Poll: Does Buzsaw Deny Obvious Error?

quote:

---

People at EvC are part of a synergetic system. What that means is that they work together to refute, in their own minds - any Id creationists that come on this site. This also means that evos will read the previous evo post and agree with it, and never ever ever agree with anything the likes of you and I say.

​

What I end up doing is simply letting them have the last word. Because they've always got to have it.

---

Mike, when someone asks you several times, point blank, how it is that you know that NDE's occur simultaneously with brain death, and you do not respond, is that an instance of you "letting the evo's have the last word", or is it an instance you not being able to answer the question?

Given that we are all humans there seems to be endless room for diversity. However, are you now trying to say that if there are 100 scientists (and NONE of them researchers in the area being disagreed about) that disagree and 100,000 that agree that is the same as the diversity of interpretation of the Bible?That is the same as, for example, here? Where is seems to be hard to get 3 creationists to agree on what the Bible does say? The same as the world where there are 1,000's of sects with smaller and larger numbers of adherents who can't seem to get their stories straight?This seems to me an example of your level of reasoning Buz. A reason why I don't bother to discuss things with you any more.What you get by a google on the redshift is NOT representative of what cosmologists think.

What should one expect from the majority of Bibliophobic BB expansionists who claim to own THE SCIENCE status here and who exclude the possible ligitimacy of alternative viewpoint, denouncing it as crankistic gobldegook, reglardless of other multitudes of prestigious intelligent folks who ascribe to it? Yes, I understand that, but that says didley. The still unanswered, controversial and unsettled question remains as to whether alternative science views are to be allowed within those guidelines for debate and discussion on this alleged EvC (Evolution versus Creationism) board without threats, and meanspirited harassment. With all due respect to pastor (evolutionist?) Phatboy, the Phatboy's of Christianity are the reason secularists have been allowed to bully their way to the bully pulpits of modern thought expression and study and why creationism has been bullied out of the thinking of the schools and arenas of debate/study/discussion.My ID hypothesis debate was NOT empirically refuted by jar, nor by any subsequent debate thread contenders, given that the debate was NOT whether the hypothesis could be verified, but whether it satisfied scientific td laws. It was a litigitamate debate topic about ID and science in which YOUR MAN was on the defensive throughout, in spite of his cocky bragadocious attitude that he was going to KO this creo with the first punch.It was not until you, Percy, came on as per your usual, when you see the 300 post mark come up in the subsequent debate to fell this still standing creo contender with your groundless threats of suspension, that things got personal and nasty and this creo was silenced. Just as you doggedly conclude your UNPROVED position to be correct, so did I and stepped up to the GD plate to debate the legitimacy of my UNPROVED position for CONSIDERATION. You and yours failed to prove otherwise. If my position was so spurious and unsupported as you are alleging, then indeed Jar should've been able to put me away in the debate and the others should not have allowed me to remain standing after 300 posts of the subsequent thread. I never claimed to prove my hypothesis any more than you claim to prove the singularity of the BB, nor do I claim to have refuted Sylas's hypothesis of expanding space. I did however bring up some viable questions in that exchange with this fine intelligent and gentlemanly poster which BB science has yet to answer. If that's what you consider to be contrary to your forum guidelines, I'll simply go where the guidelines are compatible with bonafide evenhanded EVC debate for both ID creationists and evolutionists.I'll not trouble you further with this "spurious" stuff, as you regard it. I've logged into TWeb and will be doing some posting over there if it works out and they tolerate me. I'm not logging out of EvC until you indicate that I do so, or log me out yourself. If it's ok, I'll likely post some here in the future, but on a more limited basis. Thanks for putting up with me for nearly 2 years anyhow.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Hi, Buzz! I just want you to know that the fact that you like to debate shows me that you are not an outsider. Schraf has a point when she asks: As a Christian, I usually judge other Christians....loosely....based on following a statement of Faith. Most every Statement of Faith that I see (and, quite naturally, agree with) is very definite. And then there are folks like Jar.......who I judge by their heart!On the CreationTalk/yahoo groups website, the only statement of faith that I could find was this: All that this is telling me is that "I believe in God, God is without error, now let me scramble to prove how smart God really is."Forgive me if I do not understand the I.D. position. Lemme see what AIG statement of faith is.... Science does not presuppose Biblical Inerrency, however. Now...I am certain that all of those in league with each other here on this board....apart from the I.D. creationists....have a generally accepted idea of science. In fact, Schraff agrees with your cut and paste. Perhaps what they want you to show them is a Statement of Faith from the I.D. Creationist perspective. Definitions need to be defined concretely, would you not agree?BTW Sylas, you are turning into a very good administrator! I liked how you defended Buzz!This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-20-2005 12:05 AM

