Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Faith's Participation in EvC
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 61 of 285 (354357)
10-05-2006 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Brian
10-05-2006 7:02 AM


Elitism Sucks
If you want to up the quality of debate at EvC, then perhaps people should earn the right to post here, maybe they should submit an e-mail to you outlining their qualifications and give an example of a piece of writing about a particular subject. You and the rest of the mods can decide if an applicant has the potential to be a positive contributer to EvC.
I suppose I should give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were merely expressing an extreme view as an illustration, but I have to say I utterly disagree with this "solution". Have you considered the implications of this? After you eliminate everyone but the five or six people who are "qualified" to debate by these standards, what are the rest of us supposed to do? Let's see, that would leave you for Biblical historicity, Arach for exegesis and translation, WK for biology, cavediver for cosmology/physics, a couple of folks for geology, and RAZD to round it out. If the intent here is to create a "debate" or "discussion" forum, then such an elitist policy as you outline would be inherently self-defeating. You can't have a discussion with only one side. As the title suggests: elitism sucks because only elites get to play, generally with themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Brian, posted 10-05-2006 7:02 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Brian, posted 10-05-2006 9:39 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 62 of 285 (354371)
10-05-2006 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Quetzal
10-05-2006 9:09 AM


Re: Elitism Sucks
This isn't what I wish to happen, this is what would need to happen if Percy really wanted to realise his goal when he went set decided to start this forum off.
Percy wanted to set up a top quality debate forum between evo's and creos. He primarily wanted this to be along the lines of scientific enquiry, but he quickly realised that creationists really do not understand the scientific method, you just need to look at the creos who have posted here to realise that they do not know how to support a scientific claim, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
I prefer having the oddballs around here, it makes th eplace more entertianing, in fact I even started off a thread asking restictions to be lowered because over moderation has all but killed off EvC forum.
I enjoyed my debates with Ray, I know he could be exasperating to many people but I admire his passion for the subjects I participated in with him. But even Ray has been chased away by over moderation.
The showcase forum is an abomination and should be scrapped immediately as it looks as if the Mods dictate who is a moron and who isn't
My suggestion is really to ask Percy what he expects on an Internet discussion board, if he wants high quality scientific debate then he isn't going to get it in the format we have now.
I am all for Faith staying as she has been allowed to participate here for to long to ban her.
If anyone is to be permanantly banned it should be put in effect as soon as possible after they register.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Quetzal, posted 10-05-2006 9:09 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 63 of 285 (354384)
10-05-2006 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Brian
10-05-2006 9:07 AM


Re: Divide and conquer?
All the micro macro stuff only clouds the issue.
Fact is, faith demands an extraordinary amount of admin time, she has had more leeway than any evo has ever had, there have been many strategies attempted with her and nothing has worked.
I think we are in fact making the same point - given what I've read you say elsewhere.
Faith extracts mod input time. But she also inputs high quality posts. In the measure the bad we get the good. I suggested 4 times as much of each compared to an articulate, passionate poster of average volume.
Lets not forget that her posting volume and history mean a raised profile. She is far more likely to be pulled up for transgression than are others who throw in insults, ad homs and dodges - yet don't get pulled up precisely because their being less volumetric keeps the profile low enough to fly under the radar.
That was my point about seeing her as simply 4 typical EvC posters. What is the specific problem with her other than volume (which to is just part of a pool) Ban her in the hope that this will improve quality of debate means logically that you should ban members in groups of 4 to keep the purge going.
Where do you stop if not at Quetzals elite group of expert debaters?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Brian, posted 10-05-2006 9:07 AM Brian has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 64 of 285 (354387)
10-05-2006 10:40 AM


