General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel

There's a difference between the authenticity of the text and the question of whether Bakker is the originator of the posts. If the text was cut-and-pasted from Bakker's work then it would sound like Bakker because he wrote it.The issue of needing access to the email address makes it very likely that it is Bakker. But if all he does is post material he's already published elsewhere then it might as well not be.

I suggest that anyone who writes in a pretentious, obscure prose should be suspended until they are willing to reword their post in a plain way.
What we will generally find is that the pile of words they originally submitted can be boiled down to a very commonplace idea.I could cite an example.

well, maybe that's my problem then. i've only read bits of his books, and watched a documentray by him. he seemed rather unbiased in those. DOCTOR bakker, and yes i certainly hope he comes back and elaborates. someone should email him and let him know he hope to see more of him.

---

אָרַח

LOL... Dr. , of course However, I have heard that REAL Doctors don't insist on being addressed as such (that is Phd's, not doctors in the medical realm anyway). My mother has a doctorate in Information Science, but no one calls her doctor. However, quacks like Hovind tend to insist on the whole Doctor thing...Were can we continue this discussion in another thread, I don't want to anger the mods.

yeah, these is. but it doesn't read like anything FORMAL that he'd written. just reads like his thoughts and language usage in much more casual kind of way. suggesting that it was probably written for a message board, or taken from a spoken speech or something. pretty much. i do hope it is him, and that he continues to post. he'd be an INSANELY valuable member here, in both the geology and science forums and probably the religious ones too.

---

אָרַח

eh, who knows. but he's legitimately earned a doctorate in a respected field of science, and thus deserves the title. whether he insists on it or not.

---

אָרַח

Works for me, thanks Percy.

---

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

This is the place to discuss moderation behaviour I guess.Do not expect me to discuss the content of any science threads with you any further. You have convinced me that you are hopeless and not worth the effort.

Uh huh? Ned, maybe what is really occuring is you didn't like the argument and points made.The bottom line is question after question and relevant point after relevant point are left totally unanswered by evos, and unsubstantiated smears, claims, etc,...are made by evos and sometimes with my appealing for them to be backed up, even asking for moderation from you or anyone, and nada.Then, you have the audacity to claim I am ignoring evolutionist arguments, which seem to consist of claiming I am merely operating out of personal opinion.Ned, you are piece of work.I suggest others intermediate and view the thread and see if my points were being answered, and see if there is justification of your mod behaviour towards me and other critics of evolution.It's clear to me that you are not enforcing rules by false using mod status to encourage the breaking of those rules.maybe someone else can intervene and view the thread who is not biased in this debate?This message has been edited by randman, 08-11-2005 01:13 AM

Experience has shown that almost everyone suspended for persistent violations of the Forum Guidelines actually believes the moderators are biased against their position. Experience has further shown that persuading these people otherwise is invariably unsuccessful, hence moderators usually waste very little time on this exercise.Your choices, as I see them, are:

• Abandon EvC Forum as a hopelessly biased venue.
  ​
• Take the criticism to heart and try to develop a more constructive approach to discussion. If you seem open to feedback moderators will be more forthcoming about what they see as the problems. If you only want to argue most moderators won't waste their time. We would be delighted to be proven wrong and find that you are not just the most recent in a long line of new members with an unalterable point of view and a chip on their shoulder, the Internet version of the angry young man.
  ​
• Continue as you are and accumulate longer and longer suspensions.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Percy, that may be "your experience" but maybe a more objective perspective is needed if you guys are genuinely interested in dialogue.I raised a very legitimate issue, namely that in the land mammal to whale transition, we see an abundance of whale fossils, but don't see hardly any evidence in the fossil record of the transitionals. I stated my aim was not to discuss the ToE per se, as a broader topic, but to discuss the evidence within the fossil record so we could see what it is and what it is not.It was narrowly tailored, and imo, quite relevant.However, the evos and one of the admins refused to allow the topic to be discussed in a respectful and genuine manner, although Ned did initially try with one post, but there was no censure of the evos at all.In fact, much of the argument with evolutionists consisted of them very early on claiming the topic was not relevant anyway. This was the first thread, mind you, and insisted on trying to force me to get into areas outside of the specifically narrowly tailored thread topic. Some other arguments consisted of denying speciation could be a valid concept, and insisting I define speciation event, which I did several times.Honestly, the behaviour of the evolutionists on that thread was just plain bizzare. I was seeking to find some concensus on the data itself, but evolutionists here would have none of it. The fossil data was irrevalent to them, or they merely refused to engage in any meaningful discussion about how many transitionals we should expect or how many would be fossilized.These threads were replete with evolutionists hurling personal insults as well.Now, all Ned had to do in the beginning is say that the topic is about the data, and that posts insisting the topic was idiotic or something should refrain then from spoiling the thread for those interested in what the data had to say.We could then have later moved to another thread on aspects of ToE, but we could have at least arrived at an agreement on what the fossil record indicates.I would challenge you or anyone to review the thread, beginning with the first one, and see that I am not lying here.I would also point out that this is not the first time Ned has insisted on me discussing my beliefs and views, instead of just the evidence, and yet he knows full well that my personal perspective entails some aspects of physics and has warned me not to speak of those on a biology type thread at the risk of being banned. In other words, he basically knowingly, it seems, tries to trap my responses so that either way, to answer or avoid answering, he could have an excuse to ban me, at least that's how it appears to me.This seems to occur if during a debate I raise an issue which others cannot answer or have resorted to claiming the answer does not matter anyway, as some did with the fossil record.Is that the type of thing you guys are encouraging? If so, clearly the rules are for selective enforcement and not an honest and straightforward attempt to make discussions fruitful.I raised a very good question specifically narrowed, and did so actually to do better as a member. I asked for moderating to maintain the thread topic and not get off-topic. Imo, the moderating of AdminNed was deliberately forcing the thread off-topic and into a hostile tone not reflective of what you guys claim the forum is all about.

If you really believe the moderators here are biased and that you're being unfairly treated not because of your behavior but because of your views, then I think your only choice is to not grace us with your presence any more.But if you think your behavior may be playing role in the difficulty you're experiencing with moderators, then all you need do to make the difficulties go away is follow the Forum Guidelines and moderator requests. I'm not going to mention any specific problems I feel you may have in this regard, because to this point you have met all such feedback with argument.My own reading of the Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part II thread lends some support to your view that you haven't been treated fairly, but only when taken in isolation. You've established a pattern of repeating your conclusions over and over again while ignoring rebuttals and becoming overly personal, and while you are doing extremely well in my opinion in the whale thread, the hint of your old pattern is still apparent in a fair number of your posts. You may be paying the price for old offenses.Let me say again that a rereading of the whale thread reveals someone who is arguing from the evidence, which is just what we want here. Keep it up and you'll do fine.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Is an abusive personal post acceptable to admin simply because it's written by a Scientist in the throes of what you would probably consider justifiable rage at fundy "arrogance?" Just wondering.You can consider your answer based on this exampleThank you.

Lots of assumptions Faith, no substance.The issue was taken care of.

Appreciate your overlooking wrong assumptions, for which I apologize.