|
Author
|
Topic: Professionalism or Prejudice?
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 1 of 59 (119787)
06-29-2004 1:29 AM
|
|
|
Today I received the following message from AdminNosy: Another break That was your last post for awhile. I have left you with rights in Suggestions and Questions and the FFA. You have not been responding in a manner conducive to good debating. A large number of resonable requests have been made to you and you show no signs of being willing to pay attention. {Added by edit footnote - To DarkStar: This seems to be a good place to ask you the question "Why do you go through the extra trouble to add extra formatting to your messages, such that they are more dificult to read?" Might I suggest to adopt the standard format. No reply needed. - Adminnemooseus} This post was in reply to a post in which I wrote: Get Stronger Lenses You poor fellow.....and I thought my eyesight was bad. My sincere condolences on your near blindness. Cheers That post in turn was a reply to a post by custard in which custard wrote: Re: My "For The Record" Post Location DARKSTAR, COULD YOU PLEASE MAKE YOUR SIGNATURE FONT BIGGER? I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY SEEING IT. Now my question is why should one person be penalized for submitting an obviously sarcastic reply to another obviously sarcastic post and yet the poster of the original sarcastic message does not receive the same penalty? AdminNosy's claim that I "have not been responding in a manner conducive to good debating" is a hollow one in my opinion when all of my posts are viewed. What is true is that my opinions are not shared by the vast majority of evolutionists or creationists, neither of which I claim allegiance to. And as to my style of formatting, which Adminnemooseus made mention of, it is done for my benefit alone, allowing me to read more easily, as my style is the only one where I am not forced to highlight the post in order to be able to read it without having my eyes hurt. Should I be penalized for problem eyesight as well? Not one person in this forum is required to read my posts other than myself. So what is it? Are the Admin's in this forum simply used to practicing their prejudices against certain individuals who may occasionally skirt the boundaries of appropriate behaviour while totally ignoring others who do the same based on the fact that the others may hold opinions which are more in line with the Admin's personal opinions? Is diversity of opinion discouraged here? Cheers {From Adminnemooseus - This message is from http:// EvC Forum: Concerns for Percy. I have spun it off as its own topic. It is a response to http:// EvC Forum: How does Complexity demonstrate Design, which is referred to in http:// EvC Forum: DarkStar is Taking a Break} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-29-2004 12:32 AM
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
|
|
Message 2 of 59 (119788)
06-29-2004 1:35 AM
|
|
|
Reply from AdminNosy
{Added by late edit (8/5/04) - I wish to stress that the originator of this message was AdminNosy. I had copy/pasted it from another topic, and as such it appears under my name. - Adminnemooseus} Originally found at http:// EvC Forum: Concerns for Percy --> EvC Forum: Concerns for Percy Your suspension is for a continued pattern in your posts. I have to make a judgement call now and then. That's my judgement. I'm certainly willing to take some input on it. I suggest you answer questions and support your assertions. Anyone of your posts isn't too bad. You have a bad pattern of behaviour. If you don't see it you might try reading over your threads. This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-29-2004 12:35 AM This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-05-2004 01:21 AM
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
|
|
Message 3 of 59 (119790)
06-29-2004 1:36 AM
|
|
|
DarkStar's reply
Originally found at http:// EvC Forum: Concerns for Percy
If there is a continued pattern in my posts, it is that I stand firm in my position, am willing to respond in like manner to obstinate posters, and have answered questions to the best of my ability. I am neither a scientist nor a theologian, thereby any response I give is automatically limited to my own knowledge in areas of both science and religion. In my defense, I have asked numerous questions that remain unanswered and yet have noticed no response from Admin's instructing others to do as I am instructed, have provided a requested post clarifying my personal position, have had numerous responses from posters where my words are twisted to fit their own bias towards my position, and have made every attempt to debate in good faith with those who have practiced reciprocity. While you may personally disagree with my position, it in no way invalidates my position. While my opinions on science and religion may not be acceptable to either evolutionists or creationists, they are my opinions and the only responses I have received to date concerning my position that have been positive can be counted on one hand with fingers to spare. Should I then alter my position in order to please a specific majority? Should I side with evolutionists only? Should I side with creationists only? Or should I remain true to my own convictions, allowing them to be shaped by the evidence as it is offered, while interpreting that evidence based upon my own understanding of the universe, and the nature of individual thought? Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 5 by AdminNosy, posted 06-29-2004 1:44 AM | | Adminnemooseus has not replied |
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
|
|
Message 4 of 59 (119792)
06-29-2004 1:38 AM
|
|
|
Please carry on the discussion at this new topic...