An Example
Faith provided an example of the very behavior I'm most concerned about after I had already raised the issue in the admin forum concerning her recent contributions. I'm sure the Faith Science - Logically Indefensible thread has already been referenced in this discussion, but breaking down the issue into a little more detail might help people understand why I'm concerned. Here I summarize Faith's messages in this thread:
  • Message 3: Off-topic declaration that evolution is not science but is instead "imaginative".
  • Message 1: Declares the Bible to contain facts relevant to origins.
  • Message 16: Declares opponents to be wrong about what a fact is.
  • Message 19: Off-topic parody of her view of criticism of witness evidence.
  • Message 21: Off-topic declaration that there is a ton of evidence for the Biblical flood.
  • Message 23: Off-topic parody questioning Napoleon's existence.
  • Message 24: Begs off addressing a reply because "THAT would be LONG discussion".
  • Message 49: Good post arguing for the accuracy of Biblical accounts from the flood to Jesus.
  • Message 55: Good post, includes the concession that the Bible doesn't have external corroboration.
  • Message 61: Off-topic digression onto the flood.
  • Message 67: Good post again arguing for accepting the facts of the Bible as facts despite the lack of external corroboration.
  • Message 71: Off-topic declaration of belief in the flood and the Bible as God's Word.
  • Message 74: Declares doesn't want to be on this thread anymore. Never replies to immediately previous detailed responses to her arguments.
  • Message 75: Long post, but includes declaration that belief in the flood is based upon the objective evidence provided in the Bible. Addresses none of the substance of previous responses concerning these issues.
  • Message 79: Declares that science would never abandon a position based on known fact. Faith had left the realm of rational discussion some time previously, this was the culmination. Declares Paul's statements to be objective fact and the Biblical accounts as objective statements of fact. Still does not address previous responses relevant to her declarations.
  • Message 81: Reiterates that she's talking about known facts.
  • Message 104: Brief response agreeing with Purpledawn.
  • Message 107: Short and cryptic response to Nwr. This was Faith's last post.
Despite repeated attempts, Faith never addressed herself to the topic or the key issues, and she ignored detailed responses that took people considerable effort, myself included. She simply repeated her declarations of what she believes over and over and over again.
Now, this behavior in and of itself is not sufficient to get one suspended. But this was the pattern of participation that I had had the opportunity to observe over the past four or five weeks.
My own position was that action must be taken, but I didn't realize when I initially proposed a permanent suspension that it would be so widely opposed. While it seems that existing members have largely become philosophical about Faith's behavior and say that this is just Faith being Faith (we have a remarkable number of long-timers), new members are going to react with, "I thought you promised a venue where debate could be focused and constructive and where members couldn't get away with evasion and insults and obfuscation. What's going on here?"
This is why we have the Forum Guidelines and why they must do our best to apply them fairly and evenly. But we shouldn't just ignore them.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 12:11 PM Admin has not replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 65 of 285 (354398)
10-05-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by NosyNed
10-05-2006 2:04 AM


Re: symmetry
To you, that sounds as if that is enough. Those that do not sit under the umbrella called 'MOST', do the stupid assertion bit and, what's more, consider themselves brilliant in their stupid assertions.
Ridiculous of you to use the word 'symmetry'. This place is slanted and has been forever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by NosyNed, posted 10-05-2006 2:04 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 66 of 285 (354403)
10-05-2006 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Modulous
10-05-2006 8:32 AM


Re: Don't ban Faith but DO moderate more in science threads
Premature submit, see following post.
Edited by Jazzns, : Dupe

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Modulous, posted 10-05-2006 8:32 AM Modulous has not replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 67 of 285 (354404)
10-05-2006 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by AdminWounded
10-05-2006 4:18 AM


Resplendend in hypocrisy is the stab taken at her in public. She requested this matter be taken to the general populace, a request that could have been declined if those in charge were at all imbued with natural affection toward their fellow creature or a sense of honor.
Yeah! We'll throw her to the lions and let them decide who gets the best piece of her. A Roman forum by any other name is just as titillating.
Shudder, that's why I left here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AdminWounded, posted 10-05-2006 4:18 AM AdminWounded has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Chiroptera, posted 10-05-2006 11:32 AM DorfMan has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 285 (354405)
10-05-2006 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by DorfMan
10-05-2006 11:30 AM


quote:
Shudder, that's why I left here.
Heh. Thanks for poking in long enough to let us know what you think.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by DorfMan, posted 10-05-2006 11:30 AM DorfMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by DorfMan, posted 10-05-2006 11:36 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 69 of 285 (354407)
10-05-2006 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Chiroptera
10-05-2006 11:32 AM


You're more than welcome, I'm sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Chiroptera, posted 10-05-2006 11:32 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 70 of 285 (354410)
10-05-2006 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Modulous
10-05-2006 8:32 AM


Re: Don't ban Faith but DO moderate more in science threads
There is the letter of that rule and then there is the spirit of that rule. I might 'reason' that pink fairies came into my room last night and turned off my alarm clock and that is why I was late for work today. If I don't entertain any challanges to that though then my 'reasoning' has ceased and I am only being a troll of I insist on continuing to parrot that claim. This is especially true if it is a basis for some larger outlandish claim such as the pink fairies will destroy the world in 2018.
It seems silly but that is pretty much the exact analogy to what happened in the Barrier thread. Faith invented her own facts and what could have been a fruitful discussion turned into dredge of everybody entertaining Faith's fantasy. Para and I both spoke up towards the end and even started a continuation thread about the real issue but it petered out.
I think this is the behavior that Percy is talking about. That thread was dragged so far from reality that it pretty much has no value as a discussion.
Now I don't think Faith should be banned for this because she is not the only one who does this nor is the behavior a creo only trait. Just look at the recentish threads between holmes and crash. Two posters who I respect pretty much just flinging and dodging poo. And it is not like that behavior was new either. I think Faith's case is just more in the lime light because it is in threads that interest Percy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Modulous, posted 10-05-2006 8:32 AM Modulous has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 71 of 285 (354413)
10-05-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by arachnophilia
10-05-2006 2:35 AM


