Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
144 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr (2 members, 142 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,272 Year: 4,918/14,102 Month: 516/707 Week: 71/176 Day: 34/37 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 12.0
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 862 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 65 of 199 (421555)
09-13-2007 6:40 AM


To AdminPD regarding the "ramifications of omnipotence for God" thread
AdminPD writes in Message 206 of the "ramifications of omnipotence for God" thread:

quote:
Maybe you guys could spend the next 93 posts actually addressing the topic.

Did you read the thread before posting AdminPD? If so, you would have seen Message 187, written by sidelined, the person who came up with the topic of the thread:

I can assure you that the original poster is quiet content with this line of discussion since it relates directly to this question in the opening post.From post # 1 we have

sidelined writes:

Can God create all men with the capability of free will and obedience to him?

Since determining the point at which right and wrong were capable of being grasped by Adam and Eve directly relates to the freewill they were supposedly capable of then I fail to see how the original posters topic is being mis served.

Therefore, since the person who came up with the topic seems to think that we are on topic, I fail to see why you are complaining.

As I have stated at least twice in my past few points, the bone of contention between myself and pbee is whether or not obedience requires knowledge of good and evil. I say yes. He says no.

Now, I think the thread ought to shut down because I don't see either of us being able to convince the other and it is quite clear that we are merely repeating ourselves.

But it certainly isn't because we're off topic.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by AdminPD, posted 09-13-2007 4:29 PM Rrhain has responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 862 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 66 of 199 (421567)
09-13-2007 7:51 AM


To pbee regarding the "ramifications of omnipotence for God" thread
pbee writes in Message 208 of the "ramifications of omnipotence for God" thread:

quote:
In those so called 90+ posts, I submitted hoards of appropriate information and references to support my arguments. So why a call for mediation? Does the board have a policy against a number of posts from a specific reader under one topic? Or are we seeing the results of specific members crying foul behind the scenes?

I see that you are fairly new to this board and thus may be unaware of some of the policies here. I realize that I am not an admin here, but perhaps I can be of some help.

Due to issues regarding the database and some general observations regarding how threads evolve over time, a thread is only allowed to go on for 300 posts. If the topic is still considered worthy of discussion by the participants, a new thread can be opened and the topic continued.

This has nothing to do with personal vendettas or anybody "crying foul behind the scenes." My comment about ninety-some posts remaining (and AdminPD's similar comment) had to do with the fact that we are at the 200-mark in the thread and have fewer than 100 posts left before the thread is closed for length. It seems to be just you and me and we keep coming back to the same point:

Does obedience require knowledge of good and evil? I say yes. You say no.

Is there really anything else to say?

Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 862 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 97 of 199 (421916)
09-15-2007 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by AdminPD
09-13-2007 4:29 PM


Re: To AdminPD regarding the "ramifications of omnipotence for God" thread
AdminPD responds to me:

quote:
Would you rather I change the action and ding you two for going in circles and not moving the discussion forward?

Here's a thought: Keep out of it. You had nothing to contribute and your comment was vague at best. Wait until an actual problem arises rather than jumping the gun.

Besides, isn't that what I directly said to pbee? Twice? You're going to ding me for trying to stop what you were trying to stop? Only you are allowed to stop a thread?

quote:
The goal was to break the circle before it devolved into more personal and less topic.

Can you suggest a generic statement more suited for that purpose?


Um, how about being direct?

"As dropping an accusation of bigotry will bring the topic to a screeching halt, even if it is only a perceived accusation, I suggest y'all let that part of the conversation go."


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AdminPD, posted 09-13-2007 4:29 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by AdminNem, posted 09-15-2007 4:03 PM Rrhain has responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 862 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 121 of 199 (422445)
09-17-2007 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by AdminNem
09-15-2007 4:03 PM


Re: To AdminPD regarding the "ramifications of omnipotence for God" thread
AdminNem responds to me:

quote:
AdminPD doesn't have to keep out of anything, ever, here at EvC.

Huh? She asked a question as to what I think she should have done. I gave her an answer. Now you're upset that I answered her? The fact that you don't like the answer is insufficient.

Question: Is it possible for an administrator to overreach?

Yes or no.

If so, then yes, there will be times when an administrator should keep his or her nose out of it.

quote:
Not only is she is a moderator, but this is a public forum.

Do you see me stopping her from posting? Saying she should go quietly into that good night and never darken our door again? I simply pointed out that she barged in, decided to throw her weight around, and that it was inappropriate for her to do so: She should have stayed out of it unless she had something constructive to add.

Is it impossible for an administrator to make an error?

Yes or no.

Yes, since the administrators are in control of the board, a case could be made that they never make mistakes since they get to make the rules. But let's not be disingenuous, shall we? If a set of guidelines has been constructed and the administrator violates them, is it not accurate to say that said moderator should have stayed out of it?

[Violation of forum guideline #10 deleted for space.]

quote:
So rather than tacitly asserting that everyone else is either crazy or unduly persecuting you

Huh? Where have I said so regarding this? I simply pointed out that AdminPD was apparently ignorant of what the author of the topic declared: The question of obedience and free will is directly related to the question of omnipotence and thus, on topic. Therefore, the conversation between pbee and myself regarding whether or not obedience requires knowledge of good and evil is directly on topic, despite what AdminPD might claim.

If the originator of the topic isn't a good place to go to regarding what the topic is, where else are we to go?

Please show me where in Message 97 or 69 where I even hinted at declaring someone "crazy" or that I (or anybody else for that matter) was being "persecuted."

I remind you, AdminPD was the one who brought up "dinging" people. She asked me what I thought she should have done. I took that question seriously and gave her an honest answer.

Why does that so upset you?

quote:
as opposed to asking for some kind of special dispensation.

Where did I ask for anything? Be specific.

AdminPD asked a question. I answered her.

You seem to be upset that I took her question seriously and answered it with integrity rather than simply groveled at her feet, begging her mercy.

quote:
Please find a more constructive way to voice your concerns.

Strange. That's my advice to you.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AdminNem, posted 09-15-2007 4:03 PM AdminNem 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 © 2021