Hi, Stephen!
First things first:
Stephen ben Yehsua writes:
If you want me to go away, Percy, just say so...It's your forum.
We don't work that way here. However, some people find they are unable to conform to the guidelines. This is a community, with a set of community standards. Surely you recognize the unfairness if everyone but you is held to one standard, the
Forum Guidelines, while you follow your own muse. You agreed to abide by the guidelines when you joined, and it is assumed you will live up to your word.
An example of your guideline violations is your repeated assertion that Loehr's prayer experiments with plants are scientific. It has been pointed out a number of times that Loehr's experiments were never published in any peer-reviewed science journal. You dispute this, yet are unable to provide any citation (while denigrating peer-reviewed journals in general), and your original mention of Loehr mentioned only his book
The Secret Life of Plants. A search of net reveals only this book - had there been an actual scientific research article by Loehr in a peer-reviewed journal that revealed the efficacy of prayer on plants, that fact would be trumpeted at Creationist and Christian sites everywhere. That no site mentions it or knows of it is strong indication that no such paper exists.
Until you have support for your belief that Loehr's prayer studies were published in a scientific journal, continued repeating of this assertion violates forum guideline rule 2:
- Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.
You must either move the debate forward by finding the missing evidence of this scientific paper by Loehr, or stop making the assertion, else you're in violation of forum guidelines, and I'll be forced to take administrative action.
This of course applies to all your other positions. Either move the debate forward by supporting your statements with new information or argument, but do not keep repeating the same assertions or arguments that you've already offered
Clear?
On to another issue. One problem we have faced a couple times in the past, though not recently, is when someone with a unique and controversial viewpoint begins making it the subject of every thread in which they participate. This is beginning to happen here, and so we're going to do some thread pruning. All discussion on your version of HD science is to be confined here. The other HD thread will be closed. Your version of HD science is not to be mentioned outside this thread. If and when you persuade others here of the validity of your approach, only then can it be used in support of your arguments in other threads.
Clear?
Please indicate your agreement by a reply to this message. Thanks!
-- | Percy |
| EvC Forum Administrator |