Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Topic Proposal Issues
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1547 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 5 of 517 (144843)
09-26-2004 2:55 PM


What's going on in the Is God omnipotent topic? The topic seems perfectly legitimate, and even AM can't come up with specific suggestions to correct whatever issues he sees in the first topic, which is unsurprising since he won't say what those issues are, either.
What's wrong with the topic?
I understand the concerns voiced by AM in message 1 here, but this doesn't serve anybody. If topics are going to be held without any discussion whatsoever of what is wrong with them - only vague commands to "rewrite the opening post" - how on Earth are we supposed to come to an understanding about what constitutes a legitimate opening post?
Whatever you're trying to do with the topics now is ham-fisted and clumsy. It's far, far worse that the occasional bad topic slipping through.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-26-2004 01:58 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Ooook!, posted 09-26-2004 6:14 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 09-27-2004 7:14 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1547 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 517 (144889)
09-26-2004 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Ooook!
09-26-2004 6:14 PM


I noticed that you recently had a hand in getting a topic promoted by a popular vote
Well, I hadn't hoped so much to "vote" a topic into promotion, but rather, simply to bring attention to what I felt was a topic that almost any admin would have approved, had they noticed.
But yeah, I don't think that's a good model for how this is supposed to work. I think that the admins as a whole need to significantly lower the standards for what constitutes a legitimate topic. The purpose was to eliminate trollish "30 proophs that evilution is WRONG!!111!!11!" posts, not quash topics whose legitimacy may not be apparent until 10 or 20 posts into it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Ooook!, posted 09-26-2004 6:14 PM Ooook! has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1547 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 517 (145010)
09-27-2004 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
09-27-2004 10:14 AM


Perhaps Admin could create a "chat" forum for each of the major areas of discussion which requires only that a topic makes sense (more or less) and that the initial post follows the guidelines.
That sounds like a really bad case of creeping featuritis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2004 10:14 AM PaulK has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1547 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 368 of 517 (605567)
02-20-2011 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Bolder-dash
02-20-2011 5:33 PM


Bolder-dash, I think we'd like to have a debate forum where you actually grapple with the scientific theory of evolution, not the secret theory of chance and accident you've obviously become convinced is what we "actually" believe but won't admit.
There's no secret theory of evolution, Bolder. The theory that we've struggled in vain to communicate to you, the theory that for some reason you always ignore for not being as sexy, random, and anti-religious as the made-up "secret" theory, is no secret at all. We're right out in the open about it but, because you're a liar, you've become convinced that the rest of us must be, too.
Do you really want to know what evolutionists believe about the theory of evolution? Just ask us. The theory we constantly labor to explain to you is the real thing. It's the actual theory, not some facade of a theory we maintain for public consumption. Evolution really is the scientific explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth by the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. That's it. That's what it really is!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2011 5:33 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-21-2011 12:41 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1547 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 420 of 517 (639829)
11-04-2011 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by Wounded King
11-04-2011 5:16 AM


Re: Possessor's eye evolution topic
And why is it necessary for admins to be cryptic on the topic? AdminPD said that there wasn't enough evidence in the OP and so Possessor diligently expanded his case for the human eye not having arose from a freckle, but what AdminPD meant was that there's no evidence that evolutionists believe that human eyes come from freckles.
I don't understand why admin instructions have to be the fucking Riddle of the Sphynx, especially given than its a forum rule that we have to follow admin instructions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Wounded King, posted 11-04-2011 5:16 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by Rahvin, posted 11-04-2011 11:53 AM crashfrog 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