicity as a criterion for judging superiority of a canon would probably be helpful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evangelical Humanists Junior Member (Idle past 4273 days) Posts: 14 Joined: |
Well I know he mentions Josh McDowell. Agreed not in the OP but he does mention him as a source for the OP in a later post. I will let this go as I see no need to make a big deal out of it but I will post less from here on out until I see exactly how things operate here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Message 1 provides the criteria for the debate.
This thread will be for foreveryoung and others who share his view on the superiority of the 'protestant canon' (or any canon, for that matter) to defend their position and present evidence in its favor. I'd like to see the discussion follow along these lines: First, those arguing for superiority of one of the canons will have to define that canon. This will mean listing all of the books that make up the canon as well as the versions of those books where significant variations exist. Second, these folk will have to define and defend the criteria behind labeling one canon as superior or better than another. What is it about a canon that would make it superior? For example, foreveryoung seems to think that supernatural inspiration is a criterion for a superior canon. Finally, they will have to show that these criteria are all met in the canon they hold as superior. The discussion concerns various bible canons. Is the protestant canon superior to the catholic canon or other biblical canons and why? Whether the NT is more reliable than any other ancient document is off topic. Other ancient documents are not the topic. I assumed your "it" was still referring to the NT since there was nothing else mentioned for it to refer to. If the point is that one canon's NT is more reliable than the other, then that is on topic and evidence needs to be provided. If the historicity of one canon is superior to another, then that is on topic and evidence needs to be provided. The historicity issue started in Message 10 wasn't dealing with differences between canons. I don't see that your input was any different. The issue is whether one Bible canon is superior to another. ThanksAdminPD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Hi All,
I'm replying to AdminPD's message because I see it picked up a couple of jeers and so I'm wondering if there's something we're missing. It looks to me that AdminPD had a pretty good handle on the topic, that the topic is about comparing different Christian canons. It is not about comparing the Christian canon or a part of the Christian canon like the NT to non-Christian ancient documents. If some would prefer to discuss the historicity of the Christian canon relative to non-Christian documents then just propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics. But if there's something about the thread that moderators are missing then please bring it to our attention by posting a message - we can't tell anything from a jeer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Historicity was one of the bases on which the canons were being compared, which naturally leads to a discussion of the techniques by which one makes comparisons of historicity, and the degree to which those comparisons represent valid scholarship.
The chain of conversation of which message 15 was clearly on topic, as it speaks directly to a point raised in the OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
crashfrog writes: The chain of conversation of which message 15 was clearly on topic, as it speaks directly to a point raised in the OP. Sorry if your message was incorrectly caught up in the sweep. You're certainly free to discuss the use of historical analysis for comparing Biblical canons. Edited by Admin, : Change author.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Sorry if your message was incorrectly caught up in the sweep. I guess AdminPD must have slipped and fallen on her keyboard and marked it as off-topic by mistake. Oh, well, accidents happen! As we know, moderators are constitutionally incapable of error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
Just for future reference, the gracious response after a concession of possible error would be, "Thanks. Maybe my message wasn't as unambiguous as it could have been."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Just for future reference, the gracious response after a concession of possible error would be, "Thanks. Maybe my message wasn't as unambiguous as it could have been." Yeah, but you know, crashfrog is a cunt. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4165 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Message 572
You go gurl...Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry..... Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ― Edward R. Murrow "Yeah, I know. I'm guilty. I understand that. I knew it was a crime, and I did it anyways. Shit, why argue? I'm a fucking criminal, look at me." - Raoul Duke
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024