Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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 11.0
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 26 of 304 (410586)
07-16-2007 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by berberry
07-15-2007 8:13 PM


Re: Moderator Requests
Berberry, I've been thinking about the way nem jug has been handling this. I think he's been using a "debating" tactic on us and apparently it has worked on both of us. Let me explain with a real life situation example.
A while ago, my wife was trying to find a parking spot in a parking lot. It was full. She noticed that a car in front of her on the left was about to pull out, so she stopped and waited for that car to pull out and leave so she could park. There she was just stopped there for about 10 seconds when the car parked in the slot immediately to her right pulled out and ran right into her from the right. That was when she called me and I wasn't that far away so I proceeded to the scene to see what was going on.
When I arrived, I noticed something. While very calm with a slight "evil" smile on his face, the other driver was insisting that it was my wife's fault for stopping in the parking lot in the first place. Anyone with a common sense should know that he should have looked behind him before he pulled out. See, my wife doesn't have that much patience and she almost exploded due to frustration from the other driver's attitude.
He was very calm. He always had a smile on his face. When he talked, there was a sort of mocking tone in his words that you couldn't really pin point. All of this while he was saying something as rediculous as laying the blame on my wife for being in his way right before he started pulling out. Luckily, there were witnesses around so he couldn't really lie blatently when the police arrived. Then, of course, the officer after hearing both sides of the story declared that he was at fault.
My point is I suspect very much the guy was trying to use some sort of passive-aggressive tactic to mock and provoke my wife into doing something stupid, like losing her temper, and people do and say stupid things while being angry. He knew that it was completely his fault for running straight into a parked car, but he was hoping that my wife would be provoked into doing or saying something stupid to get him off the hook.
Remember that nem jug is a police officer of some sort. He's experienced with these sort of things. He knows how to press our buttons and make it appear that we are at fault. He has done a very good job at hiding his insults in a form of opinion.
All I can say is the only thing we can do right now is to wait for him to die of old age, or perhaps of some other less natural causes. Until then, I guess we'll have to continue to share our air with his bigotry.
Oh, and have I mentioned that nem jug's unashamed continuing usage of comparasons between gay people and animal and rapists is a perfect example of what I meant when I told riverrat that I want to have nothing to do with christianity (or god) until the christians clean themselves up a little bit? Until then, I guess if I'm desperate and irrational enough due to senilility in my death bed I might try to seek out god.
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by berberry, posted 07-15-2007 8:13 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2007 1:00 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 32 by berberry, posted 07-16-2007 1:11 PM Taz has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 38 of 304 (410709)
07-16-2007 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by AdminModulous
07-16-2007 8:46 PM