I'm not sure why you think this an unanswered question. All views, alternative or otherwise, are permitted by the Forum Guidelines, which places no constraint on what views may be advocated.What the Forum Guidelines do constrain is the manner of advocacy. Evidence and/or well-reasoned argumentation must be offered in support. I think you think too much in terms of "us and them". When considering issues scientifically it is better to think in terms of "supported by evidence or not". I still think Phatboy's point a good one that you would do well to consider. Just because we cherish a certain idea or viewpoint does not mean the universe is obligated to provide empirical supporting evidence. Just to be clear, you're referring to Great Debate, Intelligent Design, Supernatural And Thermodynamic Laws (between Buzsaw and jar only). I think you did a good job raising issues in the debate, but you were unable to muster any evidence for your position. Just to be clear, you're now referring to Observations of Great Debate - ID and thermodynamics.About closing a thread at the 300 post mark, this is a tradition that arose because the board's original software would begin losing data somewhere a little above the 300 message mark. It isn't intended to end a discussion still in progress, and anyone interested can propose a continuation thread. I've pointed out in the administration forum that the new software doesn't suffer from the 300 message problem, but the general feeling has been that 300 messages still represents a good point at which to take stock.Congratulations on remaining standing, but you often remind me of Luke at the end of his fight with Dragline in the movie Cool Hand Luke. If we modify the "prove" terminology with "supported by evidence" terminology, what we want to compare is the evidence for one position versus the evidence for another. As long as you support your positions with evidence you'll do fine.--Percy

For example, buz, your handling of this question is highly inappropriate, and does not follow the guidelines.You are getting very worked up about this, but without cause. There is wide recognition that we would like you to remain with us; but that we want you to pay much better attention to the debate guidelines.Now follow this carefully please...That there are folks who reject the big bang is agreed, by all concerned. The question is whether they are individuals with any authority.Are they "scientists"? "prestigious"? "intelligent"?You may assert that in the first instance; but the claim has been challenged, and good reason has been given for suggesting that there are very few scientists among them, and that the few who might qualify as scientists are not prestigious at all, but largely qualify as cranks. This is not simply because they reject the Big Bang; but determined independently, by such things as analysis of their argument with respect to straight forward mathematical models like relativity.The only way for you to proceed consistent with the guidelines is as follows. You should choose one of the following.

• Choose to stop discussing the subject, and stop repeating the claim.
• Choose to engage the subject, by actually responding to the rebuttals in some way. You don't have to answer every objection all at once, but engagement absolutely requires you to deal with the specific arguments raised in rebuttal to your claim.

OK? This is not a hard ask. The latter option is the ideal for a debate forum; but if you feel it is too difficult for some reason, then a simple disengagement is okay as well.But you choose the third option, of continuing to repeat the claim that there are "multitudes of prestigious intelligent folks" who have some alternative, but refusing to actually look at the names and the rebuttals, then you are bogging down debate, and basically being a disruption. That will get you suspended eventually, and rightly so.On a personal note, you have said some complimentary things about me and how I engage this subject.So let me point out: your insults above are way out of line, and grossly unfair and unreasonable."Bibliophobic"? Come on! Get a grip. Your problem is precisely the opposite. The people who have been engaging the subject of big bang expansion with you have been far better at supplying references and citations and books and documented justification than you have managed. And when the discussion gets specific, looking in detail at counter claims in their own words and on their own merits, you beg off the debate! Your initial remark is merely a nasty bit of hypocrisy.You have let your own dismay at being such a minority and failing to obtained credit for your case run away with you, and drive you to mere unfounded insult. Stop it. The way forward is engagement of counter argument, not shrill repetition of the original claim and vaccuous declarations of unfair treatement.