Re: Sticking to your guns all the way to hell
I am busy so I must be brief.
saying that we cannot except arguments that are just plain irrational and driven only by bias and person belief
We are talking about the science forums! Irrational arguments and logic fallacies are not valued and will not lead to any new understanding. The Credo on the front page here is:
Understanding through knowledge and discussion
I guess I need to read up on the ground rules for discussion in the science forums. If this is a debate between Evolution/Deep Time and "Creation Faith" and not between "Creation Science" and irrational biased arguements are valid the Creationist have won - by default. If this is the case I will not participate as only frustration will result.
a troll with 10,000 posts?
Yes trolls often use quantity to satisify their need. If you think quantity has value you should visit talk.origins. One well reasoned post is worth 10000 irrational posts
Edited by troxelso, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 10-05-2006 2:35 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by arachnophilia, posted 10-05-2006 4:00 PM iceage has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 72 of 285 (354417)
10-05-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Adminnemooseus
10-05-2006 2:55 AM


Re: The "Private Administration Forum" etc.
and Faith has done a pretty remarkable job of pulling it off.
Are you on drugs?
The whole reason why this has been brought up is exactly because she hasn't being doing a remarkable job.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-05-2006 2:55 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-06-2006 10:34 PM Brian has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 73 of 285 (354421)
10-05-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Admin
10-05-2006 10:40 AM


Re: An Example
Message 3: Off-topic declaration that evolution is not science but is instead "imaginative".
I don't think this is off-topic for the "Is it Science" forum.
Stragglers OP starts out with a philosophical notion as to what science is about (for what the purpose and boundaries of science are is a philosophical issue). The current philosophy precludes anything being assumed from the off. Evidence leads you to any conclusions you may arrive at - you go where you are led. Science is totally open ended in other words.
This is not always the way things were. The founding fathers of scienfic methodology: Newton, Joule, Faraday, Bacon, Kepler et al were believers. They were convinced that the world was the product of an ordered, logical and methodological Creator God and that an ordered, logical and methodological approach would reveal how this creation worked. Their presumption didn't prevent them doing science. Science was an activity carried out within the encompassing boundary of a philosophy (or rather belief). There is no a priori need to suppose science should usurp belief if science is held to be a subject of belief
Similarily, a conviction that the flood happened does not prevent a person doing boundaried, disciplined science within the philosphy which holds that "God did it and now I want to find out how it all came to be". I suppose I will face a deluge of objection saying that the evidence doesn't support the flood but this is irrelevant to the fact that a person can do science so described. Whether they have or ever will not the issue at hand in the OP.
Faiths response rejects the assumption that Stragglers asserts is absolute and non-negotiable. She must begin with this or else Stagglers case is made on the basis of mission defined as impossible by him. It is always a good defence to reject or query the nature of the attack. Very efficient too. Let the asserter do the work.
Could she have argued this better? Sure, but if crafting of the OP is coarse and leaves itself open to swift rebuttal then why not do so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Admin, posted 10-05-2006 10:40 AM Admin has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 74 of 285 (354458)
10-05-2006 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by arachnophilia
10-05-2006 2:20 AM


Re: For the record
I think the biggest issue there is that Faith has the third highest post count on the board.
quote:
why is that an issue, exactly?
she has to defend much more of her side of the argument than the average "evolutionist" does, because there's les of her to go around.
That is certainly true, and I concede that point.
quote:
she's also been here a very, very long time.
If you look at when she registered in October 2001, yes, although her participation doesn't really begin until February 2005.
I've been a member of this community way back when it was a Yahoo Group, and then before that when it was a Yahoo Club. I took a little time coming along to register in this new format, as well, registering in December of 2001.
Faith has made slightly more posts in 21 months than it has taken me five and a half years to accumulate. I don't really think that I post all that rarely; indeed, I check in here nearly every day and usually post at least one or two messages each time I am here.
And this prolific posting rate includes several lengthy absences on faith's part, at least one of which lasted for several months, IIRC.
So, she hasn't really been here that long, yet has a very high post count.
Anyway, I do not think it wise to ban Faith. I agree with Archer's take on things; I never hope to have a real discussion with Faith, but I value her for being a more worthy opponent than most Creationists. At least she is more sophisticated than what we typically dealt with back in the Yahoo days; "If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?"

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by arachnophilia, posted 10-05-2006 2:20 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by arachnophilia, posted 10-05-2006 4:03 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 75 of 285 (354463)
10-05-2006 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Parasomnium
10-05-2006 2:34 AM


Re: Faith
quote:
You post count is too high, says another. Well, your count may be high, but your posting rate, i.e. the average number of posts per day since registering - a much more interesting statistic in my opinion - is just below that of your accuser, Schrafinator.
Just in case you miss my reply to arach, I'll repeat what I told him.
First of all, Faith has slightly more posts than me as of this afternoon.
Second, although we registered within 2 months of each other in 2001, Faith didn't really begin her participation here until 2005.
It took faith less than two years to amass what has taken me over five and a half years to accumulate.
She has only 12 pages of posts compared to my 37.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Parasomnium, posted 10-05-2006 2:34 AM Parasomnium 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