Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
60 online now:
jar, nwr, Tangle (3 members, 57 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 8/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 302 (273691)
12-28-2005 10:29 PM


Moderation Request
Will a neutral moderator please take a look at the problem I'm having with member/admin Jar in my Faith and Belief thread dealing with the respective gods of the prophets Jesus and Muhammed? Jar persists in repeating his question, "How many gods are there." The question has been answered to the extent that it pertains to the thread. I have requested that if Jar wishes to discuss his topic further he needs to open his own thread, but he persists in denying my request. His topic has been discussed before and can get involved to the extent that it would draw my thread off topic. Thanks.

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 12-28-2005 10:32 PM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 27 by AdminAsgara, posted 12-28-2005 10:42 PM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 28 by AdminBen, posted 12-28-2005 10:56 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 302 (273730)
12-29-2005 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by AdminBen
12-28-2005 10:56 PM


Re: Moderation Request
Ben writes:

I took a look through the OP and later posts that seemed relevant. Seems the problem is simply that jar is asking questions without giving a reason behind them, and you don't see how they're relevant to the thread.

I think the most simple solution would simply be, ask jar how his questions are relevant to the thread. Both of your behaviors is a little bit strange to me; you could have asked jar why he thought the questions were relevant, and jar could have explained the relevance without your overt question, when he saw that it wasn't obvious to you why they were relevant.

He started out way back in message 127 with a similar question. I asked what his point was twice after he repeated the question. Faith then responded with an answer to it. Jar then proceeds on to repeat the question a third time after it was answered.

This is the exchange:

messages writes:


Jar writes:
Does Jesus say that GOD is the God of Abraham and Isaac?

Buz:
What is your point?

Jar:
Does Jesus say that GOD is the God of Abraham and Isaac?
Pretty simple question.

Buz:
What's your point? Pretty simple question.

AbE: Jar response:
If Jesus says that GOD is the God of Abraham and Isaac then the GOD worshipped by the Jews, Christians and Muslims is the same GOD.

Unless you wish to say Jesus lied.

Faith in response:
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. NOBODY comes to the Father but by Me."

What this means, OBVIOUSLY is that the only way to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob IS through Jesus Christ, and since Jews and Muslims do not believe that, it is YOU who are lying when you say they worship the same God.

Jar repeats:
Did Jesus say that GOD is the God of Abraham and Isaac?
Shall I post that again?

To begin with it should be obvious to anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever that Jesus believed his god was also the god of the OT, so he's obviously trying to play with word and phrase tricks.

In the first place I'm not aware that Jesus ever made such a statement outright. Why should he regarding something so obvious?

Jar and Arachnophilia (spelling?), in particular are enough to drive a counterpart nuts with some of the off beat illogical stuff they think of to trip up the opponent, often requiring page after page of responses to frivolous absurdities.

This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-29-2005 01:56 AM


From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by AdminBen, posted 12-28-2005 10:56 PM AdminBen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 12-29-2005 1:36 AM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 34 by arachnophilia, posted 12-29-2005 2:13 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 36 by AdminBen, posted 12-30-2005 10:18 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 302 (274171)
12-30-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by arachnophilia
12-29-2005 2:13 AM


Re: ok, but no double standards now.
Arach writes:

for example, faith keeps making an argument based on god's name. god's name is "jehovah" (which it's not), and allah's name is "allah" so they are not the same god. even though the argument has been shown to be bunk, she keeps repeating it, ad nauseum -- missing the obvious point. god's name is never mentioned in the new testament. not once. there's a vague invocation of it, maybe. but it's debatable, and still not the actual name. rather, the tetragrammaton itself only appears in the old testament.

and if i can't make comparisons to old testament scripture, why can she?

It's not just Faith. I and her both have shown that Jehovah is the proper modern English rendering of the Hebrew tetragamaton. I have explained this in detail and you refuse to accept the fact that nearly every modern Biblical translator who has translated the tetragammaton literally from YHWH (not adonai) has used the modern English rendering, Jehovah. You arrogantly and doggedly buck the professional linguist English Bible translators as well as ignoring my sound arguments for the modern rendering of it. That's your problem and you keep on keeping on mentioning it adnausium in the threads.