Re: Moderator Requests
AdminMod writes:
It is a valid question regarding the morality of homosexual sex and sex with another species and how do we regard one as morally fine and the other as reprehensible? The answer is straight forward: informed consent separates the two acts. Rape is immoral and animal abuse is immoral, since other species cannot give informed consent any sexual activity is animal abuse or cross species rape.
Actually, holmes countered this with his own philosophical lalaland logic. He said that the concept of "informed consent" has to do with legal issues, which we really don't want to drag this conversation into. After all, we have no way of proving one's ability to consent except to make a law stating specifically the age of consent. Holmes also argued that children should be allowed to have sex (they do anyway, according to him), which I'm sure nem jug is more than willing to accept.
In my view it is certainly the biggest forum related mountain that has been created out of a molehill for some time.
I agree. However, not everyone sees it that way. Nem jug just can't see any difference between a homosexual and a rapist, and we're not going to see him change anytime soon. Holmes with his philosophical lalaland made it even more complicated.
But I do agree with you. It's a simple issue that's been made complicated by a series of playing-dumbs and whatnot.
As for the first sentence, I'm not a heterosexual admin and I think you are being thin skinned.
You also live in England, which has far less christian bigots than the deep south in the States.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by AdminModulous, posted 07-16-2007 8:46 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 2:25 AM Taz has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 44 of 304 (410739)
07-17-2007 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 2:16 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
See, some would argue that there is nothing immoral about bestiality. Animal don't have rights. It's not just that they can't give consent, they are incapable of giving consent and they by law can never ever give consent. This is why we can slaughter animal for food and sport.
You've been missing a very important detail about nem jug's comparisons here. When we talked about gay marriage, he compared that with marrying an animal or a motorcycle. When we talked about homosexual sex, he compared that with rape. This was what convinced me that nem jug's chosen examples weren't innocent at all. They were very carefully chosen for specific situation and specific topic to imply that gay people shouldn't have any right to give consent.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 2:16 AM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 2:58 AM Taz has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 45 of 304 (410740)
07-17-2007 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 2:25 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
AM writes:
The vile and physically present bigots should thicken the skin and make nemesis a breath of fresh air.
See, that's what most people think, and it is the most widely accepted misconception I know of. Consider the following very extreme example. Again, I'm using an extreme example to make a point. Not that I want to relate the two situations at all!
According to this reasoning of thickening of the skin after direct long term exposure, we could say that Holocaust survivors should be the ones that shouldn't have any problem with racism or any other hate crimes. In fact, we'd think that they shouldn't have any problem talking about their experiences.
But the truth is it's the rest of us that don't have a problem talking about the Holocaust. Holocaust survivors, on the other hand, are most likely to not want to talk about it at all. They react a lot more to minor offenses than the rest of us. In other words, they are more sensitive to the issue of anti-semitism and other hate based philosophies.
Again, please be reminded that I am not equating gay people to holocaust survivors or bigots to nazis. Godwin's law. I am trying to say that long term direct exposure to the hatefilled filth that the christian bigots give to gay people actually make them more sensitive to the issue. It's the rest of us who aren't constantly harrassed that have the thicker skin in this matter.
And yes, I agree that compared to the filth that's out there, NJ's words resemble more like a walk in the park. This doesn't change the fact that we have an admin that intentionally and repeatedly implies that gay people can't have the right to consent and gay sex is the same as rape.
Oh, and notice how the only people that are calling him on this are the evil atheists. I'm only hearing crickets chirping from the godly moral christian crowd.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 2:25 AM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 3:06 AM Taz has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 132 of 304 (411788)
07-22-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Rrhain
07-22-2007 10:51 AM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
Rrhain, I knew you wouldn't give this up. Perhaps I should clarify a little on the admins' position.
In regard to your teacher, principal, and superintendent Chalmers' example, these folks are more concerned with keeping the instituion flow smoothly than individual unafairness. The teacher, principal, and superintendent all are trying to keep it real. After all, the bully didn't actually push or smack B. At best, he was calling him "shorty", which isn't exactly illegal on school grounds. And at best, this is a political correctness issue, which the superintendent has expressed that he thought trying to bring political correctness into our schools is a mistake.
B did not get suspended because he complained. B got a detention because he disrupted the class. After being called "shorty", he pushed away the bully and brought everyone's attention to the fact that he's been bullied, even though the teacher was trying to teach addition. While I can sympathize with the frustration on B, his disruption of the school sort of got out of hand. C's and D's detentions are also because of class disruptions.
Again, the teacher's, principal's, and superintendent's job isn't to keep everyone from using mean words toward others at the pain of detention. Their job is more concerned with teaching the math and keep the institution well. Occasionally, when the bullying gets out of hand then they will intervene. But until then, calling someone "shorty", while mean spirited in nature, isn't that great of an offense from the perspective of the school administrators.
Rrhain, for now just give it up. In the vent your frustration thread, I explained to modulous why the rest of us are so frustrated with n_j's comparisons. It's either n_j can't see the difference between consensual sex and rape or he is making a childish attempt at hinting that gay sex is as immoral and vial as rape. But that doesn't mean that the admins can interrupt the entire forum procedure to handle this childish attack.
There is little more school administrators can do when a kid is being called "shorty" than let the kids sort it out among themselves. And in the same way, there is little more the forum admins can do but proceed with everyday bussiness.
In short, Rrhain, you're a more valuable member to us having posting privileges than someone that is banned for life. You don't have to win every fight, and not every fight is fair.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Rrhain, posted 07-22-2007 10:51 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 3:29 PM Taz has replied
 Message 167 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2007 2:52 AM Taz has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 135 of 304 (411791)
07-22-2007 3:30 PM


