Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
79 online now:
14174dm, anglagard, Hyroglyphx, jar, JonF, Tangle (6 members, 73 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,240 Year: 4,988/23,288 Month: 109/1,784 Week: 207/353 Day: 16/32 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

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


(2)
Message 541 of 1043 (663747)
05-26-2012 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 540 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 9:42 AM


Topic Please!!!!!
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.

Thanks
AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 9:42 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 542 of 1043 (663759)
05-26-2012 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 538 by Panda
05-26-2012 7:45 AM


Re: Fyoungs posts of hate
off topic

Edited by foreveryoung, : off topic


This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by Panda, posted 05-26-2012 7:45 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2684 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 543 of 1043 (663771)
05-26-2012 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 528 by Adminnemooseus
05-25-2012 3:16 PM


right on
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-25-2012 3:16 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Evangelical Humanists
Junior Member (Idle past 2709 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 05-27-2012


Message 544 of 1043 (663984)
05-28-2012 8:31 AM


Disagree
I made a response to the below thread:

http://www.evcforum.net/Messages.php?control=replynew&t=1...

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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2012 8:52 AM Evangelical Humanists has not yet responded
 Message 546 by Admin, posted 05-28-2012 8:55 AM Evangelical Humanists has responded

  
crashfrog
Member
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 545 of 1043 (663987)
05-28-2012 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 544 by Evangelical Humanists
05-28-2012 8:31 AM


AdminPD - out of control, again
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 544 by Evangelical Humanists, posted 05-28-2012 8:31 AM Evangelical Humanists has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12657
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 546 of 1043 (663989)
05-28-2012 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 544 by Evangelical Humanists
05-28-2012 8:31 AM


Re: Disagree
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.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 544 by Evangelical Humanists, posted 05-28-2012 8:31 AM Evangelical Humanists has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 547 by Evangelical Humanists, posted 05-28-2012 8:59 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Evangelical Humanists
Junior Member (Idle past 2709 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 05-27-2012


Message 547 of 1043 (663990)
05-28-2012 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 546 by Admin
05-28-2012 8:55 AM


Re: Disagree
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 546 by Admin, posted 05-28-2012 8:55 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 548 by AdminPD, posted 05-28-2012 12:37 PM Evangelical Humanists has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 548 of 1043 (664006)
05-28-2012 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by Evangelical Humanists
05-28-2012 8:59 AM


Re: Disagree
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.

Thanks
AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by Evangelical Humanists, posted 05-28-2012 8:59 AM Evangelical Humanists has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by Admin, posted 05-28-2012 4:25 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12657
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 549 of 1043 (664018)
05-28-2012 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 548 by AdminPD
05-28-2012 12:37 PM


Re: Disagree
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.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 548 by AdminPD, posted 05-28-2012 12:37 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 550 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2012 7:57 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
crashfrog
Member
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 550 of 1043 (664044)
05-28-2012 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 549 by Admin
05-28-2012 4:25 PM


Re: Disagree
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by Admin, posted 05-28-2012 4:25 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by Admin, posted 05-29-2012 8:33 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12657
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 551 of 1043 (664125)
05-29-2012 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 550 by crashfrog
05-28-2012 7:57 PM


Re: Disagree
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.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2012 7:57 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 552 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2012 3:50 PM Admin has responded

  
crashfrog
Member
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 552 of 1043 (664169)
05-29-2012 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by Admin
05-29-2012 8:33 AM


Re: Disagree
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by Admin, posted 05-29-2012 8:33 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 553 by Admin, posted 05-29-2012 8:17 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12657
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


(9)
Message 553 of 1043 (664202)
05-29-2012 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 552 by crashfrog
05-29-2012 3:50 PM


Re: Disagree
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."

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2012 3:50 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by onifre, posted 05-30-2012 6:23 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1407 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 554 of 1043 (664275)
05-30-2012 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 553 by Admin
05-29-2012 8:17 PM


Re: Disagree
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by Admin, posted 05-29-2012 8:17 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 555 by fearandloathing, posted 05-30-2012 7:16 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 2601 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 555 of 1043 (664280)
05-30-2012 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 554 by onifre
05-30-2012 6:23 PM


Re: Disagree
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by onifre, posted 05-30-2012 6:23 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020