Post your short questions here. No need to start a thread everytime.

yeah, but when they let through citing an anecdotal story from an obviously new-age pseudoscience pop book?seriously bad. i know people make mistakes, but jesus.

---

אָרַח

i'm just saying. quite poor indeed -- i was just under the impression that "peer-reviewed" carried a bit of a higher degree of scrutiny.

---

אָרַח

while i feel bad for nuggin, i am very greatful that i can now direct all of randman's offtopic hæckling in other threads to the great debate.

---

אָרַח

*sigh* i can't really say much else.oh, and i won the pakicetus thread. last post wins, especially when it's got evidence. [edit:] ok, maybe not. i see he's still bringing it up, as support for evolutionist deception.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-06-2005 03:50 AM

---

אָרַח

speaking of great debates...it's been more than a month since his last post to our great debate, or actually on the board at all. i'm not really concerned if needs the time or wants to take a bit off (god knows how stressful this week is for me...)but i'm starting to worry. anyone heard from him at all?

---

אָרַח

bad html!

quote:

---

robinrohan, i think he's my new hero.

​

whatever was supposed to go here of explaining common ancestry.

​

i have a few ex-boyfriends i'd lump into that category as well.

---

when someone wins the cup.(go oilers)

---

*sigh* that was less exciting than i thought it would be.are they not allowed to talk to each other on leno? i really wanted to see those two go at it.

---

yeah... what the heck does this mean?

quote:

---

Suspension expires: Indefinite
Reason: For actions against the best interests of EvC Forum.

---

is there a way to make say which rule was broken? and can we please keep the suspension posts, at least in the thread where the offending post was made, and in reply to it? it's good to actually have those, both as a public record, and so we know better what not to do.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

yeah, but i've seen suspensions here before, publically announced, for reasons similar to "you're being an ass, have a break." i did notice the overly harsh tone, yes, but i don't see why they wouldn't talk about it if it's just that.maybe something wrong? i hope everything's ok with brian, and all. i'm not sure that post really broke any rules, per se. it was a little, um, picky i guess would be the word. but i've seen lots of posts like that -- i tend to take an opponents argument apart into pieces too, though not to that degree, nor am i that demanding of evidence.however, brian did debate an admin in the thread itself, which is a big no-no. maybe. but is that cause to ban someone as a member entirely? they did something similar a while back with randman. he was creating too many problems, and acting up in the private admin forum, so they canned him altogether. if that's the case, i make the same argument for brian as i do for randman.impartial or obnoxious admins should just be demoted, not banned altogether.[added by second edit:] i should read back a little further before posting. it looks like adminbrian got suspended first -- and brian probably got suspended for his insulting tone above. maybe that's not the WHOLE reason, but it's good enough. why not just say that, other admins?Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

i'm gonna guess that it's fairly recent in this exact thread. yes, agreed.

---

well, he also wasn't doing it in admin mode.

all kinds of bad. they're telling us to drop it, and we probably should. not much more needs to be said anyways.

http://EvC Forum: the underlying assumptions rig the debate -->EvC Forum: the underlying assumptions rig the debatei'd bump it, but it's currently quite high up on the first page of "all topics"

---

an official statement would be nice, sure. but look back a page or two in this very thread, and tell me you can't guess why he was suspended?Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.