Guys, please let this drop.
One of the things that people often take for granted on an online forum like this is it gives the appearance of a democracy in work. Sure, we have a good thing going on here, and people are allowed to express their opinions. But every once in a while, we have to remind ourselves that this ain't a democracy. Admin is doing what he thinks is best for the life and purpose of this forum. Ok, may be I'm being too poetic, but I honestly can't see anything productive or practical resulting from this conversation/controversy if it continues.
Please honor this request and let this issue go.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 3:41 PM Taz has replied
 Message 168 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2007 3:03 AM Taz has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 137 of 304 (411794)
07-22-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by crashfrog
07-22-2007 3:29 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
crashfrog writes:
And are, like you seem to be, blind to the fact that their own actions are exacerbating the problem they're trying to solve.
Depends on which perspective you want to take I guess.
Let me ask you, Taz. Do you think it's possible to unfairly suspend enough people that people will stop complaining about unfair suspensions?
In the great scheme of things, these people were unfairly suspended. But in not-so great scheme of things, all three were suspended fairly and with different reasons than the issue that sparked this whole mess.
Berberry got suspended for directly insulting another member.
Let me ask you this. Why do you suppose it's polite and encouraged for us to say "I need to go to the bathroom" rather than say "I need to go take a shit"? Both sentences essentially say the same thing, but socially speaking one is less in-your-face than the other.
Same thing with implying that gay people are like animal or gay sex is like rape and saying outright "fuck you".
Dan got suspended because he (1) was being his silly self, (2) wanted to make a statement, and (3) more than twice requested to be suspended.
With Rrhain's case, you could say that he got suspended for disrupting the inner workings and patriotic attitude of this forum.
When in the whole history of whenever has that ever worked? Short of suspending the entire membership except for themselves, how can their actions lead to their stated goals?
And may I remind you again that this ain't a democracy? The admins are doing what they think is best to keep this forum's inner workings running as smoothly as possible, and if it means letting a few heads roll...

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 3:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 3:54 PM Taz has replied
 Message 169 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2007 3:20 AM Taz has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 149 of 304 (411819)
07-22-2007 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by crashfrog
07-22-2007 3:41 PM


Re: Guys, please let this drop.
crashfrog writes:
And he's wrong. His actions can't accomplish his stated goals.
Yes, he may be wrong, but you of all people should know the relative nature of right and wrong.
Since his goals are important for the forum, admin and the other mods need to understand that their actions are working against them.
Perhaps, but it is an approach nonetheless. The approach has been taken. No really really serious offense has been done on the moderators' parts, so it's best that we make the best of it.
If you care about the forum then the discussion needs to continue. You're worried about the wrong thing. The effects of bad moderation are a thousand times more detrimental to the forum than discussion of bad moderation ever could be.
Oh, by all means continue the discussion if you want. All I'm saying is questioning the core beliefs and attitude of this administration will probably not yield the result you want, which seems to be the resignation of certain admins as well as the original bully suffering the full wrath of almighty.
And have I mentioned that this ain't a democracy?
Taz, your actions aren't working towards your stated goals. If you care about the forum then your obligation is to add your voice to the objections - not speak out against them.
My goal is to (1) keep the EvC debate going in a healthy manner, (2) keep as many people from being suspended as possible, and (3) keep this forum alive. This is the only place I visit, you know.
But more to your point. Not all objections are constructive. The three members in question who have been suspended were suspended not because of their objection to n_j or to adminmoose.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 3:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 151 of 304 (411822)
07-22-2007 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by crashfrog
07-22-2007 3:54 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
crashfrog writes:
No, it doesn't, because from both perspectives, the problem is the same - nobody can get anything done while there's all this complaining.
And who's doing the complaining?
The actions of the moderators are causing the complaining. That's not a matter of perspective. The actions they're taking can't solve the problem that everybody recognizes.
I'll be honest with you. If the problem really is as big as you are making this out to be, I can't see it.
Taz - you won't be able to kiss enough moderator ass to accomplish whatever it is you're trying to do, here.
Haha
Kissing moderator asses is the last thing on my mind. I've pissed off enough moderators here to really care. As a matter of fact, I've been described by jar as "having diarrhea through the mouth."
Surely everyone can see that unfair moderator action is far more destructive to the purpose of the forum than complaining about moderator actions in a single thread. I mean, this is as far as the complaining goes; this one thread.
I'd recommend you against watching soccer or any other sport event. The refs at times don't seem fair, but the fact remains that they keep the game going with as much fairness as possible.
Sure. And if they'd suspended Nj for directly insulting Berb, instead of letting him continue insulting him in three different threads, that could have been prevented.
Again, there's a difference (socially at least) between saying "I need to go to the bathroom" as oppose to "I need to take a shit". In much the same way, n_j is hiding behind the social convention of indirect insult. Is this childish? Sure. Does he have any legitimate claim that his comparisons were innocent? Well... a little bit.
By the time Berb was supended, he deserved it. But NJ deserved it all along.
I'll tell you what. You get n_j to admit that he was baiting us instead of innocently comparing gay people to animal and we'll go from there.
Oddly enough, asking to be suspended isn't against the rules.
Percy once said that it helps to think of the forum rules as more like traffic laws... just go read it, don't feel like repeating it.
The point is Dan was bogging this thread down with silly comments. Do these silly comments have some cosmic point to them? I'm sure they do. That doesn't mean they aren't a waste of cyberspace.
But he wasn't asking for it. He was predicting it. He predicted, accurately, that questioning the obviously unfair actions of the moderators would make them act unfairly against him.
Again, this ain't a democracy. He had a point to make. He made it, and he was acknowledged. After that point, he just repeated the same damn thing over and over. If anything, that is little better than n_j's baiting tactic.
He was right.
I don't think it matters anymore who's right in this matter.
None of that is against the rules as far as I can tell. When Dan turned out to be right, Rrhain pointed it out. He was suspended.
Again, he had a statement to make. He made the statement and was acknowledged. In addition, he was also requested to stop repeating himself. I don't know how many ways the mods can say "ok, we heard you the first time!"
When I'm suspended for pointing out that Rrhain was right, someone else will step up to complain about it, I'm sure.
Which is exactly what I am trying to avoid. It doesn't really matter now if your objections are right or not. They are noted. End of story.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 3:54 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 6:02 PM Taz has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 158 of 304 (411841)
07-22-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by ringo
07-22-2007 6:52 PM


