Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 3:44 PM
25 online now:
DrJones*, Larni, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Sarah Bellum, Tangle (6 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,179 Year: 12,215/19,786 Month: 1,996/2,641 Week: 505/708 Day: 64/135 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2108 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 47 of 300 (238344)
08-29-2005 4:19 PM


Posting images
I would like to use some images in the OP of a new thread but I also want them to be more permanent than I am willing to host myself. Is there any way to get some small images hosted on EvC?

Didn't know where better to ask this question.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by AdminBrian, posted 08-29-2005 4:31 PM Jazzns has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Chiroptera, posted 08-29-2005 4:55 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2108 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 172 of 300 (243742)
09-15-2005 8:56 AM


What is going on with IRH's Thread?
This, Jazzns, was precisely the kind of thing I was trying to avoid. If you look at the original post, I wanted to provide Faith a chance to work out her ideas from raw data without having conventional geology waved in her face.

Well then I just must not have understood what the heck the purpose of that thread was. In no way was I attacking Faith's ideas of how the flood did anything. All I was doing was trying to point at the raw data. No where was I trying to "wave conventional geology" in her face. All I was doing is addressing her incorrect knowledge of the data. Or am I wrong IRH? Can you create folds in strata similar to the ones you described at a divergent boundary? Is knowledge of tectonic boundaries "waving conventional geology" in her face? I could have gone off like most do talking about how the fountains of the deep are impossible, or more into the details of the flood but I didn't because I knew that would be contrary to her formulating her theory. But why would you want her to create a theory NOT based on the raw data seems not productive in the slightest.

Sure, the sky is orange because of the chemicals left over from the ancient vaport canapy. Oh but wait the sky isn't orange so what the hell use is even discussing a theory that describes fake facts? For another example, what use would be a theory that is contrary to the law of cross cutting relationships. Is that not raw data? Is it not fact that a fault in a rock happened after a rock was formed? What the heck are we calling fact here?

I have no idea what your basis was for closing that thread based on Faith and my discussion. I felt like we were actually getting somewhere. Once we cleared up the whole fold issue she could have moved on to other items and I would have stood back and let her theorize. If you had been reading the auxillary thread about YEC empiricism you would have seen that I was all for you thread and the experiment which you were performing. IMO you were trigger happy on closing your own thread.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2108 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 291 of 300 (268115)
12-12-2005 10:39 AM


How many Haeckel threads do we have now?
Seems like he snuck into the Packitus thread, the PunkEek thread, the thread all about randman (probably appripriate), and now the Education thread. What was a really great OP with lots of potential is now mired in, guess what, more about Haeckel.

Not to say that some discussion about Haeckel might be appropriate as it is used in education but somehow I can go inbetween that thread and the Haeckel Pt2 thread and the Great debate about Haeckel and read all about the same thing.

In short I am going to formally request that we create a new forum called Randman's Haeckel Blog and move all of the appropriate threads where Haeckel was allowed to be on topic despite promising and hopeful OPs to the contrary. That way those of us who no longer give a rats ass about Randman's pet conspiracy theory can know to stay away from it.

It just seems that we may need to borrow a phrase from medicine. Not to say that I think this applies to all of our wonderful (truthfully and without cynicism) admins need it.

"Moderator, Moderate thyself!"


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Wounded King, posted 12-12-2005 11:01 AM Jazzns has not yet responded
 Message 293 by nwr, posted 12-12-2005 11:27 AM Jazzns has not yet responded
 Message 294 by Trixie, posted 12-12-2005 11:35 AM Jazzns has not yet responded
 Message 295 by BuckeyeChris, posted 12-12-2005 11:37 AM Jazzns 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 © 2019