Change in Moderation?

I might be shooting myself in the foot here, but I really don't think Darwin's Terrier should be suspended if I'm not too. I was way more graphic than he was.http://EvC Forum: "IF" God is/was

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

quote:

---

Mammuthus, MrHambre, and Dan Carroll - Aren't you the three that followed up on Darwin's Terrier's ill placed "humor", at that other topic. Are you doing something simular in this topic?

---

{Source of above quote - Adminnemooseus}You're right. Our humor is dubious and misplaced.Better we should all grow up, and post something like the 17 page, completely unmoderated rant in which Syamsu breaks at least six forum rules, which seems to be a-okay in mod eyes.But satirizing that rant? Bad, bad, bad.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-11-2004]

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

It wasn't the closing of the thread I object to so much as the implied threat of suspension.From the first post, the thread was a goofy rip on Syamsu's thread. But the fact that Syamsu has been going ape-dookie in his thread for jebus only knows how long without so much as a sneeze from moderation, and meanwhile, in a handful of posts Mammuthus, Hambre and I were oh so subtly reminded of DT's suspension for humor, in a situation where we were using Syamsu's style of argument smacks to me of severely misplaced mod anger.Wanna close the goofy spoof thread? Why not. Not a big deal. It was a goofy fun-fest anyway. But to levy the implied threat at the three of us while turning a blind eye to Syamsu seems a little outrageous to me.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

quote:

---

Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

---

On at least two occasions, you brought up a subject, and when you received a response, claimed the subject was off-topic.

quote:

---

Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

---

When you received a response to your "equality, freedom of choice, and wonder of creativity" argument, you ignored it for two pages, and then changed the subject when pressed into responding. Then, several pages later, repeated your original argument verbatim without addressing the rebuttals.

quote:

---

Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

---

Refer to Hambre's list of insults you lobbed at other posters in that thread.

quote:

---

Make your points by providing supporting argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.

---

Not only did you refuse to support many of your arguments, you flat-out refused to acknowledge that which supported the opposite of your arguments.So there's four forum rules for you to chew on, for starters.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 03-12-2004]

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

Adminnemooseus:I can understand the desire to keep everyone posting. (I'm confused and kind of annoyed by iron-fisted administration that results in the opposite. But I can understand the impulse.) I gotta say, though, offering a creationist handicap seems silly to me.If there are tons of people with tons of arguments that can be lobbed at the creationist posters, I personally think that says more about the creationist arguments than it does about the evolutionist posters. Call me crazy, but to me, posting easily refuted arguments doesn't seem like a valid reason to treat a poster with kid gloves.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

From Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?Am I missing something between posts 155-160?They result in a warning to those who respond to Willowtree?Huh?(ETA: Okay, while I was posting this, #161 came along. But still... huh?)This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 09-24-2004 04:00 PM

---

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin