What is EVC Forum's policy on satire and is allowed and to what extent?

I have a question and it is, "What is EVC forum's policy on satire and is it allowed and to what extent?"I pointed out in the case of ConsequentAtheist and Brian the moderator in the Bible Accuracy section forum that they were not really reading the essay I wrote and pointed this out demonstrably.I also used satire in other points I wished to make. I did try to use non satical methods before using satire. I will discuss this more but here is the satire I used and I would like some input to see if people think it is fair and if not why not. Please address the points I make after giving the satirical post which is directly below:TO: All and BRIAN
I believe this post will greatly clarify Brian and the editing and teacher role he so desperately wishes to cling to but sadly has not shown himself a master of.Brian wrote:"Ken, substance is made up of minutae, if your minutae is poor then the substance will be poor. Publishers and assessors concentrate on minutae to see if it provides substance.""The sort of things I am pointing out are essentially the same things that most teachers/tutors would point out."Brian also wrote:"I found it useful, mostly because you kept getting the man's name wrong! His name was Pelig Nye, not 'Nye Pelig' or Mr. Pelig or Mr. Peleg, sorry to pick up on minutae again but it does form the substance of an argument, what a great example."Now I want everyone to notice how Brian spelled Pelig Nye in his critique of my essay in post 120 (look at the spelling of Pelig):"And is this the same Peleg Nye, not that it really does your argument any good, but how do you know this is the same guy?"Yet does Brian feel he is the master of minutiae?Here is what Brian writes:"Yes, but I do not think that you are aware that you need help, when it is patently obvious that you do.""You are having some sort of psychotic episode here Ken, this is the worst case of denial I have seen."Now how does Brian spell minutiae when addressing my spelling of Pelig? How does Brian continually spell minutiae in this string?"sorry to pick up on minutae again but it does form the substance of an argument, what a great example."For those of you who want to know the correct spelling of minutiae:http://www.dictionary.comNow if I were to write a story for children on Brian's recent behavior I would want to title it:"Brian and irrelevant minutiae - his one trick pony"But I regret I could not give the story for children this title because Brian has not mastered the one trick he attempts to use. I am getting the feeling that Brian sees himself as teacher of the great unwashed masses who are in desperate need of his editorializing regarding minutiae and yet ironically he does not realize he needs a shower himself!As I stated before, Brian cannot deal with the evidence I presented directly so he atttempts to use the logical fallacy of style over substance that he has not even mastered himself. I would say to Brian that if you truly want to be a freethinker you have to stop using logical fallacies.Now I would like to say are the websites I used and my personal post to the internet free of typos, juxtapositions, spelling errors, and even factual errors? No, they are not. I do believe, however, that Brian is not only being illogical but he is being hypocritical as well."ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF MY SATIREI also used satire to demonstrate that I believe Brian was not being candid. Here is what Brian said below:"Ken, this is one benefit of using a decent quality library as opposed to poor quality websites, you can examine the actual sources yourself and come to your own conclusions. You should question everything you read, do not take anyone’s word for anything, use you core skills to form your own work."Brian later said:"Regarding Bartley, I am at a loss as to why you appear to think that I was correcting you or something. I know that you said that in all likelihood the story was a hoax, I provided the letter from the captain's wife so you could use it to support your suspicion."Here is my satire:"By the way, if you have noticed there does not seem to be a throng of supporters to rush to say your Bartley commentary was valid in regards to my writing. I believe I am not alone in my estimation of its inadaquecy (perhaps you could find a few shills or sign in under a different name and offer a glowing appraisal of your Bartley commentary)."WHY I USED SATIREI demonstrated in four cases where Brian did not read my essay in the portions he was criticizing it (Bartley/shark/belly/Pelig Nye and I was going to show more evidence of this but the string was closed before I had the chance to do that.I also showed that Brian was using the logical fallacy of criticizing style over substance and demonstrated it was hypocritical for him to do this because he erred in the exact same area I did (I entered for a few minutes a name misspelling but I corrected it before Brian corrected me but he spelled it wrong too). I never asked for his editing of trivial points not germain to the central issue like misspellings or juxtapositions in my referenced websites for example. More importantly, and this is a VERY KEY POINT, Brian continued after I asked him to stop in a reasonable manner so I used satire to demonstate this. I did this by the above satire which occurred near the end of the string were he was trying to justify his logical fallacy of criticizing style over substance.I would also like to say that I thought it was unreasonable for Brian to continually pretend as though he was my teacher who needed his instruction because I do not ask for his editorializing and I also think his use of the logical fallacy was being hypocritical.MY QUESTIONSo what is the board's policy regarding satire?[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-27-2004][This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-27-2004]

To Trixie:
I appreciate your input but I would say the following to give more context:1. I do not feel as though you are adressing the content in my post that ask if a moderator debate and moderate in the same string at this location:http://EvC Forum: Should moderators debate and moderate in the same debate? I say there are abuses. -->EvC Forum: Should moderators debate and moderate in the same debate? I say there are abuses.Here are the specific abuses I cited in terms of examples:EXAMPLE 1:....................http://EvC Forum: Should moderators debate and moderate in the same debate? I say there are abuses. -->EvC Forum: Should moderators debate and moderate in the same debate? I say there are abuses.
....................If an ancient Athenian were here, he would probably bow low before you. (Acts 17:22-23)"3. Brian continued to use the logical fallacy of criticizing style over substance even after I asked him to stop.4. Brian's tone was poor. He said for example that I never read the Book of Jonah in his critique.5. He clearly do not read the essay closely.6. I was asked to provide addtional evidence. I did. I was more preoccupied on providing evidence than I was on editing to make sure there were not juxtapostions and misspellings.7. If I want certain portions of my material published there are spellcheckers and I clearly showed that Brian the spelling Nazi misspelled the word minutiae and he said that minutiae was substantive because he wished to dwell on style over substance. Next, I am not a bad speller. I can spell hard words like minutiae! I won 4rth place in a spelling Bee in 6th grade (and no I do not need a medal or a chest to pin it on). In short, I do not want or need a spelling Nazi to attempt to lord his spelling prowess over me because he does not want to deal with more substantive matters.8. Brian should have asked if I wanted his editorializing. I was a writing tutor for about a couple of years at a university so I could have gotten my material ready for publishing without his help. Again, I was more preoccupied with providing evidence (Josephus, Museum director, science instructor at Seaworld, academic paper, etc). I think substance should have the priority in the initial stages at the very least. Besides I only wish to publish the material that is less widely known and is subject to modern myths (whale gullet size/science instructor at Seaworld/Museum Director) in all likelihood since most of the other information is widely available.9. EVC Forum is not an academic journal and so I do not feel Brian has a right to editiorialize in terms of non content especially since I never asked him to.10. I will say that in forums that were better balanced between skeptics and Christians I got very favorable reviews although I got one here too. It seems as though beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Atheist and Christians of a more liberal theology do not like my essay. Christians of a more conservative theology tend to like it. Regardless it invariably generates a ton of post with or without my input. Ken, this is the second copy of a different post that I have come across. I have asked you not to cut and paste huge replies from one thread to the next. I have taken the liberty of removing the c&p and linking to the whole message on a different post - The Queen[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-27-2004][This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-28-2004][This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-28-2004]