And not at the old one. Adminnemooseus
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
Re: DarkStar's reply
I am neither a scientist nor a theologian, thereby any response I give is automatically limited to my own knowledge in areas of both science and religion. Then one suggestion for improvement would be a reduction in the apparent arrogance. When you are neither a scientist or a theologian and when it is clear you have a limited knowledge of the science involved you should remember to show a bit of humility when posting. Rather than go back over old posts (but I will if you want) why don't you try to be a bit clearer in future. If you think there are outstanding questions that should be answered then refer back to them on a regular basis and remind others to answer. That will also have the side affect of pointing out to admins that answers are not forthcoming. When you get your posting back you can summarize where you think things are (a good practice for us all) and specify the outstanding issues and why you think they are important.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 6 by DarkStar, posted 06-29-2004 3:05 AM | | AdminNosy has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 6 of 59 (119823)
06-29-2004 3:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by AdminNosy
06-29-2004 1:44 AM
|
|
Re: DarkStar's reply
AdminNosy writes: Then one suggestion for improvement would be a reduction in the apparent arrogance. You mean like the following quote from crashfrog at http:// EvC Forum: How does Complexity demonstrate Design
cf writes: The meaning of your words are very clear, DS, and I understand them. Apparently it's you who has such a problem with statements in plain english. Or perhaps you mean something like your own statement in the same thread at http:// EvC Forum: How does Complexity demonstrate Design
AdminNosy writes: In this case you might have to take the word of someone who has actually been through such courses. Picking up silly nits like this is an example of annoying behaviour and something which just shows you have very limited experience with this and so many other things. Let's examine the facts here. Crashfrog makes the statement.....
"Basically your position is the sort of thing philosophy freshmen flirt with for a year and then come to their senses. I guess we're all waiting for that to happen with you. And you consider this statement as being an example of good posting and is not applicable, as you yourself have said, to one who should.....
"stop insulting individuals and start responding in a way conducive to good debate." Or perhaps we can use this example, and again, these are your own words.....
"Picking up silly nits like this is an example of annoying behaviour and something which just shows you have very limited experience with this and so many other things." And yet somehow your comment is not "an example of annoying behaviour", and now it is your "judgement" that you are qualified enough in your knowledge of my "experience" in "so many other things" that you feel justified in making such a statement? It would be interesting to know how you arrived at this qualification, especially when one considers the limited scope of subjects available in this forum, and the number in which I have become engaged since becoming a member. I must now question whether becoming a member was a good idea considering the obvious lack of objective reasoning I have witnessed since doing so. A lack of objectivity that appears evident even in those whose bear the responsibility of ensuring equal treatment of all individuals during any exchange of thoughts and ideas.
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by AdminNosy, posted 06-29-2004 1:44 AM | | AdminNosy has replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 7 of 59 (119826)
06-29-2004 3:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by DarkStar
06-29-2004 3:05 AM
|
|
Re: DarkStar's reply
I must now question whether becoming a member was a good idea considering the obvious lack of objective reasoning I have witnessed since doing so. A lack of objectivity that appears evident even in those whose bear the responsibility of ensuring equal treatment of all individuals during any exchange of thoughts and ideas. Whatever the faults of others are you would do well to attempt to learn from criticism. This is good advice both here and in the real world.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by DarkStar, posted 06-29-2004 3:05 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 8 of 59 (119827)
06-29-2004 3:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by DarkStar
06-29-2004 3:05 AM
|
|
I don't know how to tell you this, DS, so I'll just say it - you started it. I'm sorry that you feel my posts are infantile - I certainly feel that they are - but you've made it pretty clear that's the language we're going to use in this debate.
I must now question whether becoming a member was a good idea considering the obvious lack of objective reasoning I have witnessed since doing so. Really? I would have questioned if entering the debate with the tone of a know-it-all but the familiarity of a neophyte was a good idea. Loads of people come by here, ask questions in a respectful fashion and enter the debate in an attempt to learn to instruct. They seem to do just fine. You might reflect on what's different about you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by DarkStar, posted 06-29-2004 3:05 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1419 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 9 of 59 (119925)
06-29-2004 9:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by DarkStar
06-29-2004 3:05 AM
|
|
The Persecution of DarkStar
DarkStar writes: I must now question whether becoming a member was a good idea considering the obvious lack of objective reasoning I have witnessed since doing so. A lack of objectivity that appears evident even in those whose bear the responsibility of ensuring equal treatment of all individuals during any exchange of thoughts and ideas. What is it about these anti-evolutionists and their complexes? I don't want to play amateur psychiatrist here, but it seems their identification with Jesus is way too close. If you so much as raise your voice to them, they act like they have a sword in their side. DarkStar always seemed like Rocket with a thesaurus. Snide remarks, arrogant attitude, and an inability to engage in debate. He dropped the usual link-laden posts that stressed the 'religion of materialism,' and mined quotes from the usual sources that admitted that evolution has no scientific basis, etc. Predictably, the guy couldn't really discuss things on a scientific basis. However, after dismissing responses to his assertions as philosophically motivated, he then couldn't discuss the philosophy behind scientific endeavor. Pardon me, but if he won't discuss the facts or the theory, why is he here? The sesquipedalianism and bombastic circumlocution utilized by our scientifically-hebetudinous acquaintance didn't impress anyone. Among many others, I questioned his decision to format his posts into the unreadable color scheme he claimed was easier on his eyes. DarkStar wrote a post that contained his recipe for the usual Magic Happy Love Science, and then referred everybody there as if it were the last word on revolutionizing scientific methodology. Even though I started a thread to discuss his manifesto, he hasn't bothered to deal with any of the discussion that his post generated there. I guess we're just dealing with another attention-starved Web waif, acting out and then playing dumb. regards, Esteban Hambre
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by DarkStar, posted 06-29-2004 3:05 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 12 by custard, posted 07-01-2004 5:04 AM | | MrHambre has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 10 of 59 (120155)
06-29-2004 8:52 PM
|
|
|
Evolutionist Miscreants Given Passing Grade
mrhambre writes: What is it about these anti-evolutionists and their complexes? I don't want to play amateur psychiatrist here, but it seems their identification with Jesus is way too close.