---

Here is a little bit of concrete though on your claim.You have only once that I know of introduced actual support fpor your claim. The sources you cited were Vincent Sauve, who is by his own admission not a scientist; and Tom van Flandern, who claims to be a scientist or engineer, but is a very easy and straightforward example of an out and out crank.I have given an initial basis for that evaluation, and am willing to proceed with the analysis further. Much further. I looked into van Flandern some years ago, and he is not someone you want to be trusting as prestigious or intelligent. Vincent Sauve is even easier, because I presented his own self-evaluation. You can follow up on these either at the Big Bang critics thread, or by dealing with Percy's response to your sources in this thread.The insult "bibliophobic" is a particularly galling bit of hypocisy, since the rebuttals by Percy and myself were plainly for more hard work at tracing sources and references than you have ever managed.Or perhaps you meant some of the names listed secondarily by your sources? They also have been considered in specifics. My judgement is that there is only one name who really merits the description "prestigious", and that is Halton Arp. Not world shattering prestigious, but with a solid basis for international reputation in observational astronomy. Yet Arp does not have an alternative. He really only has one criticism of the standard account, which has been debated and analysed at length in the literature, and solid reason given for rejecting it. Be that as it may, Halton Arp continues to defend his notion of physical association of objects with disparate redshift, and I acknowledge that as part of the normal work of science.The rest are non-entities (like Sauve) or cranks (like van Flandern) or virtual unknowns with no claim to prestige (like Marden) or mavericks with no good claim to be scientists (like Lerner), and so on and so forth. You can pick any name you like, and I am willing to give it a fair shake; you must engage to make progress in the discussion if you wish to keep making a claim that has been substantively rebutted.Your problems here are far and away of your own making.Cheers -- Sylas

What I am getting very worked up about is that we have this expansion of space issue on which BB theory hinges, which many take issue with, and which has some important unsolved mysteries. Ultimately a list of some 250 plus (if I rememember correctly) "scientists and engineers" as the statement put it, who sign that they don't buy your hypothesis. I don't know who all 250 of these people are and I doubt that you do either, for the most part. This list is not empirical evidence, but substantiates my point that it's not just this no degreed buzsaw guy who takes issue with you people on it. It highly irritates me that since we have a spirited debate on this one subject and we all get into a bit of a tizzy over it, this now, becomes, in the view of you people to consider buzsaw an unfit poster and implys that buzsaw consistently violates forum guidelines to the point of threat of suspension.The Great Debate and the GD thread were, after all, not suppose to be to verify my hypothesis. Nor were they suppose to be about refuting or substantiating expansion of space. They were suppose to be about whether my hypothesis satisfied scientific td laws perse. I allowed myself to get drawn into this space thing which, as you once suggested was really off topic to the thread.What you people are not giving consideration to, is that up until we got into this discussion about expanding space, there seems to be no big beef with my posting conduct, since the last fiasco when Lady Schrafinator and Crasfrog went after me (with Percy's blessings) for allegedly being the great obfuscator in town. I opened a thread (Who obfuscates in town) to refute them and they come up with one or two infractions when in fact I've shown that indeed we all obfuscate to a greater or lesser extent, including many of my own counterparts in town who consistently obfuscate You people dogpile on when you get me embroiled in this sideshow debate and throw the book at me because I didn't perform as you think I should've, and probably, in retrospect, it wasn't a better moment of my 2 years of participation here. You people are acting like the Pharasees who strained at gnats and swallowed camels to convict Jesus and his apostles. In whose eyes, my friend? Yours? Percy's? Neds? LOL! Some of these people have shown how the politics of science has shoved logic right out the window of the modern science arena and all you people need now do is juggle the math to fit your predisposed agenda. I'm glad you used the phrase "given for suggesting," for, though you've analyzed a few of them from your perspective that "suggesting" is what you seem to be doing on the rest.The only way for you to proceed consistent with the guidelines is as follows. You should choose one of the following. Yah, sure. After the Great Debate and the GD thread, in which I painstakenly dealt with all the long tedious string of rebuttals, what do I get at the end of it all? A suspension warning by Percy! LOL, ID creo, buzsaw! Case in point.......I allegedly mess up once........warning of suspension. How does that work when you or yours mess up, Sylas? It was you and Percy, Sylas who began labling folks, my friend, calling them things like cranks and other derogatory stuff. Crank is a discriptive term and bibliophobic as well. When you people claim to have a fair and balanced debate forum and require Biblicalists such as myself to debate and discuss on the basis of BB hypothesis, that's how I see it. ......And who was it that first begged off the Great Debate? Not buzsaw, nor did I beg off the GD thread. Nor do I beg off most threads I am actively engaged in. Many of them also ran at length. OK, my friend. I'll stop it and trouble you people no more with it, but your implication that buz consistently insults, is, imo a gross and demeaning implication, not like your usual good nature. I haven't meant to be "shrill and vaccuous," but will do some soul searching on that. When you're defending you integrity and forum status, it becomes necessary to let the "rubber meet the road" with some unpleasant specifics, if that's what you mean.The rest of your post is about the expanding space thing, which is really not the big picture here, though it's been blown up to be it. You people can make up your own minds about my conduct. In the meantime, you'll not likely see much of my stuff here to irritate you. Take care.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Huh. And here I thought I was just trying to mediate what I saw as a failure to communicate between two parties. But apparently, if you don't bow down to Buz's evidently superior intellect, you're against him in every way.Fuck you, Buz. I hope you do get banned, or I do. I'm not interested in talking to people who would rather be right than not be assholes. It's not worth my time to recieve spit in my eye for an honest attempt to help someone.

