quote:He has shown that he has nothing of significance to contribute.
I thought the nebulas he posted were interesting. He asked questions atheists can't answer. I mean that counts for something.
quote:of which too many people who should know better are only too willing to follow (troll feeding).
And how is that his fault. If you didn't like the topics he started then you didn't have to look at them and the "feeders" didn't have to respond.
quote:You may think I have done the wrong thing in suspending Wise. I really don't care. Wise can appeal his situation to Admin/Percy if he wishes. I will not be the one to restore his posting priviledges.
Man... I'm glad we have an admin like you.
[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 09-29-2003]
I'm sorry messenjah, Wise was a pointless waste of space. He would make an assertion & simply ignore responses. I tried to engage with him but my points were simply brushed aside as he repeated himself ad nauseum.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-29-2003]
messenjaH, you recently asked what a strawman was. Wise's thread on light was a perfect example. His question, if I recall correctly, was asking people to explain the "evolvement" of light, based on the assumption that an atheist thinks everything evolved.
When the response he got was "we don't think everything evolved, so what's your point," thereby burning the strawman, he would respond by saying, "Ah-ha! Atheists, who think everything evolved, can't explain the 'evolvement' of light!"
He would then, after being corrected once again about what atheists believe, and having it pointed out to him that 'evolvement' isn't even a word, proudly proclaim that a picture of a cloud that looks kinda like Jesus if you squint hard proved the existence of God.
Personally, I found him to be an enormous waste of everyone's time, creationist and evolutionist alike. He wasn't interested in listening to (or interacting with) anyone, only in making asinine proclamations.
[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 09-29-2003]
Why do we have trouble getting *good* creationists to debate with around here? Why do we always end up with people like Wise who set up these ridiculous straw men to debate with? I'm surprised that we haven't seen ones yet who come in and say "Since evolution advocates the eating of babies, and eating babies is a horrible thing, all of you evolutionists should be kicked out of the country."
We've got some who start up decent arguments but then dissapear once their issues are challenged (such as Fred Williams). We've got some who will actually stay in a debate, and aren't *too* bad about dodging, but only stay in the theological sections for the most part (such as Joralex). But, I mean... we need someone like Gish here, someone who can hold a debate - it's just too one sided as it is. For every creationist who posts something about evolution, they get around 4 or 5 evolutionists explaining what is wrong with their statement, and then the creationist usually doesn't bother to respond.
When making an administrative decision I try to keep in mind the goals of EvC Forum: it should be fun, informative, productive. The Forum Guidelines are intended to help make this possible, and to let members know that administrative decisions aren't arbitrary. I think it's a good idea to give members as a free a rein as possible consistent with the guidelines and in line with the goals.
Regarding those who accept an administrative or moderator appointment, this entails a sacrifice, for with the increased responsibility comes increased demands upon time as they follow all threads in their purview, straighten out garbled posts, attempt to keep discussion productive and on-topic, resolved (sometimes) disputes, and so forth. I don't try to second guess those who are giving so much of themselves, for they, too, have only the best interests of this forum at heart.
That being said, I haven't yet met the perfect administrator. It's both art form and social science. Unanimity among members about an administrative decision is rare. I look back at my past decisions and some I think were good, others I think were bad, and no matter what I think of them now, at the time they all had both supporters and detractors. In other words, it's usually not possible to know what is right or wrong. Usually it is just that you can see that no productive discussion is taking place, and you just want to do something to get things back on track, but it's hard to know what that something might be, and in the background you can always hear the site's disk space tick, tick ticking away with every keystroke of someone doing a good imitation of an unappreciative ingrate.
Well, once again I tried to provide answers and ended up only producing musings. All I can say about Wise is that he was yet another very interesting character to show up here. One wonders if he lives his real life the way he lives his on-line life. Naturally he'll be reinstated if he requests it, but I'm not expecting that as he abandoned the board once before just after joining when he learned it was moderated, returning only after he discovered Free For All. On the one hand I have this hope that he'll return to help us understand why some people believe that images in the clouds are Jesus or that statues bleed or that pictures weep. But on the other hand Wise was never forthcoming about why he believed as he did. In the end Wise's greater interest seemed to be in frustrating rather than aiding understanding, and perhaps this goes the furthest at explaining why he is won't be posting today. After today, it's up to him.
Wise was like daring Moose to show him the door. Imo, Moose exercised a fair amount of restraint before taking action. Administration seems to go the extra mile here to resolve these matters and to allow for disciplined posters to return and participate in a suitable manner. So far, that's been so for me.
I don't see it as a dictatorship perse. I see it more as free enterprise where the owner who establishes and provides the enterprise, rightfully should be free to make the rules. If those rules are unacceptable, like price and quality with a merchant's product, demand will not be there so as to make the enterprise desirable and successful. Percy admits to mistakes, but unlike a dictator, seems to be willing to learn, bend, and improve for all to enjoy and benefit.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-30-2003]
I always assumed he was taking the piss, though I have to admit he had an impressive folder full of Christ clouds and similar nonsense. I had to think twice about the picture of God's kingdom he posted. Lucky for me Crashfrog pointed out it was signed at the bottom. Whew!
------------------ I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall