Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 9 of 302 (289360)
02-21-2006 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
02-21-2006 7:53 PM


Re: Question for AdminBuz
while the crackdown on worthlessly short and non-contributing posts has been kind of recent, this point is still wrong:
In adition, to say his post was CRAP was the kindest shading I could put on his contributions at EvC.
the kindest shading you could put on his contribution was a polite, and well-thought-out refutation of his points, "crap" though they may be. "crap!" is an opinion, and a personal one. unless you can actually SUPPORT that assertion, there is no point in posting it.
and buz, that post was a bit old -- there is little sense derailing a thread that is currently going quite smoothly by catching an admin issue that should have been caught months ago.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 02-21-2006 7:53 PM jar has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 50 of 302 (300004)
04-01-2006 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by PaulK
04-01-2006 5:28 AM


Re: Randman rises again!
Quite frankly I think that Christian needs to think very carefully about the decision and examine the evidence more carefully, because so far as I can tell her judgement is completely at odds with the reality of the situation.
(...christian's an admin now? hey, uh, congrats christian.)
yes, well, anyways. "completely logical" has never been a good description of randamn's behaviour in any thread. nevermind the differences of opinions (the clash of the basic assumptions and points of view), but they all get out of hand pretty quickly. and if i hear anymore about haeckel, or quantum mechanics, i might just lose it.
that said, i do think the ban was a bit much. i think he just ticked jar off, or something. i wasn't paying too close attention to the thread, but i didn't really see anything suspension worthy. so, yeah, accusations of lies were flying about. guess what? people lie. and attempting to expose those lies has always been a major chunk of this debate -- how many times do "evolutionists" have to demonstrate quotes out of context, and other forms of intellectual dishonesty and outright fraud on the parts of the creationists? as long as the discussion is kept relatively civil, it should be fine.
randman being wrong isn't a good excuse, either. the differences in what we think is right, vs wrong, is the whole purpose of this forum. and we know he's a bit paranoid, and we know he sees things completely backwards from us. and part of that, suprise, is reading deception into whatever he can. and seeing special treatment, and double standards.
(and jar: friendly criticism, take some time off or something. everybody seems to be jumping down your throat recently, and i think you're letting it get to you. it's not that important. some of your admin actions don't seem as impartial as they should these days. you know i'm not saying this to attack you or anything, but this board's just been going crazy recently. try not to get too caught up in it)
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 04-01-2006 05:49 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 5:28 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 6:13 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 52 of 302 (300007)
04-01-2006 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by PaulK
04-01-2006 6:13 AM


Re: Randman rises again!
i'll look over it again, but from my quick scan through i didn't see anything out of the ordinary.
of course, that might not really say much.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 6:13 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Admin, posted 04-01-2006 9:30 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 73 of 302 (300383)
04-02-2006 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Admin
04-01-2006 9:30 AM


well, when you put it like that
i guess i just have a bit of a thicker skin for randman's antics than most.
but like i said, i didn't see anything out of the ordinary -- maybe that's why he was banned instead of suspended.
[edit] i guess i should add something more, but this is a difficult subject, and a very touchy one for a lot of people here. my question is, does the wording matter? i think randman is right, to a degree. we DO accuse creationists of "intellectual" dishonesty, and continually question their integrity in rather roundabout ways.
but "intellectual dishonesty" is really just a fancy word of saying "lie." i have always argued here that people shouldn't get in trouble for accusing others of lying -- if they make a case for it. because people DO lie, and we should be able demonstrate that some people in the debate are simply trying to mislead people. while it DOES border on an ad hominem argument, sometimes it's the truth. and we don't ban "evolutionists" for exposing the lies of someone like hovind.
randman did word his points more civilly than usual, but maybe the issue is that they were aimed other members instead of public figures of the evc debate? the question is, will i get banned for the implication i'm making when i say that, of all people here, we shouldn't take randman's accusations of a lack of integrity too seriously?
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 04-02-2006 08:59 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Admin, posted 04-01-2006 9:30 AM Admin has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 98 of 302 (303062)
04-10-2006 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Cold Foreign Object
04-10-2006 5:53 PM


