Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Please welcome AdminRandman
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 72 (260845)
11-18-2005 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Admin
11-17-2005 9:39 PM


yippy skippy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Admin, posted 11-17-2005 9:39 PM Admin has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 41 of 72 (261093)
11-18-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by AdminRandman
11-18-2005 5:56 PM


Re: biasness
quote:
I think it would surprise many here to awaken to the fact that claiming critics of ToE don't post here not because they cannot argue their points or are poorly educated, but simply because the childishness, rudeness, and lack of willingness to engage in discussion are so prevalent from the other side.
Why don't you set a good example to everyone, now that you have the special position of Moderator, of how to debate in an honest fashion.
I am still waiting for you to support or retract your claims in the "welfare myths" thread, randman.
Either provide the evidence to back up your claims, as requested, or withdraw them.
I believe this is rule #4 of the Forum Rules:
4. Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.
I've challenged you with a fresh new thread which you have woefully ignored. Please support your position there, with more than just "I once knew a black preacher in this one town and he said..."
I'd also like you to keep the following rule, #2, in mind as well:
2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.
I'll look for your new, improved, always-follows-the-forum-rules-persona in our thread.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-18-2005 06:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by AdminRandman, posted 11-18-2005 5:56 PM AdminRandman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by randman, posted 11-18-2005 7:04 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 72 (261217)
11-19-2005 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by randman
11-18-2005 7:04 PM


Re: biasness
quote:
Edit to add I missed your latest reply and see it now. Please note that I did reply before and it sat there for awhile.
Yeah, well, the reply was in no way substantive.
It was avoidant and did not address the specific requirements of the OP, which I repeated for you in the thread.
"I knew a black preacher in this one town and he said..." does not constitute evidence of the sort which actually addresses the OP.
I am looking for better quality from you, randman, and less dodging.
Cut-n-paste my questions, and answer them. That's how forthright and honest debate is undertaken. You might try it sometime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by randman, posted 11-18-2005 7:04 PM randman has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 57 of 72 (261218)
11-19-2005 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by BuckeyeChris
11-18-2005 11:26 PM


Re: Why AdminRandman?
quote:
I don't think anyone is saying that having Christian/creationist mods is a bad idea. But how is anyone supposed to respect the authority of a mod that himself has shown a complete inability to respect the forum guidelines, and imo a complete lack of respect for other posters.
Bing, bing, bing!
Give the little lady a prize.
You don't give the keys to the asylum to the craziest, most troublesome inmate!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by BuckeyeChris, posted 11-18-2005 11:26 PM BuckeyeChris has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2005 2:06 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 62 of 72 (261296)
11-19-2005 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Cold Foreign Object
11-19-2005 2:06 PM


Re: Why AdminRandman?
quote:
This comment is easily explained by the fact that its author is an atheist-Darwinist.
I'm not an athiest.
It is actually most easily explained by the fact that Randman is a dishonest debater.
I can think of several Creationists here that I would nominate to be an admin before randman.
quote:
Could one expect an atheist-Darwinist to say anthing else about a theist-Creationist ?
Sure.
Iano, while I disagree with much of what he claims, seems to be a kind chap and does a good job debating in an honest fashion. He doesn't cut and run, he tries to address points rather than avoiding or ignoring them, and when he doesn't know or doesn't understand something, he says so. I have a lot of respect for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2005 2:06 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024