General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ

well, that's one of moose's pet peeves.

yes, schraf, i do believe i used the word "moose" in that statement.

yes. what gives?

---

her actual public actions as an admin, however, certainly seemed reasonable and even-handed, if very restrained. is admitting bias, but trying to be fair in spite of it, or taking a back seat a crime? that sounds to me like a good reason to remove moderation priveleges, but not regular posting priveleges.

---

i've found her very frustrating. but as i keep saying, this is the debate and we can't ban the opponents just because we are frustrated by them sticking to their opinions, however wrong or misguided they may be. the site will certainly be a lot less interesting, if a lot less frustrating.

---

don't be silly ringo, there aren't enough lunatics to run this asylum.

---

we have a rather simple problem here, brian. it seems that that the vast majority of the people who espouse creationist views are somewhat incapable of adhering to the guidelines of reasonable and intellectual debate. i can't say for certain anything about a cause/effect relationship, but there's definitally a correlation. the problem is that all we have are clowns. and yes, they will go away -- suspended or banned. aside from the fact that this makes this forum appear really biased, it effectively grinds the debate to a screeching halt.it would be nice if we could find some reasonable creationists, but that appears to be a contradiction in terms. we can't even find as many unreasonable ones as we have "evolutionists." but that's the nature of this battle, and it should really say something about the merits of creationism.please feel free to help the board the come up with a better solution -- one that's fair to both sides, doesn't separate the camps, and actually contributes to the debate instead of hampering it. for now, this is the best we've got. nobody has to post in the showcase. in fact, most of the members cannot. unless you're secluded there, the only way to get there is to ASK to be allowed to participate. the whole thing is voluntary. (heck, you don't even have to post at the rest of the board, do you?)i feel dr. a's frustration, and randman's manipulation of the rules was quite cowardly. but that's the showcase. it gives the cranks a place they feel isn't purposefully rigged against them, even if that means it has to be rigged against everyone else. but it's a matter of public record; everyone can see what they say. you'll just have to have a little faith that most people have a little common sense and can tell which group knows what they're talking about, and which group is the nutters. and the key, i think, is high ground. the more they act unfairly and disrespectfully, the worse they look. we shouldn't stoop to that level; it only makes our arguments look as faulty as theirs.

---

jar can be a bit abrasive sometimes. but many of the more fundamentalist-oriented christian members here have a tendency to be a bit preachy. usually, when he calls something "irrelevent" it's because it is a red herring. for instance, when you wander down the line of salvation in the "old laws" thread, it's actually off-topic, if only marginally so. obviously, the person making the question is aware of christian theology and the concept of salvation by faith -- but the question is whether those old laws should still be followed or not.jaywill in particular has a tendency to go off on rather preachy tangents. and i promise it is nothing that jar has not (or i have not) heard before. and it becomes frustrating to continually be faced with sifting through lengthy sermons when we're really interested in discussion and critical analysis. no, actually, it is not. one can easily demonstrate whether or not they are a scientist by presenting their degrees and research. christianity is more a question of one's heart, and personal relationship with god. and to judge someone as un-christian is insulting -- who are you to presume to know the contents of their heart? and if we are to judge them by their actions and their failings, how would you also be judged?. such a statement is, in itself, a demonstration that one does not always follow the teachings of christ. so i could just as easily say that you are not a christian because you judge people.can you imagine how me saying this of you would be hurtful and insulting, and totally ignorant of information i could not possibly know? jar is a theist. jar voluntarily gave up his admin status, iirc, because he was leaving the board in protest over something else. he seems to be back, and i don't especially recall all of the details as it was something in the private admin forum.

---

you'll find that jar and i are very similar on a great many things. i was participating at one point. i might come back if i see anything that particularly draws my interest. your statement implies that jar is not an honest and well-meaning theist. and in my experience here, he most certainly is. and can you point out where jar has condemned you (or anyone else) as not-a-true-christian, at any point? even if, for the sake of argument, as i did above (which i hope you are aware is a judgement i do not actually make). well, see, this is what we mean by preaching. this really has very little to do with my comment to you (one christian to another) about the behaviour of judging others being viewed as rude, nor does it have anything to do with the topic (discussing moderation procedures). this discussion doesn't really go in this thread at all. because this is for discussion; it's not a church. jar isn't just a theist, he's a christian. he's just not from the same particular sect you are, and he's not a fundamentalist. that doesn't make him a non-christian.

---

i wasn't intending anything to be insulting, buz, sorry.edit: removed, nevermind. i'll be good.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---