Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 80 of 302 (360164)
10-31-2006 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Silent H
10-31-2006 2:22 PM


Re: problem report
Oh, for god's sake Holmes.
You broke the silence with an implied, passive-voice reply to me. There's no insults in my posts to you; those charges are simply invented. I disagree with you, I'm pointing out how you do the things you accuse others of doing; those are supposed to be insults?
Indeed, I guess it's an insult to hold any position besides that which Holmes has approved.
Unfortunately he also includes half arguments which I do feel compelled to respond to
Oh, that's right Holmes. I'm controlling your mind to make you do things you don't want to do. Get out the tin-foil hats!
The only insults that have occured in our exchange have been the insulting falsehoods and misrepresentations you've just committed in this post.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Silent H, posted 10-31-2006 2:22 PM Silent H has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 83 of 302 (360170)
10-31-2006 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by AdminNWR
10-31-2006 2:51 PM


Re: problem report
Any time that Holmes wishes to discontinue a discussion with me, he merely needs to say so, and I'll respect it until he begins the discussion anew, as he did.
I'm not an unreasonable person, but when Holmes replies to my arguments I conclude that he's interested in beginning a debate. At such time it's my choice to engage or not, and I chose to.
Holmes seems to be under the impression, though, that he can somehow snipe at my arguments without allowing me to respond. I don't find that reasonable.
If Holmes wishes to discontinue the debate then he need merely state that. He has not. If Holmes has a problem where he can't seem to stop himself from replying to me, that's an issue he should probably work to get under control.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by AdminNWR, posted 10-31-2006 2:51 PM AdminNWR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by AdminNWR, posted 10-31-2006 3:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 89 of 302 (360247)
10-31-2006 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Silent H
10-31-2006 5:37 PM


Re: problem report
OFF TOPIC - DO NOT RESPOND

This is what I'm talking about - Holmes attempting to argue with me indirectly. If you don't want to talk to me, Holmes, don't. But trying to act like you can talk about me or my arguments without somehow connecting them to me is bullshit.
If his intent was serious, especially if he felt he had to respond to what I said, why didn't he carry it there?
Well, I'll tell you why. Because I didn't bring up those issues to debate them, I brought them up as counterexamples against your points in those threads. That was all I did in my posts, and any additional discussion about those issues was merely to defend my use of them to rebut your on-topic points in the thread in question.
There's nothing underhanded about rebutting a point, but your attempt to portray my activities as being somehow motivated by malice is just another one of your odious distortions; just another one of the copious personal attacks that you make a great big show out of pretending to abhor so much.
With the first being a civil clarification and request for him not to simply throw insults at me.
Of course, since I had done absolutely nothing of the sort, there was no reason for me to do anything but continue in my entirely on-topic rebuttals to your points.
I simply came here to report activity that did not seem appropriate in a nonCoffehouse thread, as well as ask if there were any alternatives to "ignore him" since that did not seem to work
If you had actually done that, it would have worked. But instead you chose to reply to a post not directed at you under the cover of passive-voice shenanigans ("an argument has been made that...").
Don't misrepresent the issue, Holmes. If you don't want to argue with me, don't. But don't argue with me and then pretend you're not. It insults both our intelligences.
Ultimately I will continue to ignore him... as I had been doing earlier, and which I just began doing again.
Very well. I regret to inform you that I replied to one of your messages before I saw this one, but after this I won't reply until you do, again.
Edited by AdminNWR, : topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Silent H, posted 10-31-2006 5:37 PM Silent H has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 92 of 302 (360374)
11-01-2006 9:46 AM


If that was really Holmes' plan all along, this is the first I've heard of it.

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 171 of 302 (362424)
11-07-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by mjfloresta
11-07-2006 12:12 PM


Sour grapes, guys. If you can't approach scientific issues via scientific reasoning, don't expect to be taken seriously on a scientific discussion board.
Faith, as far as I could tell, was able to follow scientific rigor in her reasoning right up to the point where she felt the Bible had something else to say. I don't see that you two ever even bothered to do that.
Iano, you never did answer that question. I guess now we'll never know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by mjfloresta, posted 11-07-2006 12:12 PM mjfloresta has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 195 of 302 (365129)
11-21-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by AdminBuzsaw
11-21-2006 1:15 AM


