General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7

I have no problem closing it. I think it had some potential but it has become clear that there is not going to be a serious discussion of how the Flood model could explain fossil deposition any time soon. Maybe it is not possible to have that discussion. Anyway we have probably exhausted any possibility that there might have been. I see no point in beating a fossilized horse.

1. It's better to "think about it" than to pound out the first thing that comes to mind without thought which is often the case. This is not a horse race. If substantial time has lapsed with no response, then a kindly reminder/request for a response is good.2. Don't forget that the minority here, especially one as active as Faith, often have a lot on the plate to think about and may need some space on occasion to think and research before proceeding.

That thread can go on for many pages off topic about morality but then get closed because 1 poster goes off topic? It was just getting BACK on topic when deerbreh decided to join in.I was kind of hoping that deerbreh could follow up to my reply.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I'll open it back up, but let's head back towards the topic please.

Post 56 is an abusive post, imo.On edit: I see it is in the Coffee House but it still seems over the line to me.Edited by deerbreh, : More information

Read on, Deer. I was making a point and I retracted what you probably thought was abusive in my next post.

Sorry Mike. I don't normally "report" people but calling someone a "liar" let alone a "Goddamned liar" is well over the line and can't exactly be remedied with a retraction unless you manage to delete the offensive words before anyone sees them. "I was making a point" is no excuse. I realize you can't respond now and it is not me you should be apologizing to anyway.

It was supposed to be a logical trick, Deerbruh.

MikeHager was just trying to trick me logically, nwr. No big deal.

Logical trick? Maybe. But it cuts no ice with me. I am of the mind that saying offensive things to "prove a point" or "just joking" is somewhat like (note, not the equivalent of) carrying a gun through airport security to "test" the system. Somehow the person gets their little dig in under the guise of something else. It is the m.o. of the verbal bully. Then, when confronted, no apology is tendered, only something along the lines of, "I am sorry if someone was offended" which puts the onus right unto the offended person. No, words have meaning and we need to pay attention to the meanings.

That's okay. He can use his timeout to think about better ways of making a point.

---

It's kind of a special case. I was very harsh with his comments from the past. I don't blame him for being angry with me.

It cuts no ice with you? Good thing it doesn't have to.Also, in reference to your earlier reply to me, I certainly have no intention of apologizing to you or anyone. It was, frankly, no concern of yours. Unless I misremember, you are no admin.

I do not own this forum and am a guest recieving a free service, so I will not complain about admin actions. This, however, is condescending tripe: A timeout is what a toddler gets. I recieved a suspension for using strong enough language to get RobinRohan to pay attention. Nothing before that had worked.I would also, since I am not to be allowed to respond in kind, like to request from NWR or one of the other admin's an investigation into RobinRohan's behavior towards me, specifically in the first "boasting" thread he started.I would refer the admin's attention to rules 2,3 and 4. Edited by mikehager, : No reason given.

I will review the thread. The review might take a while. The particular thread was in the coffee house, where we allow a little more laxity.

---