I couldn't bring up the obfuscation thread from the search, but search the "When buz quits the thread" thread and have a look at post 2. It was a fierce and profane rage post of yours and certainly not mediatory at all. Had a I authored that post, likely a moderator would have showed up in a hurry, and rightly so.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

You are refering to Message 2. I have said I will respond to complaints, so I went to take a look.Frankly, I'm torn. The truth is that I'm a bit of a prude. I don't like profanity. I've been reflecting also on how to respond to Message 128 in this thread, if at all. You've resolved that problem for me buz, as shall be seen below.Crash uses the word "fuck" from time to time; but not all the time. A search suggests he uses it roughly once a week. It shows up on the forum around about every other day, by someone. This, in itself, is not in violation of the guidelines. Strong language for emphasis fits the guidelines, as far as I can see; and used occasionally I must admit that it works very well.For the post in question, the word shows up four times. Twice, for emphasis on his own attitude ("I don't give a fuck about..."). Once for emphasis of what you should do. ("just fuckin' say so") Once for emphasing of frustration at the consequences of guideline violations: (as in "we fuckin' have to prove you wrong all over again")I appreciate that this language is potentially offensive, especially to Christian contributors, but there is a strong anti-censorship policy in force here. I can well understand people not liking it, but occasional strong language is not sufficient grounds for official moderator intervention.To review the post, I replaced "give a fuck" with "care" in two cases, and merely omitted "fucken'" in two cases. The result is less emphatic, but has the same content. (Try this yourself to look past the anger and see what crash was getting at.)The resulting post is firm, but totally consistent with guidelines. Guidelines permit strong criticism, particularly as the criticisms were backed up very effectively as the thread progressed.Admins can and do admonish all kinds of people other than buz. We do so, not for profanity, but for guideline violations. I do not think buz is correct that moderators would break this tradition in the case that buz authored such a post. Moderator notice, for buz or for anyone else, is primarily for guidelines violations.(There are also admin comments from time to time relating to minor matters like post formatting; but this is given in the spirit of helping some one use the available features; not as formal warnings.)That being said, this puts a whole new complexion on Message 128 of this thread. I'll deal with that next.Cheers -- AdminSylas

Crash, check the previous post for a bit of context. You write: Please settle a bit. You are not likely to get banned for this kind of outburst, but realistically you need to appreciate buz's position, as well as your own.The lines may be a little crossed here. As far as I can tell, you had no input into the the obfuscation thread, which I understand to be Message 1. On the other hand, you did have some input into another thread cited in my previous message. I'm going to assume that as context for these remarks.I understand your frustration, but it is inaccurate to say you were "just trying to mediate". You gave a very strongly worded and emphatic post, which expresses considerable personal frustration but which is also going to be offensive to someone like buz. I think you know that; and it's your choice to make. Having made that choice, you should also recognize that it is not "just trying to mediate".There are indeed guidelines issues with buz's posting style. It is also a fact that he is outnumbered, and this means some additional leeway is given; though certainly not open license.If you want to rant, there is scope for that as long as the rant is fair by the guidelines. If you want to give "an honest attempt to help someone", you might not have chosen the most effective means.AdminSylasThis message has been edited by AdminSylas, 02-21-2005 01:15 AM

Yeah, what a surprise. I responded to a post where you singled me out by name and called me your "accuser", and I was less that polite.In other words, you did then what you've just done now; and it offended me then to the degree that it offended me just now.