It is easy to deduce by the opening comments in mrhambre's post that he has paid little attention to my posts, seeing as how he would classify me an anti-evolutionist, and as suggesting I have linked my identification with this jesus of the christians. He could have however, classified me as being against arrogant evolutionists and creationists. Evolutionists and creationists whose greatest weapon is neither science nor theology, but is rather their ability, and perhaps even their need, to insult anyone who would dare to challenge their position with an opinion not in perfect accordance with the mainstream view of evolution or creation. To be fair, the evolutionists definitely hold the majority when it comes to being offenders who are against any sense of civil discourse in this forum. I am a member in other debate and discussion forums, and have run the gauntlet while discussing topics covering the full spectrum from social issues to government issues but this forum has by far the greatest percentage of self-indulged individuals who do not hesitate to immediately heap insults upon those with whom they disagree. Continual usage of the term "myth" when referring to the christians belief in creation by intelligent design via an intelligent designer. Not once have I seen a moderator challenge or chastise any evolutionist for using such an obviously offensive and inflamatory term as myth when referring to the christian concept of creation. But let one of those creationists refer to us as evilutionists and the moderators are on them like flies on you know what. Not once have I seen an evolutionist instructed to provide evidence which would support their assertion that creation is indeed a myth, which it may indeed be. Neither have I seen then instructed to cease using the term under threat of suspension of privileges. One need no imagination to forsee the contumely behaviour that would ensue should one of those christians continually refer to evolution as a myth, not to mention their almost immediate suspension of privileges. I am not quite sure why this forum is so different from the others I frequent other than to say that the level of maturity used by the majority of evolutionists I have encountered here is sophomoric at best. To be sure, not all exhibit this type of adolescent behaviour but far too many do and then they wonder why they are not taken seriously by those who may wish to engage them in meaningful interlocution. The opening line in one of my first posts in this forum reads as follows:
If I step on any toes hear, I apologize in advance. Having said that, allow me to offer my humble opinion. My first intention was to offer apology in advance to anyone who may disagree with my opinion, or may even find it offensive in any way. And what did I receive as my very first reply to that post?
It is not a good idea to drop bloody chunks of meat in shark infested waters while you are swimming about. Let the feast begin. Did I receive a cordial disagreement? No, instead I received an obvious warning that coming into this forum and having an opinion different from the mainstream evolutionists here would bring immediate viscious attacks, most of which would prove to be attacks of a personal nature, and to date that is exactly what I have seen. Not an honest debate, not an exchange of ideas, not even a vigorous disagreement tempered with civility. Instead I have witnessed attacks of a personal nature, and when reciprocity was put into practice, they immediately cried foul. And what did the moderators do? In nearly every instance they stood against the individual who did not hold to the mainstream view of evolution while unselfishly supporting those who held to the mainstream, regardless of their initial arrogant behaviour and/or insulting remarks. Mrhambre has proven himself to be no exception to the rule, able to dish it out but immediately crying foul when a healthy portion of that same dish was set before him. To date, the respectable responses I have received, especially from those who have strong disagreements with my opinion, have been virtually nonexistant, with very few exceptions, so I can well imagine what the creationists in this forum have had to put up with. Scientifically supported opinions of the vast majority of evolutionists in this forum are negligible at best. I would have hoped for a better discourse with many of them, and with creationists as well, but it would seem that they would prefer that anyone with a differing point of view simply roll over at the first sign of confrontation, offering total capitulation. When that does not materialize, they do indeed swarm the offending party like sharks in a feeding frenzy. With very few exceptions, the evolutionists in this forum will inundate individuals with questions, demanding answers, but are rarely, if ever, willing to offer substantive answers to questions which are posed to them. That is not debate, that is argumentative avoidance of debate. Slather me with all the insulting verbage you can muster, it simply proves my point that debate is not what is desired here, only belligerent confrontation with any individual who does not immediately display an inclusionary attitude towards the rest of the evolutionist and creationist miscreants. I will continue to enter into debate with the few honest and open-minded thinkers I have found in this forum, the rest of you will simply be discounted and ignored, as that seems to be the best course of action to take with individuals who do not even understand the meaning of the term constructive intercourse. Reciprocal indignation is an easy thing to master, so while all of you creationist and evolutionist miscreants are busy perfecting your dilettantish debating skills, please do remember to keep your slippers in continual tapping mode.
