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.
You guys shouldn't have suspended Rob for so long. I enjoy his threads and he is one of the few advocating team creation. No disrespect, however wouldn't this seem strange to kick someone for a month for trying to get a point across? I don't know all the details, nor do I want to. Perhaps you could let him back a week or two early? I would like that.
The world embarrasses me, and I cannot dream that this watch exists and has no watchmaker. Voltaire (1694-1778)
Um, if you'll pay attention, he's been able to post again for a short while.
In fact, check out his thread on the lack of evidence for adenine on the murchison meteor.
He got suspended for a week because he asked mike the wiz to post a new "summary" in a now closed thread while he was suspended. Admin moved that to a month after he was suspected of arguing yet again through another poster. After finding this wasn't the case, the suspension was reduced to the original week. The original suspension (1 day, as I recall) came because after giving a "summary" in that thread, he continued on debating after have been told, expressly, that people were to only summarize (the thread had but 12 messages left and was very active)
People are suspended for not following the rules, longer for brazen flouting of such. Asking someone to debate for you, while you are suspended, is but a variation on creating a new profile while your original is suspended so that you can continue to debate. It shows an immense disrespect for the rules, and as such, should be treated harshly. Anyone doing such deserves this.
In Message 49 AdminBuzsaw makes a typically erroneous suggestion that calling an idea stupid is the same as calling a person stupid. This seems to be a common error.
The goal is to address the content of posts and if an idea is stupid it should be shown to be stupid. The key point is "shown to be stupid".
I see you refer to the ToE as stupid. You need to be aware that in doing so you are implying that the vast majority of members of EvC, most of who are very intelligent people are stupid..
That is fine. If it were then possible for Biblical Creationists to support their position, there would be no issue at all. The problem is that Biblical Creationism is bankrupt and indefensible and so the only option is to allow as much leeway as possible for those trying to support such a position.
Why don't we use the "Limbo" forum for problem posters any more? Especially since it seems such a fitting consignment for those who continually flout good taste. "It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
In terms of the Forum Guidelines, we have to apply the spirit of the Forum Guidelines and not limit ourselves to its few inadequate words. There are only ten brief rules because we wanted the Forum Guidelines to be something people would actually read.
But no quantity of words could ever accurately characterize where the line of civility is crossed in all situations, and nothing will ever cause everyone to agree on where that line is drawn. All moderators can do is use the Forum Guidelines as a guide to applying their best judgement.
But no quantity of words could ever accurately characterize where the line of civility is crossed in all situations, and nothing will ever cause everyone to agree on where that line is drawn.
I agree, and so we struggle with defining that line. In this case, calling a position stupid while not providing the supporting evidence or reasoning is just a weak, a very weak argument. But if that is the only tool available to a person to support their position, if that really is their best argument, they should be allowed to make it. They should not be penalized just because there is no other way to support their position.
Calling theistic evolution stupid is a fact. I don't understand why the pep talk? Claiming that I have no evidence to back this statement up is incredulous. You have not heard but a small fraction of my objections towards the ToE, as I have just begun to settle in. It looks like I have my work cut out.
But is there any reason why HEWG's graffiti in the angular unconformities thread couldn't be removed? I know we are discussing angles and contours but I don't think his choice of images advances the discussion anymore than his nonsense comments.
But is there any reason why HEWG's graffiti in the angular unconformities thread couldn't be removed?
I was about the use the "hide" code, which would render all of the message invisible other than via the "peek" mode. But then I wondered if it be best that the message remain free of any "edited by an admin" message. As such there is evidence that there was no admin tampering with the message - There can be no charge of a frame up.