Ringo writes:
Let's not get so caught up in whitewashing the burn marks that we forget what caused the fire.
I think we're a little beyond what caused the fire. If I were Percy, I'd worry about a coup d'état right now.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by ringo, posted 07-22-2007 6:52 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by ringo, posted 07-22-2007 7:45 PM Taz has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 177 of 304 (411987)
07-23-2007 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Rrhain
07-23-2007 2:52 AM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
I just noticed Rrhain's message #173 with the comment
quote:
Well, since Admin is asking for this to be dropped, so be it. But since he has said that we can make one last post, here it is:
Press on the peek button to see what I wrote before. Otherwise, consider this a non-message.
Rrhain writes:
Taz, there is plenty more that the admins can do when bullying happens:
It really depends on what kind of bullying we are talking about. Calling someone "shorty", while childish and mean spirited in nature, is one of those types of bullying that school administrators can't really do much about. How do I know this? Because I used to be a bully myself. Trust me, us bullies, or former bullies, know how to test the water to see where the limits are. Yes, sometimes teachers do try to get involve when a kid is called "shorty", but it never works. The bullies WILL find some other way to pick him the "shorty".
They can punish the bully.
On what grounds? That the bully called someone else "shorty"?
Look, I'm not saying nem's method of passing his insults to gay people in a form of "opinion" is A-OK. I'm saying that this is a police officer we are talking about. He knows how to indirectly push people's buttons. The thing that, I guess, is so frustrating about it is he never crossed the line to make it bleedingly obvious that he was comparing gay people to animal and rapists.
Are you saying it's impossible for you to say, "Stop that. We're watching you. Don't do it again"?
I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that nem's insults are very cleverly veiled that if you really try to read it another way (and assume that nem_jug is totally innocent), then those statements can be seen as innocent remarks.
As I was telling crashfrog. There is a difference between saying "I need to go to the bathroom" and "I need to take a shit". Nem_jug, on the other hand, had said "I hear nature is calling me".
We already saw it when Adminnemooseus said that anybody who posted about n_j would be suspended...
The suspensions weren't about n_j remarks, not directly anyway.
And on top of that, banned him for a post that was made BEFORE HE ISSUED HIS WARNING. That's another little thing that hasn't been mentioned until now.
I can't speak for the admins on this. All I can say is they are doing the best they can for the good of this forum.
So? By this logic, nothing will ever get better.
That's not what I said. I said you can't win every fight, and not every fight is fair.
Look, with regard to n_j, I'm just going to wait for him to die of old age. With regard to the admin actions, I say we let it go, whether they are right or wrong.
A while back, I was in chat and was jokingly talking to someone about how I thought democracy doesn't work. Jar told me I had diarrhea from the mouth. Ok, I thought, that was more insulting than I expected. Later on, I talked to Jon about how I freely admit that I didn't know the answer to certain issues and that I didn't think anyone else knows the answer either, especially with regard to the existence of god. In other words, I was saying that "I don't know, and you don't know either, so STFU". Of course, that last part was more of a joke. Jon told me that my old philosophy professor had done a good job at shutting me up because I now feel that there are certain issues that I think I am not entitled to have an opinion on... like whether women have the right to be bitchy during that time of the month or not. I told Jon that jar would disagree about me not sharing my opinion, and that was a direct reference to the diarrhea comment. That got me kicked out of chat.
On my end, I feel that I've been unfairly treated. But life goes on! You don't have to win every fight, and not every fight is fair.
But in regard to getting better or not, I know for a fact that the resignation of adminmoose and/or adminmod won't do a thing to make the situation better. If anything, we'd be losing 2 very resourceful admins to this forum.
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2007 2:52 AM Rrhain has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 231 of 304 (413849)
08-01-2007 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by arachnophilia
08-01-2007 3:15 AM