Colloquial Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1419 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 11 of 59 (120343)
06-30-2004 12:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by DarkStar
06-29-2004 8:52 PM
|
|
Poor DarkStar
DarkStar, What can I say? From my perspective, you think everyone who has made up their mind on the creation-evolution debate is closed-minded. The fact that the evolutionists here have the working knowledge of scientific matters that you lack doesn't seem to register to you. Crashfrog told you that evolutionists fully expect that a more comprehensive theory will come along to explain all that Darwinism does and more, we just haven't seen it yet. Your refusal to accept this reasonable answer is one of the sources of the problems you're having here. I posted what I thought was a rational response to your accusation that evolution is nothing more than a religious creation-myth. Without dealing with the majority of the issues I raised, you merely restated your position that scientists are biased and that 'everincreasing knowledge is not always in line with the theory of evolution.' You're unable to discuss the philosophy behind the scientific methodology that supports empirical evidential inquiry. You also are unable to discuss the the facts involved, even denying that the fossil record shows the progression of life-forms from ancient to modern. You posted your manifesto and kept referring to it as your final word on everything, but you've never posted to the thread I started to discuss the issues you raised. Do you want to clarify things, or just rant about how unfairly you've been treated? So we're back to square one. If you think true objectivity consists of never investigating the issue or making up your mind based on the evidence, then you're truly objective. regards, Esteban Hambre
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by DarkStar, posted 06-29-2004 8:52 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
custard
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 12 of 59 (120612)
07-01-2004 5:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by MrHambre
06-29-2004 9:54 AM
|
|
Re: The Persecution of DarkStar
Among many others, I questioned his decision to format his posts into the unreadable color scheme he claimed was easier on his eyes. Sorry DS, but how is your claim that this formatting is easier for you to read hold any water at all? In any case, you could: 1- change your browser font options 2- compose your replies in another editor (like word), read them, then paste them into the evc editor without the HTML tags. Your posts are for OTHER PEOPLE to read, not you. If you make it difficult for other people to read them, that is counter productive. I contend that you use all the garbage formatting, including italics (yeah THAT'S easier to read - I have 20/20 vision and I have a hard time reading the italics), font colors, bg colors, and size 4 signature line for attention and self-gratification. If you really cared about getting your message out to everyone on this board you would submit readable posts. You don't see non-native English speakers posting in Spanish or Australian (well ok, maybe Australian), they post in a format (language) that everyone else can understand. As it stands now, I never read your posts because they hurt my eyes and they rarely seem worth the eyestrain when I have tried to decipher them. This message has been edited by custard, 07-01-2004 07:05 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by MrHambre, posted 06-29-2004 9:54 AM | | MrHambre has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 13 of 59 (121032)
07-01-2004 10:50 PM
|
|
|
Sometimes change is good!
To show that I am not totally against the few creationists that may actually be in this forum, and to necessarily ruffle a few stiff evolutionists feathers in the process as well, I thought I would give the creationists something to smile about by changing my signature for awhile. Of course, the quote I have chosen will really piss off the hardcore evolutionists but, what the hell, I really could not care less about their closed-minded opinions anyway. So, to all you creationists out there, enjoy this while it lasts!  Cheers
"Religion without science might be blind but science without religion is lame!"
Albert Einstein
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 503 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 14 of 59 (121041)
07-01-2004 11:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by custard
07-01-2004 5:04 AM
|
|
Re: The Persecution of DarkStar
custard writes: As it stands now, I never read your posts because they hurt my eyes and they rarely seem worth the eyestrain when I have tried to decipher them.
Could you get the heck out of my head? Stop reading my mind.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by custard, posted 07-01-2004 5:04 AM | | custard has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 15 of 59 (121087)
07-02-2004 1:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by DarkStar
07-01-2004 10:50 PM
|
|
My very mature response
Uh... uh... you're lame! Snap!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by DarkStar, posted 07-01-2004 10:50 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 16 by MrHambre, posted 07-02-2004 7:24 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2