Re: Lying
Members nwr and Randman have been suspended for allegedly calling someone a liar. These suspensions assume no one lies and shifts the guilt onto the reporter from the perpetrator.
ray, i actually agree with you for once.
...I will boycott the Forum...
make that twice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-10-2006 5:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2006 11:32 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 102 of 302 (303086)
04-10-2006 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Buzsaw
04-10-2006 11:32 PM


Re: Lying
that statement could be read one of two ways. try the other way.
(i was only kidding, anyways)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2006 11:32 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Buzsaw, posted 04-11-2006 1:03 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 104 of 302 (303094)
04-11-2006 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Buzsaw
04-11-2006 1:03 AM


Re: Boycott
(no buz, it was a shrewdly worded, joking insult...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Buzsaw, posted 04-11-2006 1:03 AM Buzsaw has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 146 of 302 (304141)
04-14-2006 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Brian
04-13-2006 7:32 PM


Re: Boycott =
The boycott = inablility to refute.
not to mention that he's dodging that big paper he was supposed to submit. but i don't think it's a big deal for ray. i found where he's been spending his time:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?...
(they're waiting for it there, too)
Changed URL display length to fix page width - The Queen
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 04-14-2006 03:55 AM
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 04-14-2006 09:51 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Brian, posted 04-13-2006 7:32 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Brian, posted 04-14-2006 4:07 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 149 of 302 (304148)
04-14-2006 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Brian
04-14-2006 4:07 AM


Re: Boycott =
I just hope Ray gets regular checks on his blood pressure!
it's kind of funny to read the conversation on that group (i mostly lurk, and even then i don't really lurk THAT much).
they don't appear to have the same rules that we do. and little to no moderation. and let me tell you -- insults go aflying. ray's "darwinist rant" claims almost sound justified there sometimes.
it's kind of funny to see the idiots and nutters get called idiots and nutters.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Brian, posted 04-14-2006 4:07 AM Brian has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 156 of 302 (304362)
04-15-2006 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by AdminModulous
04-14-2006 8:19 PM


Re: My thoughts on how to deal with liars
Next time, should I be more explicit when I say something tongue in cheek? Perhaps I should explicitly write that what I say is actually intended to be taken as a tongue in cheek comment?
you mean, "with my tongue in my cheek" was not clear enough?
clearly, mod, you must have been lying, because you're an evolutionist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by AdminModulous, posted 04-14-2006 8:19 PM AdminModulous has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 157 of 302 (304367)
04-15-2006 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Cold Foreign Object
04-14-2006 1:48 PM


one christian to another
hey again ray. i know you wouldn't answer this even if you weren't suspended/involuntarily boycotting/whatever. but here it goes.
Darwinists have "changed the truth of God" (that He is the Creator) "into a lie" that we originated from creatures "and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator."
no one is saying that animals created mankind. and neither is anyone saying that we "originated from" animals. rather, we ARE a kind of animal.
and if you don't believe me, read your bible. i think you'll find that genesis uses the same word for animal that does for mankind: -- living creature. this is the phrase genesis 1 uses to describe all of god's animal creations, and the phrase genesis 2 uses for us when god breathes life into adam. i think you'll also find that man and beast, often occur in tandem, parallel.
dispute it if you like, but the bible clearly groups us together -- because we are more like animals than we are like god. make no mistake here, ray, you are not just accusing people of lying: you are accusing people of idolatry. i have no doubt that if you DO respond to this, it will be the same accusation. but this is no darwinist rant, ray. nor am i an athiest. you make such claims here, and insult people's religions. i understand the reality of evolution -- but i do not worship any created being, only the one who created them all.
should we let you sit here in judgement? calling people liars, and idolators -- often even insulting your fellow christians? because, obviously, anyone who disagrees with you is neither christian, nor saved; but a tool of the devil.
Imagine that....thinking you are worshipping God when in fact you are deceived by Satan and belong to him ?
how dare you, who is saved by grace alone, make such accusations?
If the typology is true then every established religious community in any era is exactly the same. The Fundamentalists are the established Protestant religious community today and their members are here, in this Forum, and by their silence, approving of the censorship of the Bible by our enemies, they prove, the typology is absolutely true corresponding with physical reality.
and how dare you pervert such a sacred text, and use it as a weapon. that's the real issue here, ray. it's not that you are quoting the bible -- quote all you like. it's not that you are talking about implications. it's your judgemental, condescending, insulting, and un-christ-like attitude. it's that you are using the text disrespectfully to harm other members. you are disrespecting the text itself to use it in this manner.
i think perhaps you should give the teachings of jesus a second thought. what would jesus think of you attempting to use his name to insult other people -- people he died for (whether they accept it or not)?
My paper will prove it.
we wait with baited breath, ray.
Imagine that...a Bible verse and its application censored on an Internet debate board....the truth obviously hurts.
what would jesus say about this whole debate? let's ask him, shall we?
quote:
Mat 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Mat 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
if you really think we're all against you, or that we don't hear or accept you, then feel free to accept jesus's message and just leave. but what we, the other christians here, don't need is for someone to cast us in a bad light -- using our texts as weapons, disregarding the teachings of our saviour that instruct us to have nothing but compassion, and love, and respect for our fellow man. jesus had the right to judge -- but we do not.
the issue here is that you broke the rules. you insulted members, and you made accusations -- some of them false. you break not only the rules of conduct for this board, but the rules of conduct for christianity. play nice, or don't play at all. but this act neither convinces anyone that you're right, nor does it show the love of our lord and saviour to the people who need to see it.
I suggest you do less drugs; the same will undoubtedly improve the look of your face.
how this a christian response, ray? i'm sure you think the policies on the board are not fair, but remember. we as christians are held to a higher standard. we are to be the example, and show others christ -- through our lives, and our actions, and our words. what witness to the gospel does a response like this bare?
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 04-15-2006 01:53 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-14-2006 1:48 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 280 of 302 (319103)
06-08-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Legend
06-08-2006 12:22 PM