Re: IamJoseph
arachno writes:
it's also quite possible that english is not his native language
I asked him this before, too, and he answered that he was born crying in English.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 3:15 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 233 of 304 (413870)
08-01-2007 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Admin
08-01-2007 4:20 PM


Re: IamJoseph
Admin writes:
I'm also puzzled by our inability to attract articulate informed creationists.
There have only been a few "articulate informed creationists" I have conversed with over the years. The pattern that I have picked up from these guys is that they are usually smart enough (smarter than me most of the time) to compose their messages in riddle-like style to make the rest of us put extra effort into interpreting their posts. You and I both know that with enough command of the English language, one could write academically coherent literature while making the over message a one big riddle to support just about anything, and this is the tactic that these so-called "articulate informed creationists" use to support their position.
Most of them don't even understand that the goal of creation science is to eliminate religious references.
Percy, step back for a moment and think this through. Is it really possible to advocate creationism without referencing god? Might as well demand that we advocate evolution without referencing natural selection or genetic drift.
If my school board ever held a hearing about creationism, I'd definitely invite all these guys to speak because their inability to keep references to God and Bible out of their arguments would be the most convincing evidence possible of the religious rather than scientific nature of creationism.
The question is do these guys exist at all? How many rocks do we have to look under before we can say to ourselves that these guys are just a figment of our hopeful imagination?
Added by edit. Might as well reply to the rest of the post.
One thing I will add, though, is that I am frequently puzzled by the creationist willingness to let total loons advocate for their side.
Me, too, actually. For years now I have been asking the question to the creationists I know. Why do they tolerate the crackpots among their ranks? I have come to suspect that, even though they don't say it outright knowing they'd be ridiculed for it, they believe in the crackpot ideas enough to allow someone else to say it for them.
Take a look at our president, for example. It's obvious that the guy believes in the genesis account literally. He also knows that he'd be labeled a loon if he ever talks about it.
If there were an evolutionist here arguing determinedly for Lamarckism he'd soon be drowning in rebuttals from evolutionists. But very strangely, at least to me, creationists see little or no problem with what their nuttier adherents say. How do they know these guys aren't really evolutionists posing as creationists to make creationism look bad?
Because deep down inside they actually believe all the crackpot ideas that these nuts proclaim. I've talked face to face to some of these crackpots before. They actually believe this stuff wholeheartedly.
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Admin, posted 08-01-2007 4:20 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-01-2007 9:56 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 237 by Admin, posted 08-01-2007 10:01 PM Taz has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 247 of 304 (414143)
08-02-2007 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Chiroptera
08-02-2007 9:24 PM


Re: Moose really losing it re: spidey and brenna
Not meaning to look like I'm kissing up to adminmoose, but I'd have to agree with moose on this one. In fact, right before the suspension, I did notice the chat-like conversation A and B were having and only by the grace of Zeus did I stop myself from pointing it out myself.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Chiroptera, posted 08-02-2007 9:24 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 269 of 304 (415498)
08-10-2007 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by riVeRraT
08-10-2007 10:08 AM


Tackling the root of the problem rather than continue with the symptoms.
Discussion in this thread is restricted to original complainants and moderators. This thread is not for discussing member behavior, but to discuss moderator procedures. Anyone disrupting this process will lose access to this forum until the situation is resolved.
Posts not addressing moderation procedures will be rendered invisible.
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning - To view the contents use the peek button, but do not respond.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2007 10:08 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2007 1:56 PM Taz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024