Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 10:44 PM
24 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, ringo, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,106 Year: 9,142/19,786 Month: 1,564/2,119 Week: 324/576 Day: 127/98 Hour: 5/6

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0
Suspended Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006

Message 169 of 305 (397981)
04-28-2007 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Admin
04-27-2007 7:50 AM

So are you going to respond to my last post to you, or are you leaving it to your hatchet men to label my very focused remarks as 'lot's of words' and close the proposed thread?

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=2830&m=20#20 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=2830&m=20#20">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=2830&m=20#20

If Nosy acted alone, then what do you suggest?

Perhaps we could have a 'Percy and Rob only' thread on the issue of Information. Maybe HootMon could join us. Or mike the wiz...

We could discuss whether information has intrisic purpose, and 'information theory' in general.

I'd discuss it with Nosy, but he operates on the naturalist framework of, 'If you don't understand, just wish it away'. If it is just out reach intellectually, then since he is all-knowing, it must not be alegitimate concept. It is otherwise known as 'arrogance'.

I take solice in the fact that I am not the one who is labling opponents and refusing to respond. That I am willing to engage the issue, rather than attack the person.

that's what I've been asked to do before, yet here the Admins conspire to do that very thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Admin, posted 04-27-2007 7:50 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2007 5:06 AM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 171 by Admin, posted 04-29-2007 9:55 AM Rob has responded

Suspended Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006

Message 172 of 305 (398102)
04-29-2007 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Admin
04-29-2007 9:55 AM

I went to an automotive site and claimed that people could save a lot of money by putting water in their gas tank instead of gasoline. All I got was a lot of rudeness and ridicule, and when I challenged people to debate they just laughed at me or ignored me. They kept claiming I knew nothing about internal combustion engines, which is ridiculous. When I quoted Romans 5:3 they said I was off-topic. When I told them they were arrogant they said I was becoming personal. That they're all conspiring to silence my idea is evidence of its validity.

Sound familiar?


It reminds me of the Pharisees and their mock trial of Christ.

Please show all of us where anything I (or Jesus) has said that is incorrect.

We're not just supposed to call people liars. We're supposed to show evidence. Your little illustration makes it very clear, but there is nothing equivalent to your illustration in our prior discourse.

It is easy for you to wax eloquent... here in the safety of your own creation. So sing to your choir Percy. Pass out the awards to your army. I for one, am thoroughly unimpressed.

Edited by Admin, : Fix dBCodes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Admin, posted 04-29-2007 9:55 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by AdminNosy, posted 04-29-2007 11:57 AM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 174 by Admin, posted 04-29-2007 12:17 PM Rob has responded

Suspended Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006

Message 175 of 305 (398194)
04-29-2007 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Admin
04-29-2007 12:17 PM

Well it is becoming clear that this is not going well.

Ya Think?

I find it fascinating that a group of 'naturalist zealots' can sit and claim that it is I who am denigrating others. The indignation and fury pours from the your bench...

What is more fascinating, is that each of us feels we are the one's speaking the truth, so... when you denigrate and label and judge, it is only a fact. It is therefore not really denigrating, it is only a proclamation of truth.

And the same goes for me...

When I said this is like the Pharisees mock trial of Christ, I am only making a 'declaration of truth'. I am stating a fact. So excuse me if that is taken as an offense.

This is 'litterally' right out of the Bible. This is exactly what Jesus said would happen to me if I dared to stand and speak to you.

It was the leadership who claimed that jesus was speaking nonsense and casting spells. It was they who called Him mad and demon posessed. But the irony is, that they had it backwards. They were the ones speaking nonsense. And as Jesus said then, I say now, 'Why is my language not clear to you'?

I am told to go back and re-work my thread proposal because it is non-sensicle (to you). But the fact is, it makes excellent sense. You do not have to be C.S. Lewis or 'mike the wiz' to understand it. But you actually have to be humble for once in your life and listen. To actually put yourself into the position of maybe being wrong, and consider that angle. Attempt to see through that lens.