Re: Request for moderator review
Before we martyr NWR can we all be very clear on the sort of thing Percy was replying to?
If my private reason for not accepting BB is that I don't like the color of your avatar, that would be reason enough. I don't need to provide a public justification for my private decision. You have no right whatsoever to tell me what to think or how to think. You say "you're as qualified to have an opinion about the Big Bang as many creationists are to have an opinion about evolution". Sure. And I am as qualified to have an opinion about BB as you are to have an opinion about what color socks to wear in the morning. I am fully qualified to have an opinion, because it is my opinion. I am qualified to have a private opinion because all humans are qualified to have private opinions.
If somebody showed up in front of me and defended, vociferously, their right to object to the conclusions of science - to devalue the life's-work of scientists - on the most spurious grounds, or no grounds whatsoever, I would describe that person as "ignorant", too. "Irrational" would also be an apt description.
For all that NWR complains about his right to state publically his "private" opinion, he seems to have a right old pity party when Percy makes plain his private opinion that NWR is employing no more intellectual rigor than a creationist.
And I agree. Sorry that NWR finds that so outrageous, but he opened the door when he asserted a right to think whatever he wants and state whatever he wants about his thinking but remain insulated from criticism of those ideas. If NWR has a right to reject science because he doesn't like a certain color, then Percy has a right to hold an opinion about NWR.
And I think it's wrong that Percy should suffer repercussions when it's been NWR that has been debating in bad faith all along. Taking a position and then demanding that it be elevated beyond all criticism is the very definition of a debate in bad faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-21-2006 1:15 AM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by AdminOmni, posted 11-21-2006 12:04 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 197 by AdminModulous, posted 11-21-2006 1:14 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 199 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-21-2006 7:57 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 200 of 302 (365366)
11-22-2006 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by AdminBuzsaw
11-21-2006 7:57 PM


Re: Request for moderator review
I did compare them. I saw Percy growing more and more frustrated with NWR's consistent bad faith in the debate. If NWR wanted his opinion to be private, he should have kept it private. When he spoke about it, it became public. If he wanted his opinion to be immune from response, he shouldn't have brought it to the debate.
Nobody twisted NWR's arm to join the debate. I see NWR's conduct as much, much more consistently against the forum rules than anything Percy said. Almost from the beginning of the thread NWR is arguing in bad faith, but predictably, science's defenders are held to a higher standard on EvC than anybody else. Well, fair enough. Percy wants it that way. But let's not act like NWR is some kind of innocent aggreived party here, ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-21-2006 7:57 PM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-22-2006 5:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 203 of 302 (365521)
11-22-2006 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Percy
11-22-2006 8:32 PM


Re: Request for moderator review
Well, I guess I can't let my lone defender go it alone like this.
Well, I don't know that the guy that runs the place needs to be defended by the likes of me; I just thought it was a little ridiculous how at least 3 people were bending over backwards to defend a guy's right to argue in bad faith without being called on it.
I would have closed the thread or tried to redirect it to a topic that would have supported a greater signal/noise ratio, maybe? Seems like the topic was fruitless from the get-go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 11-22-2006 8:32 PM Percy has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 213 of 302 (365667)
11-23-2006 11:57 PM


3 of the last 4 messages flat out do not belong in this topic. Crashfrog's first message is of dubious quality. A polite "I disagree, I think the message is a poor one" is one thing. Going off on a tirade is another.
What's the protocol for disagreeing with a POTM nominee? Adminnemooseus expects me to believe that a short "I disagree" is sufficient? Really?
And when the nominator asks "why"? I'm just supposed to stay mum? I think what's pretty clear here is that there was no post I could have written that would have pleased AM. I elaborated on my opinion the way I thought was appropriate, so that it wasn't simply "I don't like Holmes", but an explanation of how I felt the post in particular fell short. And as soon as Tudwell pointed out how it was off-topic, I dropped it.
Of course, that doesn't stop AM from blaming the whole business on me. How about holding Tudwell responsible for cluttering the POTM thread with a clearly undeserving nominee? Yeah, not gonna happen, right?
{The message/topic in question - EvC Forum: November 2006 Post of the month nominations - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link info.

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Taz, posted 11-24-2006 12:29 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 215 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2006 2:55 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 219 of 302 (365733)
11-24-2006 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by PaulK
11-24-2006 2:55 AM


You're allowed to post to disagree with a nomination now ?
Always have been, and I'm sure I can supply exmaples of people doing it before. You're just not allowed to turn the thread into a debate about the post.
But one person making a nomination and a second person disagreeing is not a debate; any more than it's a debate when one person makes a nomination and multiple people chime in with their agreement.
By the way, if Holmes wants to talk about me, he should just do so. This "a certain other poster" bullshit is infantile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2006 2:55 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by tudwell, posted 11-24-2006 11:40 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 221 of 302 (365739)
11-24-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by tudwell
11-24-2006 11:40 AM


But what's the point in disagreeing with a nomination?
What's the point in agreeing with one? Doesn't stop people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by tudwell, posted 11-24-2006 11:40 AM tudwell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by tudwell, posted 11-24-2006 11:52 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 223 of 302 (365748)
11-24-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by tudwell
11-24-2006 11:52 AM


They're called seconds.
As a joke. We're not operating under Robert's Rules of Order, here; nominations don't need to be seconded. It's just people saying that they agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by tudwell, posted 11-24-2006 11:52 AM tudwell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by tudwell, posted 11-24-2006 12:27 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 225 of 302 (365751)
11-24-2006 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by tudwell
11-24-2006 12:27 PM


Fair enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by tudwell, posted 11-24-2006 12:27 PM tudwell 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