As for the OT in that thread, the difference is that Faith referred to it briefly whereas you and others were pretty much basing your argument on it in your earlier attempts to establish your arguments.


From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by arachnophilia, posted 12-29-2005 2:13 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-30-2005 9:29 PM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 56 by arachnophilia, posted 12-30-2005 9:42 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 302 (274176)
12-30-2005 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by AdminBen
12-30-2005 10:18 AM


Re: Moderation Request
Ben writes:

Thanks for outlining those messages to clear things up. I didn't see those when I went back to read.

That's why I posted it. It appeared you hadn't gone back far enough to notice it.

Ben writes:

I get the feeling that the discussion between you and jar often becomes adversarial (sp?) and filled with unwillingness of each of you to bend. This is not meant to be an admonisment, but an observation.

All you need do to see who's the stubborn unbending one, even though he was leading off topic, is to look at the last page of the now closed prophets Jesus/Muhammed inspiration thread. I showed you in the exchange above how he was the stubborn one then and he simply confirmed this to be the case at the end of the thread.

Ben writes:

The two of you need to work that out. Either by not engaging in discussion together, or both of you finding a way to communicate and discuss more .. efficiently and accurately.

Why is it that when others mess up, they get moderated with suspension or warnings, but with jar we need to work it out ourselves? Jar seems to have had a free pass for a long time, no matter how obnixious he gets, so how are we going to work it out ourselves? Is it because he's admin, or what, that he gets by with his stuff?

Edited to delete "outright" in first paragraph.

This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-30-2005 11:29 AM


From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by AdminBen, posted 12-30-2005 10:18 AM AdminBen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by AdminBen, posted 12-30-2005 12:12 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 302 (274207)
12-30-2005 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by AdminNosy
12-30-2005 1:19 PM


Re: A way of guessing
AdminNosy writes:

There is a way of guessing who might be most at fault if you don't have time or enough knowledge to dig into the thread.
You can go on the past behaviour of the individuals. If you pick these two individuals it is easy to guess at who is being stubborn. Very easy.

1. So much for fairness. :rolleyes: Ned, you should have to be debating against someone like jar. You're so doggedly biased against Christian fundamentalists that you're obviously totally blind to the obnoxious posting behavior of jar.

2. If I don't answer the repeated demands of jar in debates he whines about me 'running off' just as he did in that thread, even in spite of the fact that I was responding as soon as feasibly possible for me in my schedule.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by AdminNosy, posted 12-30-2005 1:19 PM AdminNosy has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-30-2005 1:49 PM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 74 by Admin, posted 01-02-2006 8:32 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 302 (274217)
12-30-2005 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by AdminBen
12-30-2005 12:12 PM


Re: Moderation Request
Ben writes:

See, the thing is, I can't really tell. I can barely understand the subject matter, because I'm not versed in the Bible at all. I have a hard time understanding jar's hard line, whether it's on topic or not, and whether your refusals to answer his questions are valid or not. I can't tell.

.................... Your refusals can be right on, they can be missing the point, they can be stubborn. I can't tell, because I don't really know the subject.

It seems to me that all you need do is read the topic title and OP to make a jusgement as to topic, regardless of whether you're a student of the Bible or not. You're an intelligent person, Ben and it seems to me that making a judgement on this should not be all that complicated.

My impression of the admin response here is that it's business as usual here with the admins biased against Biblical fundamentalists. admin Jar gets a free pass, as usual, so jar will keep on making trouble. Don't forget, I'm not alone in this assessment. Faith has fully concurred with my observation.


