They'd get to stick around if they followed the rules. Furthermore you'll notice, if you read through the old topics, that most creationists simply flee. They don't stick around long enough to be suspended, or even answer the rebuttals put to their arguments.
We can't control their behavior, of course. But the admins don't tolerate repeated infractions of the rules. Suspension isn't permanent, anyway. It's over anytime the suspended chooses it to be.
Maybe we should open up a forum entitled Put Up Or Shutup that can only be accessed by two parties that are obviously looking to grind axes and then only with the permission of the Admins.It would of course be limited to those two only.Then they could bad mouth each other to their hearts content until one quits,cries or mails the other a package of C-4.
I actually think this says far more about the attitude and capabilities of creationists than it does about what you are implying.
In Scotland, when we are guests in another person's house, we recognise that we must be polite enough to keep to thehouse holder's rules, we are not free to ignore or disrupt the everyday running of that house.
I realise that you are very young, but you are at an age now where you should start to engage your brain before you put your tongue in gear
It has nothing to do with speaking outside of the FFA. It has to do with the direction he attempts to lead almost every thread he participates in. He has been asked to keep that particular direction confined to certain topics in the FFA.
If participants have suggestions on forum rules or ways to protect the integrity of those rules, I'm sure Admins would be more than happy to address these suggestions in the appropriate thread.
If you're just venting some frustration, please put yourself in Admin's place. The forum is run in as unbiased a manner as is possible. Considering that creationists don't seem to want to act as moderators how do you suggest that Admins handle the inuendoes of bias?
------------------ AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe
My suspension was just based on a communication problem between the moderators. The restriction not to post my "unique viewpoints" outside the free for all had already been lifted by another administrator. Of course it would be helpful if other people also didn't bring up my unique viewpoints in threads where it's not subject at issue. I think I will make a my-opinions faq, and refer all the people with questions to me about selection without comparing or the relationship of Darwinism to Social Darwinism to that posting.
This topic has not been active for a month, and had totally slipped my mind. Mind refreshed, I realize that I too was willing to let Syamsu participate in the above cited "Evolution" forum topic. People may be interested in looking back at that topic. At the moment, Percy has posted the most recent message there.
AdminAsgara, in message 11 above, said:
quote: It has nothing to do with speaking outside of the FFA. It has to do with the direction he attempts to lead almost every thread he participates in. He has been asked to keep that particular direction confined to certain topics in the FFA.
I think her statement pretty well summarizes why I took the action I did.
Looking back at the "Philip Johnson" topic that contained the suspension event, I now see that it was MrHambre's message 7, that was the trigger for Syamsu's bringing into the topic, the material which I deemed objectionable.
All in all, a messy situation. In hindsite, I'm still unsure if my action was the correct thing or not. But I felt I needed to make a decision, and take an action, rather than waiting, and then finding out that I wished I'd acted sooner.
The bottom line is, a suspension need not be terminal.
Messenja, in this forum, unlike some, one isn't just zapped outa town without recourse, discussion or opportunity for reinstatement. As in my case and with Syamsu, there is the "city of refuge," FFA, where we can go while we're sorting our problems out.
Then there's this thread here where we are allowed to discuss the matter openly, air our problems, and critique moderation and administration. We can't ask much more than that. As for Wise, it was quite obvious he was, imo, not being a very good representative for the Biblical side, coming on like gangbusters and defiant. We are guests here and should respect that.
Btw, Messenja, you, being a youth and showing the dedication you do to Christ and Christianity, in spite of the pressure that is aired against our faith is admirable. I hope you will keep focused, with all the evidence we have to support the Bible message. So many so called former Christians here in town have allowed secularistic pressure to cause them to disregard these evidences, such as the prophecies, etc. I hope you hang in here to fulfill your role in promoting God's kingdom. May God, Jehovah that is, bless you and yours.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-27-2003]
Stop being so disingenuous and admit that no one solicited your participation in the Phillip Johnson thread. You posted message #6 of your own free will, giving us yet another insistent recapitulation of all your worn out themes: natural selection is a tautology; the judgmental language of Darwinism makes it a pseudoscience; evolutionists are amoral atheistic fanatics. I felt free to compare your refusal to come to terms with anything resembling reality concerning Darwinism with Johnson's similar lack of relevance.
Your posts at that thread and this one only confirm everything I said in message #7 of the Johnson thread. You have simply ignored all of the valid objections to your opinions and consider yourself vindicated by everyone else's reluctance to fight the same battles with you time and again.
If you'd rather your opinions not be analyzed for logical fallacies or other shortcomings, don't offer them.
------------------ The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead. -Brad McFall