General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel

I don't usually involve myself in the religious forums, so I hope another moderator will take a look.I did read Message 63. Since I didn't read the rest of thread my comments are not very informed, but I did get the sense while reading it that some of the disagreements hinge on the definition of terms (e.g., jihad), and that perhaps it might be better to reach agreement there before moving on to actual issues.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

percy, you're right. But the point is that Jihad does not have one definition. It has several, all of which have been acted upon through Islam's history.Here are some explanations:http://www.ict.org.il/articles/jihad.htm
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4303A new, and acclaimed, scholarly book, Understanding Jihad, goes over the history of Jihad and at points relates it to the War Verses. This I referenced in the thread.

CS, in no way do I mean this with malice. I feel that you sincerely have a problem understanding what it means to address specific points or questions.In many of my posts I asked you to respond to a specific point. If it was not clear what that point was then it would have been better to ask me to clarify rather than simply stating that you did respond.I also asked you many specific questions in order to drill down how we tread definitions. None of these questions were answered. None of the analogies that I specifically requested you to address were given any attention.With all due respect. All this behavior does it strengthen my first impression of you. You most recent posts have seemed more open minded and thus I am attempting to reach out to try to understand where we are butting heads but I remain skeptical.Also, by the demonstration of the last post and others before it you do not seem to be grasping how this board operates. This topic of this thread is moderating procedures not the definition of 'jihad'. We as a community here value not having discussions fragmented into threads where they do not belong. Some cases of this are not so clear but this in particular is a thread discussing how the other threads on the forum are moderated and cannot be confused as a place to continue the discussion.Once again, no malice intended by this post. I hope you take it as constructive criticism.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Just to clarify Percy. This issue is not that we disagree on the definition, that is exactly what the sub-debate is. The issue is that my points about how we should define the word are being ignored after specifically requesting they be addressed.It is my understanding that, although we are lax about it sometimes, that posters are required to address specific points and rebuttals raised in debate. Is this not true?If you don't want to investigate the issue can another moderator do so please?

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

I recognize your good will and appreciate it.I did post that i was at a loss for what you wanted.It seems that the issue is that I want to look at this in terms of how the Islamic world has acted upon its understadning of the War Verses. You prefer to see that a debate about the theology is the relevant factor, and want to pin it down to a very specific few passages. We can debate that, but pointlessly, I believe, as it is not our opinions that matter, but those of the islamic world. I have pointed out how it is in conflcit over the passages you present, but, more importantly, over the entire concept of Jihad and the War Verses, as seen in all Islamic texts.I posted a few minutes ago a review of the book, Understanding Jihad. It, I believe reflects my point about the theological civil war within Islam, and that the passages you quote along with all other relevant material, have been interpreted and acted upon variously through the centuries.

I'm leaving for a while, so won't be able to respond to any comments until later.

Gilda Radner created the Emily Litella character on Saturday Night Live. After the anchorperson would inform Emily of her error ("Emily, it's the "death penalty", not the "deaf penalty"), Emily would conclude, "Oh, that's very different. Never mind!"But what if Emily had instead responded, "That's nice, dear. Now, about the deaf penalty..."I think Jazzns is feeling like you're not hearing his concerns about the appropriateness of moving forward with the discussion before establishing sufficient common ground, and that you might be building conclusions upon points still in dispute.I don't have time to moderate this thread in a proper way, but I hope this is helpful. Perhaps another moderator will chime in.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

That also makes sense. Thanks for the feedback.Steve

This is the answer I got from Adminjar on the New Topics forum.Is this EvC forum policy?

Asgara,May I ask that you reconsider closing the Indoctrination Thread? Since the major...er...contributors have been suspended, perhaps closure may not be necessary?(Not that I have anything to add right now -- I'm thinking that ianos might show up tonight or tomorrow morning.)

That is reasonable Chiroptera. I will reopen the thread.

Message 62Admin, you listed this as off topic. I can sort of agree with some of it but specifically my concern was given that her type of behavior is now sancioned in the other fora. I do have a problem with the posting style which I gave the history and reasons why. Now it is worse due to the different fora. Is that not on topic enough?

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

I think we should have equal license to wander around the faith forums saying jesus liked anal sex in the evening and smoking crack (in fact Jesus invented crack) in the morning. - when asked why we think so, we can just claim that we find it difficult to believe that things could be any different. We can also claim that the evidence suggests it and then just repeat the same vague comments about christian liars while refusing to debate what we are actually on about.Oh and in honour of the nonsense that is currently allowed on the site, I've decided to use my own terminology in the bible forums. you guys will just need to pick up as we go along, if you don't get it, it's your own fault.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 05:36 PM

You objected first of all on the thread where we were invited to give our reasons for not accepting the ToE, in the Religion section, a context in which evidence should not be demanded at all. I gave my reasons for rejecting the ToE and you started objecting right away, so it is you who should be called on your misbehavior in that context. You and others began to demand proof/evidence of this or that and I continued to give more reasoning in support of my views, including my views about limits to evolution of species or Kind. My "type of behavior" is to list my objections to the OE explanations for the geo column and give my reasons, exactly what is required. I appeal to common sense at some points. If you would apply it, you too would understand what I'm saying. The whole sequence could be considered to be off topic, but then it is my interrogators who should be called on the carpet for that. There was nothing unreasonable about anything I said. If you simply want more reasons, those can be produced. Your objections are what are out of line.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-02-2005 08:31 AM

Charles Knight has just started a thread on the use of terminology in which he complains about me. It was promoted to a Science forum, Is It Science? from which I am absurdly excluded (for giving a nonscientific criterion concerning discussion of the Bible in a nonscientific forum). In any case I am not able to answer him there.Something is going to have to be finally determined about this endless problem of demanding that creationists meet scientific standards right down to the nitpicking about terminology and the reference to in-house journals.I'll say it again -- if you will accept discussion of the scientific questions involved in the title topic of EvC ONLY from people with a scientific background THEN YOU SHOULD SPECIFY THAT IN A HUGE BANNER ACROSS THE TOP OF EVERY PAGE OF THE FORUM.Allowing people with a nonscientific background to think they are welcome to argue their case, only then to slap them around for not meeting this or that supposed scientific standard (and who knows really if the supposed standard is valid?) is some kind of cruel practical joke. Spell it out. What do you want? What scientific degrees would be most helpful? What degree of experience do you require? What books must we have read?Or -- write a page or ten on which you define the terminology we must understand and the basic scientific concepts we must digest -- or link to such pages. MAKE SURE IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS IS A MUST-READ, NOT OPTIONAL.TalkOrigins provides a whole raft of such information for the unwary. It's a good idea, but what it does is drive people like me away. If that's what you want, MAKE IT CLEAR.OTHERWISE, it ought to be reasonable to argue from common sense and ordinary English at least in fora designated for the purpose and not be accused of writing "nonsense" just because it doesn't meet the Guild criteria.edits to correct spellingThis message has been edited by Faith, 08-02-2005 09:18 AM