I was referring to a different thread.

Whew! After reading this passionate verbal intercourse betwen everyone, I just HAD to look up that word!My observations?
Sylas: Your analysis of the frequency of F-word useage and motives for such was FUNNY! Dennis Miller would be proud!Crashfrog: You seem to just like to debate! You always have something to say, and always (or usually) have the last word!Buzzsaw: I don't think that you are any different from any of us. You want some respect, and perhaps this disagreement will encourage you to become ever better at expressing yourself. I am still waiting for you to add I.D. definitions to my Statements of Faith post.
Forgive my ignorance.Percy: I know that you never expected a Creationist/Evolutionist board like this one! I will say that of all of the places on the Web in which to discuss and debate issues, I prefer this one over all others! To me, it is not that we need to agree. It is that we strive to clarify and hone our communicative skills betwixt each other!

I’m on thin ice here, since I have been making AdminSylas input into the thread, and also non-admin input. This is usually a bad idea. Admin hat off here, since I comment on matters of substantive topical dispute. Then stop getting worked up, and go back to discussing those mysteries substantively; or else stop bringing it up.There are unsolved issues with the Big Bang, but expansion of space is not one of them. You simply don’t understand expansion of space, and neither do many others. We’ve been working through some of these comprehension issues in other threads.A problem arises when you abandon those discussions, and then start merely repeating unsolved mysteries in other threads, when all the various mysteries you have raised previously have been simple errors in comprehension, and have been considered and explained already. Some of us have even tried to delve into your references to look for issues that you have not actually made explicit, and we’ve addressed those also.In debate on this subject over many years, I see three kinds of issue being raised.

• Claims that the theory is internally inconsistent or nonsensical. I have addressed such claims at length in other threads; they arise from simple failure of comprehension. Such claims come mainly from sincere amateurs who are genuinely confused, and I hope they keep asking questions. I enjoy helping people understand the model better, and I appreciate that this is difficult.
• Claims that the theory is in conflict with fundamental metaphysical principles. Some atheists or strong agnostics see the Big Bang as a creationist idea because it suggests a beginning in time for the universe, and they can’t accept that. Young earth creationists usually reject it, because they can’t accept an age in the billions of years. You are the only person I have ever seen who argues that theism requires there to be no origin for the universe in time. I find that fascinating, and it puts you with some very strange bedfellows indeed. But that’s okay.
• Claims that the theory is in conflict with evidence. For an objection to have any scientific standing, it needs to be of this kind. Halton Arp’s objections are of this kind, and we have touched on them briefly here, with appropriate references and information. There is still scope for more useful discussion; but it’s hard work, because this is where the rubber meets the road in scientific debate. Useful discussion requires the contributors to have a basic understanding of the models and of the evidence; or else we rapidly diverge into issues of the first kind, being straightforward errors of comprehension.