1. I am not sure if you read my initial post or all the other additional information I provided.2. Whether or not the Book of Jonah is true or untrue is not dependent if one of my websites may have misspelled a latin term for sharks by one letter or possibly one letter and a word. Also, Brian was not aware of the alternate science terms in all likelihood.3. Anyone can say there was no substance. That is easy. I could say that your critique had no substance. Demonstrating it is far better. I will say that in forums that were better balanced between skeptics and Christians I got very favorable reviews although I got one here too. It seems as though beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Atheist and Christians of a more liberal theology do not like my essay. Christians of a more conservative theology tend to like it. Regardless it invariably generates a ton of post with or without my input.I added some material to give your post context. Here it is:To Trixie:
I appreciate your input but I would say the following to give more context:1. I do not feel as though you are adressing the content in my post that ask if a moderator debate and moderate in the same string at this location:http://EvC Forum: Should moderators debate and moderate in the same debate? I say there are abuses. -->EvC Forum: Should moderators debate and moderate in the same debate? I say there are abuses.2. Not all share your estimation of my post. Here is what one person said:Skeptick
MemberPosts: 176
From: USA
Registered: Feb 2004
Message 25 of 145 02-05-2004 04:01 PM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Awesome series of posts, Ken!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You're doing a fine job on this topic; you go dude. You show no signs of discouragement or loss of control despite the fact that it's virtually impossible to debate these guys on Biblical terms alone. Just like the children of Israel; they saw the pillar of fire, heard God's voice, their shoes/clothes didn't wear out even after 40 years of use, were fed by manna from heaven, and on and on; they were eyewitnesses of the power of God, but yet they still rebelled. The evidence of God was "in their face" but yet they still worshipped "other" gods even though those "gods" showed no evidence of any power or miracle producing ability. Your debating skills and discipline are about the best I've seen on this forum; I'll be keeping up with you!
If an ancient Athenian were here, he would probably bow low before you. (Acts 17:22-23)"3. Brian continued to use the logical fallacy of criticizing style over substance even after I asked him to stop.4. Brian's tone was poor. He said for example that I never read the Book of Jonah in his critique.5. He clearly do not read the essay closely.6. I was asked to provide addtional evidence. I did. I was more preoccupied on providing evidence than I was on editing to make sure there were not juxtapostions and misspellings.7. If I want certain portions of my material published there are spellcheckers and I clearly showed that Brian the spelling Nazi misspelled the word minutiae and he said that minutiae was substantive because he wished to dwell on style over substance. Next, I am not a bad speller. I can spell hard words like minutiae! I won 4rth place in a spelling Bee in 6th grade (and no I do not need a medal or a chest to pin it on). In short, I do not want or need a spelling Nazi to attempt to lord his spelling prowess over me because he does not want to deal with more substantive matters.8. Brian should have asked if I wanted his editorializing. I was a writing tutor for about a couple of years at a university so I could have gotten my material ready for publishing without his help. Again, I was more preoccupied with providing evidence (Josephus, Museum director, science instructor at Seaworld, academic paper, etc). I think substance should have the priority in the initial stages at the very least. Besides I only wish to publish the material that is less widely known and is subject to modern myths (whale gullet size/science instructor at Seaworld/Museum Director) in all likelihood since most of the other information is widely available.9. EVC Forum is not an academic journal and so I do not feel Brian has a right to editiorialize in terms of non content especially since I never asked him to.

To Brian and others:I believe that debate at EVC should not be separate and equal. Separate and equal is invariably unequal. You wish to debate here. I wish to debate in the original string. Why? Because the other post to the internet regarding the science of the Jonah account (my essay discusses much more) is generating 600 hits per month. It has a catchier title than mine (has science in the title). I do not know how many hits my essay is currently getting at EVCForum at the original post.I would appreciate it if someone could respond to my Moderator and conflict of interest post as I think this has relevancy too in terms if Brian is to debate me. Perhaps Brian doesn't. Given Brian's behavior I cannot say I want to debate him unless it is moderated in a fair setting or at least free from censorship. There is no point in having the same thing done twice.I would appreciate specifics in terms of my content in the Moderator and conflict of interest post and not broad paintbrush commentary.[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-27-2004]

To Trixie:1. Quality post tend to generate a lot of posts and discussion. Sometimes bad post do also but they do tend to peter out faster. My Jonah string with or without my input generates a very high amount of activity generally if the website has traffic.2. I did not want to dwell on logical fallacies but on more substantive issues. I have received compliments on my string - not just one compliment. Again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Those who call themselves Christians of a more conservative theology tend to like it. Atheist and those who call themselves Christians of a more theologically liberal bent tend to hate it. I do receive some pro and con assessments where both compliments and constructive criticism is offered but the essay seems to be very polarizing. That is exactly why I wished to speak on more substantive issues because evidence matters more than idealogue and people ranting against my essay because they do not like it. Logical fallacies just add more fluff to the conversation.To Brian:You seem to want to debate and raise a lot of objections. That is fine. I have no ill will towards you but I cannot say I am reading your objections. I wish to debate in a fair forum. When I see the Jonah string is reopened I will carefully examine your objections. There is no point to being censored again or be under moderating conditions that is not fair to both parties.[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-27-2004]

To Trixie:Here is a postscript because I did not want to ignore you since you seem sincere.I recognize that Brian said he wanted to help me. I also took into context his other statements.I do not feel you appreciate my view in that one cannot take a persons every statement at face value. You have to consider all that they say and do. I do feel I was judicious in evaluating Brian's statements and not getting bent of of shape easily over some slights.I also addresed the issue of whether or not I wanted editorializing on non germaine issues and whether or not I am capable of addressing those non germaine issues. Dwelling on style over substance was continually dwelled on even after I asked it to stop. There is no point in rehashing the same non germaine point when it is not even relevant to bring it up once.Sincerely,Ken

The problem is solved.I found out there is a forum with no moderators. I also can make commentary in forums without engaging in a more formal debate.Sincerely,Ken

To: ALLBrian seems to be acting somewhat more reasonable so I have deleted this posts contents in order to establish better relations.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-02-2004]