From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by AdminBen, posted 12-30-2005 12:12 PM AdminBen has taken no action

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 302 (274221)
12-30-2005 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by AdminNWR
12-30-2005 1:52 PM


Re: On "The Same God" thread
nwr writes:

In support of their position, buzsaw and Faith presented an argument that would probably resonate with a narrow evangelical audience, but which would be seen by most Christians and most scholars as missing the point entirely.

Nwr, are you not aware that over half of Chrristians and scholars are evangelicals? Their views are generally more Biblically fundamental as opposed to liberal, meaning that they stick closer to the Biblical fundamentals. Faith and I were debating from that perspective as should be expected of us. It's not so much as the positions taken by Jar and often by Arachnophilia, but their behavior. It was my thread, but they wanted to run the show with their agenda which was often borderline to off topic. My repeated requests for them to move to topic center were repeatedly bulligerantly ignored.

nwr writes:

The miscommunication between the two sides was annoying. But I find it difficult to fault jar for defending the commonly accepted view, particularly when no persuasive arguments were presented for the alternative position. And I cannot see any basis for considering jar's participation to be off-topic.

Come on! "No persuasive arguments were presented?" Nwr, you know whose side you were on and you also know full well as an admin that "persuasive arguments" is often relative to one's ideological perspective.

nwr writes:

My analysis here will likely be considered biased by some of the participants.

Most assuredly!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by AdminNWR, posted 12-30-2005 1:52 PM AdminNWR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by AdminNWR, posted 12-30-2005 2:39 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 302 (274433)
12-31-2005 3:48 PM


Having Thought It Over
Having thought it over, I'll just continue to pray and work at getting along with Jar and Arach. Truth eventually wins in the end, though finding it often requires digging through tough terrain on the part of all of us as iron sharpens iron. It was suggested that one option was just to avoid them, but I really don't want that option. Jar and Arach, peace, at least until the next INTENSE SHOOTOUT!! :eek:

your tags have to close in the opposite order as they are opened if you opem them I then B...B has to close before I - the Queen

This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-31-2005 02:50 PM


From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 302 (275321)
01-03-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Admin
01-02-2006 8:32 AM


Me Moderator?
Admin writes:

Perhaps you would accept a moderator role at EvC Forum?

Hi Percy. My apologies for not responding earlier, but I just noticed your question. Your consideration for me to moderate is appreciated. The main problem I see is that where moderation is needed for Biblcal fundamentalists is in the threads that us few participate in, making it appear by the counterparts that my moderating would not be fair and objective. I believe I would be fair and balanced if you want to try me to see how it worked out. Perhaps I could work under the oversight of, say you, Ben or Moose. Either that, or if Faith would be interested maybe her and I could work together as moderators so as to have a second opinion if requested, as well as to moderate on behalf one one another or on behalf of someone who has a problem with one of us.

Also, I don't read that much outside of threads I'm not in, so there might need be some way to bring my attention to where moderation was needed. If I were moderator I would try to do a little more reading in the more lively threads pertaining to the forum/forums assigned to me. My participation is quite sporadic but I do try to check in sometime during the day.

I'm not sure what responsibilities are involved as I've never been a moderator, so I would need to be apprised on that. Think it over and if after reading this you think I might not work out, no problem, whatsoever. If you do wish to try me and later see it's not the best for the forum, I assure you, I would not make a fuss.

If you decide to try me, let me think and pray about it a day before going ahead with it. Thanks. buzsaw

Edited to change message title

This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-03-2006 12:06 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Admin, posted 01-02-2006 8:32 AM Admin has taken no action

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 302 (275407)
01-03-2006 4:20 PM


Other considerations
Hi again, Admin/Percy. It came to mind since posting message 77 that there's also Admin Randman and there's Profex as well as others I'm not thinking of who might be representative of Biblical fundamentalists who I might work with if Faith is still not interested. I haven't noticed that Admin Randman is very active as a moderator, but then I may not have read that much where he has done so. I'm not saying I would especially need someone else, but suggesting that it might be helpful. That, of course, is your call.

