Your assessment of the moderating here is way off. This site is one of the most even handed that I have encountered.
Now talk about funny! Virtually every creationist that has ever tried posting here totally disagrees with you. What an amazing, amazing coincidence.
Its ok dogmafood, the secret is already out of the bag. Evolutionists have been preaching for a long time that its not a good idea to debate creationists, because they always lose. Why should here be any different.
Do you know that Emory University has decided to implement a policy of doing background checks on all award recipients or honorary degrees, to make sure they don't have doubts about evolution, even if they have nothing to do with evolution? They want to send the message that if you doubt evolution, you will be shunned from the universities, no matter what science field you are in. This is typical of your communities censorship-which is quite widespread.
...Are we seriously throwing snarky insults around while simultaneously discussing a potential new moderator?
This place is great, and extremely well moderated, when we remain civil to each other. The quality of discussions drops rapidly when we start to get disrespectful, and I include myself in that assessment. Caustic sarcasm may be entertaining, and it can certainly "win" in terms of public opinion, but it tends to alienate and isolate and insult rather than focusing on evidence and argument.
“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.” - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
This place is great, and extremely well moderated, when we remain civil to each other.
I'm always surprised by the people who say this, who think it needs to be said, and by the notion that moderating a discussion board is a task of such Herculean difficulty that we should just completely ignore all the times that moderation actually blocks productive discussion because, gosh, at least they're trying.
Sorry, Rahvin, but I expect more from moderators than "aren't 100% fuck-ups" and I think you should, too. Certainly the moderation here is a cut above the rest of the internet, but it's fairly rare for the moderation here to reach it's own standards. I think that matters.
I haven't done a thorough search, but it seems that Artemis Entreri has been jeering every post of mine he can find (a total of 133 as of a couple days ago and 269 as of today) but he hasn't jeered my Message 570 where I said this:
Percy in Message 570 writes:
But if Artemis Etreri wants to reach out to me through PM and can succeed in assuring me that he will no longer be a nuisance but will instead, within the limits of reason and human nature, be a constructive force for informed discussion then I will reverse his suspension immediately.
So either he liked that message or he hasn't seen it yet. In case it's the latter, and since I've received no PM from AE, I'm posting that paragraph again.
AbE: Cheers/Jeers for messages older than 90 days don't count toward a member's rating. So AE, if you're out there, that should save you some time.
However Percy has posted a moderator request to stop talking about 'perceived problems' in Message 241. I think there's a fair probability that crashfrog will want to respond to the lies he believes I am telling in my posts to him, so it would be wise to get that matter clarified before he starts writing his response out.
So which wins out, Percy's request or the Free For All philosophy?
Do you know that Emory University has decided to implement a policy of doing background checks on all award recipients or honorary degrees, to make sure they don't have doubts about evolution, even if they have nothing to do with evolution? They want to send the message that if you doubt evolution, you will be shunned from the universities, no matter what science field you are in.
Maybe they just want to make sure honorary recipients aren't absolute morons?
I agree with virtually nothing you have ever posted but that is not the point of a Mod: if you are objective you get my vote.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134