My language in the post Faith mentioned above (I too do not know how to link) was overly strong.
It was a reaction to two things:
First, the use of the word "know" in place of the word "believe". I was urging the other posters to abandon the debate since you can not argue with someone who doesn't differentiate between these terms.
Second, and more personally, I was offended by Faith's flippant disregard of my earlier post. Faith has asked for an explaination about how layers of rock could be have such striking boards. I gave an example, albeit simple, that explains the processes involved.
The usual evolutionist semi-plausible scenarios. Mine make more sense.
It is not your place to judge what I believe, no matter WHAT you think of it,
I'm confused by this statement. I don't think that I have been judging your beliefs at all.
I would also point out that if you don't want people to question your ideas, posting those ideas on a forum is probably not the best strategy.
have dogged my steps ever since, setting yourself up as my judge and jury which is outrageously arrogant of you
Huh? It's true I have responded to a number of your posts, also Tal's and Randman's. This is because you three, more than anyone else, are posting things that I disagree with. It makes no sense to post messages like "I agree", that's not debate, it's cronism.
As for the judge and jury part, this I don't understand. How am I judge or jury. How does my opinion carry any more weight than anyone elses?
all you self-righteous perfect pure people
You are SOOOOOOOOO sure of your moral superiority and my sinfulness
You know, for someone who's upset about personal attacks, you're doing quite a lot of it in this thread.
This message has been edited by Nuggin, 08-27-2005 09:11 PM
To be fair, I don't really need anyone rushing to my defense.
My ban occured while I was at the movies, then out to dinner, then asleep. It had been 12 hours before I even checked my email.
As I said then, and now, I fully accept any decision the admins make.
This isn't a democracy, I don't pay anything to post here, I don't maintain the server or the site. We don't even have to put up with banner ads! (Thanks by the way).
They get to make the rules and enforce them as they see fit. I have no problem with that at all.
There really can't be a completely "fair" system since all the decisions are going to be subjective evaluations of the intent of a post made by someone the admin has never really met.
This site is great, and I love being able to hash out these ideas / answer questions / correct falsehoods.
From time to time, we're all bound to get frustrated with whomever we are having an argument with and overreact. We shouldn't, but it's bound to happen. It's good to have someone there to watch the borders.
Faith is a representative of the Christian far right, and as such, extreme statements are to be expected from her. The various admins think that permitting "extreme fundy" perspectives are needed at
Why permit extreme "fundy" perspectives and not the counterpoint?
I understand the idea behind fighting fire with water instead of more fire, but frankly, it's not working.
Faith has consistantly proven (and stated) that no matter what factual evidence is presented, it will not make a dent in her belief system. She then uses that possition to throw out childish and down right offensive statements like her comments about the victims of Katrina.
Yet, whenever people call her out, as I did a few weeks ago, it's suspensions all around.
If it's policy that she can say what she wants without reprecussions, is there some way to add that as a header on all her posts. Something like "Alert: This poster is not to be taken seriously"
Step 1: Choose your faith-based hypothesis. Step 2: Collect data Step 3: Come up with an explanation that fits both the data and your hypothesis.
Step 1: Choose your conclusion from the dogma you've selected Step 2: Come up with an explanation that superficially makes sense Step 3: Disregard all data which conflict with your conclusion Step 4: Come up with a "hypothesis" Step 5: File for tax exemption Step 6: Start tricking idiots into giving you money
But what does it matter? If Faith wants to use her time to try find find a theory that matches evidence to Biblical stories, why so many people get angry and yell? Let her do it! If she succeeds, great for her!
If this was the begining and the end, I would agree with you whole heartedly.
The problem is that Faith is a member of a group (Fundies). She may not be the best example, but she's what we've got here.
That group (maybe Faith as well, maybe not - don't know) often strive to replace science with it's theories. Theories which, frankly, are dangerous. Be it "Katrina was sent by God to kill the homosexuals" or "prayer cures cancer" or "we need to kill all the Desert bastards because they don't believe in Jesus", leaving them to their own devices could be big trouble for the entire world.
That's why we draw a line in the sand and fight.
Are we winning. No. Impossible to win. They will never change their minds.
But, that doesn't mean we should just give up and let them take over.
For the record - My point is not that you didn't take abuse, but that you gave it.
Here's some examples -
I've been here a lot longer than you have, Nuggin... when you are challenged you don't have to bother to really think about it either, just ride along on the EvC wagon, just shout along with the crowd.
I mean seriously, not Nuggin's idiotic caricatures.
Sometimes someone like Nuggin will create total confusion by making up an absurd caricature that has nothing to do with anything.
Fine, then your prejudice factor is so rigid and closed-minded you really should not be involved in any discussions about it.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that anyone who could come up with such silly caricatures should be logic challenged as well.
What part of the argument...can't you follow? Interesting that you don't address the substance of the argument, but continue to blow hot air.
Why don't you actually THINK about the argument?
It is your rank prejudice that calls it "unscientific."
I couldn't possibly have forgotten that conversation. You consistently refused to address the main point I was making, never even seemed to grasp it, and your argument was therefore completely irrelevant.
Now, was I particularly offended by these? No. But, since this thread we are currently in started because you tried to get me banned for suggesting people stop trying to change your mind, I'm not about to simply walk away and let you pretend you're some sort of embattled Saint.
Guys, she just wants attention. She'll do anything and say anything to get it. Don't argue with her. Don't address her comments.
She baits people into battles by posting stuff she knows to be factually incorrect so that they will give her attention, then when that isn't enough she comes here and tries to get people banned thus garnishing even more attention.
The common theme is always the same - "Oh, look how I have suffered for my religion". Yawn. Tired of it.
If the consensus is that she's acting like a child, we need to treat her like a child. Don't rise to her taunts, just ignore her.
I believe it was Jimi Hendrix that said, "Turn the other cheek"