Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8993 total)
56 online now:
Juvenissun, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Sarah Bellum, Stile (6 members, 50 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,161 Year: 10,909/23,288 Month: 161/1,763 Week: 128/390 Day: 17/32 Hour: 4/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3627
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 41 of 300 (238042)
08-28-2005 4:46 PM


My question is how come hoaryhead is permitted to roam the forums even though this guy uses personal attacks half of the time and present fake facts the other half? He's only been here a short time and he is worse than Faith.

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3627
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 176 of 300 (246855)
09-28-2005 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
09-14-2005 11:03 PM


Re: Favoritism?
Faith writes:

I have pointed out the absurdity of banning me from those forums for something I wrote on a NONscience forum, as I think such a policy could use some rethinking, but beyond that I have not requested readmission to the science side.


As a matter of fact, I was very very close to pointing out that I thought AN suspended you from the science forum out of immediate frustration and anger. I specifically remember that AN asked you for some sort of evidence (probably science base) while you were discussing something with other people in a non-science forum. You refused and implied that he could ban you from the science forum if he wanted to, to which he did.

Like I said, I almost rushed to your defence, but your later posts indicated that (at least at the time) you had no interest to participate in a science based discussion with other people. Without your reassurance that you were still interested in discussing with people on science using the parameters of science, I decided not to pursue it.

With that said, I must admit that AN's decision really really looked like it was not a decision as an admin but as someone who favored scientific evidence over religious. If you had pursued this matter, I'm sure myself and others like myself would have backed you up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 11:03 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 09-28-2005 12:44 AM coffee_addict has not yet responded

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3627
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 259 of 300 (257235)
11-06-2005 6:32 AM


To AdminNosy
Regarding this particular post.

As much as I appreciate your moderating powers, I don't think it's fair for you to limit people's responses down to a single line of thought. Christian demanded that the evo side show her a chain that was like biblical geneologies. Crash and others pointed out that such a comparason is rediculous. In a way, Christian is making a statement within her question.

So, it's not enough that creos are given some leniences? Now, they are allowed to assert improper analogies and the evo side is penalized for pointing out the improperness of the analogies?


Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by AdminNosy, posted 11-06-2005 12:28 PM coffee_addict has responded

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3627
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 265 of 300 (257342)
11-06-2005 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by AdminNosy
11-06-2005 12:28 PM


Re: Example yes, accuracy no
But the point wasn't about geneologies. The point was the comparason between evolutionary lines and geneologies. Christian believes that something like tracing the lines of descendants could be accurate enough to write down the name of one person after another. With this preconceived notion, she demanded that records of evolution be put this way.

We can't get anywhere with Christian until we show her that even her geneologies are inaccurate by a long shot.

In other words, she presented what she thought was perfection and she demanded perfection from the other side. This is why others tried to show her that what she had wasn't perfection at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by AdminNosy, posted 11-06-2005 12:28 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by nwr, posted 11-06-2005 6:57 PM coffee_addict has responded

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3627
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 267 of 300 (257345)
11-06-2005 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by nwr
11-06-2005 6:57 PM


Re: Example yes, accuracy no
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Again, like I said, Christian claimed that her geneologies are perfect and demanded us to give her a perfect evolutionary "chain". It's like saying "why can't you be like me... all perfect and everything...?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by nwr, posted 11-06-2005 6:57 PM nwr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by AdminNosy, posted 11-06-2005 7:12 PM coffee_addict has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020