But you know you are not wrong don't you? There's not a doubt in your mind...

I have to submit to humilty often here at EVC. And it is brutal! Mostly because I am a proud man like you. But I am getting better thanks to Christ. You remain the same.

Why it is that only I must be patient, listening, and kind is a mystery. It is as though I am speaking to people who consider themselves to be gods. It is as though we are on different parallel planets, yet here we are sharing the same space. We are transposed from the same image; one a negative and the other positive.

It is not my fault that you cannot understand what I said. And it would do me no good to complain about it. But this double standard of arrogance and vilification is mesmerizing.

I don't know what else to say. I am pouring myself out, almost dying to help you understand. But since you already do, you do not need me. The simple fact that I claim to understand something you do not is an offense to you in the highest order.

What do you suggest since your forum guidelines were not violated in any way by my proposed topic?

It was a simple question, "Does information have intrinsic purpose"?

My answer is yes.

And it is a complicated issue that does not lend itself to direct observation or proclamation. It is not supportable or verifiable other than to say, that any words we speak are only valid if the assertion to my question (in the affirmative) is true.

But it is revealed within the discourse itself. personally, I am happy with it as it stands, though few may be able to grasp what was said, at least it is there. If the good Lord wishes to direct someone who can make use of it, there it be.

One thing is certain, none of it serves your purposes. But for the record, it doesn't even serve my own. I get nothing but grief out of it all in pure material terms. My cross I suppose... I am almost beginning to enjoy it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Admin, posted 04-29-2007 12:17 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Admin, posted 04-29-2007 6:11 PM Rob has responded

Suspended Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006

Message 190 of 305 (398500)
05-01-2007 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Admin
04-29-2007 6:11 PM

We're talking about a topic proposal. If you submit a topic proposal that is in accord with the Forum Guidelines and adheres to normal standards of clarity and presentation, it will be promoted. Normally one would improve an unsatisfactory topic proposal by applying the provided feedback, but if you choose not to take that approach then I'm afraid you have only two remaining options: 1) find a more sympathetic moderator - AdminBuzsaw and AdminPhat are possibilities; 2) move on.

Respectfully, I think you missed my point...

What I tried to say in my last post (but only thought of this analogy afterwards) is that as an example, you are asking me to show you a protein directly.

I am trying to remind you (and failed to be diplomatic about it), that we cannot directly observe a protein. You must use electrons and then mathematically construct the image of a protein.

And that is akin what you are requiring of me...

I have said very clearly, that I cannot support the assertion that 'information has intrinsic purpose' with direct observation in the manner you require. It must be seen indirectly. The method I used in our discourse is the proper technique. We have to look at the logic of it and apply the law of non-contradiction. And when we do, we see that 'any denial that information has no intrinsic purpose', is a logical absurdity. It is therefore false. So the opposite (that information does have intrinsic purpose) is self evident in logic.

To deny that it does not, is to deny that your statement itself has purpose, because your statement is also information. And your statements purpose is intrinsic as per the motives (be they honest or not) that are inseperable from the statement itself.

Then... based upon your responses, I also showed over, and over, and over, and over, where your analysis broke down. I don't think it is a difficult matter. And your demands are patently unreasonable. We all have to calm down some times, and I am sorry for any brow beating. It is just so frustrating when I am assaulted so incessantly myself.

I know that logic is very deep and difficult to see at times. These are tough subjects in a world that is no longer taught sound philosophical theory in our academies. However, if we do not see our own assumptions for what they are, because we do not use the only trustworthy tool to observe them, then we are operating blindly and steered entirely by what feels right.

Just think about it carefully... Please. There's no hurry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Admin, posted 04-29-2007 6:11 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by AdminPD, posted 05-01-2007 8:06 AM Rob 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 © 2019