No-one has suggested it is just you. The challenge is to the claim that there are multitudes of prestigious intelligent folks who reject the Big Bang. A particular issue is that word prestigious.There are lots of intelligent folks who have no idea at all about the Big Bang. There are lots of intelligent folks who have incorrect ideas about fields outside their expertise. But there are almost no prestigious scientists with directly relevant expertise who reject the Big Bang. Halton Arp is a plausible exception; apart from that you have pretty much nothing in this argument from authority.Note that many prestigious scientists recognize unsolved problems and issues in cosmology. For example, we don’t know how the Big Bang expansion got started, or what the prior state was like, nor even whether there was such a thing as a prior state. Perhaps time itself has a beginning.Outright rejection of the big bang comes mainly from wanna-be scientists with no relevant prestige at all; or real but run-of-the-mill scientists with no expertise in the subject area; or engineers with delusions of grandeur who have failed to make any credible case. There are also a handful of legitimate scientists with relevant expertise, and one elderly scientist still living who might be considered to have a significant level of prestige.The names on the list are self-identified as scientists or engineers. Engineers have no special standing; this means nothing. Scientists who are geologists (for example) have no special standing either.You don’t like me using the word crank; but I don’t use it lightly or indiscriminately. There are names I recognize on the list, who are fruitcakes worthy of nothing but unrestrained laughter. Tom van Flandern, whom you singled out to quote, is a case in point. He had many years ago some obscure connection with Global Positioning Systems (GPS) as a consultant of some kind; but the exact nature of this is unclear. It appears to have been some engineering support role, but Tom is inclined to gloss over the details. The upshot is that he claims certain mathematical fixes had to be applied to the GPS satellite signals, which indicates an error in Einstein’s theory of relativity. He’s wrong. The GPS system is 100% consistent with relativity, and his objections, on examination, simply indicate that he does not understand physics. Tom is a crank, with his own private pseudo-scientific ideas centred around a speed of gravity greater than the speed of light.Fifty of the self-identified scientists or engineers give their affiliation as independent researcher. Prestige my eye! If you focus on those fifty, there are an especially high proportion of extreme cranks; and I mean way out stratospheric delusion. I’m not saying they all are cranks; but when I was researching posts on Big Bang critics I looked at a few of them. Hoo boy! No, YOUR eyes. You first used the term, and so when it is challenged you should explain what you mean, and give a few examples; not just respond with insulting derision and red herrings.In normal usage, prestige implies some level of prominence or eminence above the majority. Not all scientists are prestigious scientists. The scientists we have considered who reject the big bang have no particular prominence or prestige, except possibly Halton Arp. Fred Hoyle and Hannes Alfven definitely had prestige; but they are no longer alive.You introduced the term; you should defend it. I have taken your lists seriously, and acknowledged that you gave it in good faith. You have not responded to me here with a comparable level of respect.I’m not demanding an answer this time, because this thread is now mainly on meta-issues of how to engage a debate. But if you repeat slanders like the above in another context, speaking of juggling maths or throwing logic out the window, you may get called on them. If so, you would be expected to justify such claims in accordance with the guidelines, or else retract. Ok? It works in the same way for all of us. I’ve been cautioned recently, and correctly, on the matter of rule 1 (stick to topic).You were not given warning of suspension for just messing up once. No-one gets suspended for just one mess up, except in far more drastic instances than you have ever shown. What you are missing, yet again, is the requirement to back up your claims.Yes, I sometimes label people as cranks. Tom van Flandern is a crank, for example. I’ve explained why.I have not called you a crank. I think you are mistaken, and not well aware of the subject matter you presume to criticize; but that is not enough for me to use the word crank.What matters is not whether crank or bibliophobic is descriptive, but whether the description can be substantiated. You haven’t even tried to substantiate your description, and you have applied it to people who have been exceptional in checking out and supplying references. You DO NOT get blanket license to use derisive terms just because others have used derisive terms. Strong criticism is fine, but it needs some basis, and that basis must be supplied when the description is challenged. That is what robust debate is all about.Tom van Flandern IS a crank. Percy or other BB supporters here ARE NOT Bibliophobic. Appeal to fair and balanced debate as a way of justifying one from the other is GALACTICALLY STUPID.You are not required to debate the BB model. But if you choose of your own volition to criticise the BB model, then in this forum you are required to do so substantively, using argument and evidence; not merely assertion. If you choose NOT debate the BB model, then there is no problem. I do not claim that you consistently insult. I think there are couple of places in which you were highly insulting in the last two posts, beyond what was fair and reasonable, and I called you on it.Insult is not automatically in violation of the guidelines, but one must be careful in how it is expressed. The requirement to back up claims can be applied to insulting claims as well. If you can’t back up an insult, the best response is to retract, and maybe to rephrase to something you can defend.It is because I know you are capable of better that I have some hope you might stop and think and get back to a more constructive mode of engagement.If I’ve been critical, it is from an honest conviction that dealing with a few of these issues will improve your experience here; should you choose to stay with us. I am also willing to step in as AdminSylas if and when others treat you unfairly; but I can only do so by reference to our guidelines. I can’t prevent criticism, and I can’t prevent you from being outnumbered.One thing I can do, however! If you like, I will switch to AdminSylas mode and summarily close the thread.After all, this was started at your request, though not quite what you had in mind. Also, fairness concerns aside, a significant majority of participants seem to think that your conduct of debate is substandard. So if threads are started in which you appeal to the masses over a perceived inequity, we simply get a pile of folks leap in to try and help show the error of your ways, and you end up having to defend yourself ten to one in a meta-debate that swiftly becomes personal.Say the word, and I will close up. Topical side issues can easily be picked up in other existing threads if anyone really wants.Best wishes -- Sylas (Edit to fix a rule number reference. It is rule 1 that refers to topic; I previously had said rule 3.)This message has been edited by Sylas, 02-21-2005 15:43 AM