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by AdminRandman, posted 01-03-2006 5:31 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 302 (275921)
01-04-2006 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Admin
01-02-2006 8:32 AM


Buzsaw Matter
Hi Percy. I tried to email you but the email failed with an underliver error. Anyhow, if you think you might want me to try doing some moderating, I'd be willing to see how it would work out. Whatever your final decision is will be fine with me, as I will take your decision as God's will in the matter. Thanks for working to make the forum compatible to all. May God bless you for that!


Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Admin, posted 01-02-2006 8:32 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Admin, posted 01-05-2006 9:47 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 302 (276034)
01-05-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Admin
01-05-2006 9:47 AM


Re: Buzsaw Matter
Hi Percy. Thanks for giving me a try. I did attempt another email to you by hittng the mail button on your post resulting in another failure. This message came up:

The message could not be sent because one of the recipients was rejected by the server. The rejected e-mail address was 'admin@'. Subject 'Buzsaw Checking In', Account: 'novocon.net', Server: 'mail.novocon.net', Protocol: SMTP, Server Response: '550 Rejected message because your IP is in a black list at dnsbl.sorbs.net', Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 550, Error Number: 0x800CCC79

AbE: I am leaving shortly for out of town and will check in likely this eve.
Abe: edited out IP #
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-05-2006 10:52 AM

This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-05-2006 07:36 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Admin, posted 01-05-2006 9:47 AM Admin has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 01-05-2006 12:10 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 109 by nwr, posted 01-05-2006 12:28 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 302 (276037)
01-05-2006 10:58 AM


Another Buz Email Test
Percy, I tried again using the "new message" mode from my email rather than the forum button and got the same message.

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 302 (276200)
01-05-2006 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by jar
01-05-2006 12:10 PM


Re: Buzsaw Matter
Hi Jar. Thanks for your help. I've contacted my server and awaiting a call from them before trying your advice. I've edited out my IP number from my message. Would you please also edit out my IP from your message asap? I would appreciate that very much.

I emailed Percy after the thread closed to see if he could edit mine out, but see the thread opened again. Btw, I tried nwr's suggestion of manually typing in Percy's email to my Outlook Express and I didn't get the error, so it must have went through.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 01-05-2006 12:10 PM jar has taken no action

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 302 (277892)
01-10-2006 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by randman
01-10-2006 5:49 PM


Welcome Back Randman.
Hi Randman. I welcome you back and thank Percy for reconsidering.

Having been here for several years, I have observed how things are going with moderation. I do think Percy sincerely wants more fairness and balance.

I read up on the exchange between you and Percy in the admin forum. I think, regardless of how you think you were treated as moderator, perhaps you said too much rather than making your point and dropping it. I've seen some recent change for the better for us and we don't want to hinder that. We must remember that this board is primarily an evolutionist board with the large majority who are evolutionists.

As Percy works to improve balance here, he has his likeminded constituents, our counterparts in debate to deal with. We must understand that as we are being now priviledged to share in admin moderation, we will need to go easy so as to assure the majority that we're going to work as a team with the majority, so they won't perceive us as coming in and telling them how to run things. We're making progress, so my advice is for us to keep a good attitude towards the majority, yet holding firm to our positions without compromise.

Pray a lot and work at keeping the peace. Tensions have been too high in some threads. We need to keep focusing on topic in the threads and refrain from answering in kind when reviled. Solomon said, "a soft answer turns away wrath" and I believe the apostle Paul said, "love is not easily provoked." Bob Jones University founder said many years ago to his students, "Don't let your feelings stick out and they won't get bumped."

Having said the above, we needn't be door mats, so to speak. Anger is not an evil thing, but we Biblicalists need to remember another thing Paul said to the Ephesians. "Be angry and sin not." That's not always so easy. I am trying to work on this.

So, good bud, we need you. Keep plugging away for truth and when tensions get tight, slow down. Take care of your family and business first. My prayers are with you and yours. God bless! :cool:


Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by randman, posted 01-10-2006 5:49 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 2:20 AM Buzsaw has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022