Re: reply to admin comments
do we have to AGREE with a post to nominate it? you should be careful, i got suspended once for nominating a post that did nothing but personally insult me. i thought it deserved the nomination because it was very informative of another's viewpoint, and actually quite funny.
the admins disagreed.
it's just that iano, in one sentence, managed to succintly and definitively explain the following:
how critical analysis, reasoning and common sense are left out of the door when it comes to interpreting the bible.
and who's to say that such a view is wrong? what's bad about blind, unfaltering faith? is it an insult to say that someone has faith now?
why it's absolutely pointless trying to reason with a Christian because, when it comes to the crunch, arguments become irrelevant and the bible is always true, because...it just is.
except when it's not, and requires some "interpretation."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Legend, posted 06-08-2006 12:22 PM Legend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by AdminNWR, posted 06-08-2006 2:03 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 283 of 302 (319500)
06-09-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by AdminNWR
06-08-2006 2:03 PM


Re: reply to admin comments
If, instead, it had said "a clear expression of a creationist viewpoint" there would have been no criticism.
so it's not the act itself, just the phrasing of it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by AdminNWR, posted 06-08-2006 2:03 PM AdminNWR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by AdminNWR, posted 06-09-2006 10:44 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 289 of 302 (319526)
06-09-2006 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by AdminNWR
06-09-2006 10:44 AM


Re: reply to admin comments
The phrasing is part of the act itself. A POTM nomination is supposed to be a positive statement about a post, so negative comments don't belong in the nomination.
ok, i think i understand what you're saying then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by AdminNWR, posted 06-09-2006 10:44 AM AdminNWR has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 294 of 302 (320465)
06-11-2006 10:59 AM


gen 1 + 2
adminpd writes:
This is not a continuation of reconciling Genesis 1 and 2.
actually, it is. from the op:
quote:
There was a thread recently, and I have been told that they are common, about Genesis 1 and 2. Sadly, even those who may agree with me on this topic, were short coming with their explinations on why, if taken literally, they are not in contradiction with each other. I am here to clear up this errant thinking that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory as far as man being created after the beasts in Genesis 1, and then being "created" again, before the beasts, in Genesis 2.
the goal of the op is to reconcile genesis 1 and 2, and provide an argument not provided in the other recent thread. the op has since been refuted, and has deserted the thread (note that there are no replies to my message 25). adding additional evidence for why the stories are contradictory and of different origins provides further back up for the points against.
we can't actually be expected to sit around debate the meanings of two english words for 300 posts, can we?


Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by AdminPD, posted 06-11-2006 12:12 PM arachnophilia has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024