General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0

Exactly. Buz is just annoyed that he can't pass off bullshit as science.What for instance is scientific about his idea that the pre-Flood atmosphere disrupts dating evidence ? It lacks both empirical evidence AND any viable theoretical basis. It's just bullshit made up to deny the significance of the real evidence. I guess that honesty is something that only elitist secularists care about.

And yet again you justify the title.

quote:

---

You insolent people who think this is just a martyr complex and whimsical whining need to wake up and smell the coffee

---

We don't think it. We know it. Call the truth insolecne all you like - it remains true. We know that this latest round started with you citing a - quite lunatic - crank website. We know that when you were told that you needed to take more care in relying on random sites found on the web you instead decided to accuse others of telling you not to use google. Not content with that misrepresentation you then insisted it was unfair for people to call you on your error !

quote:

---

Admin sees to it that no IDist creo ever wins in his congenial little elitist tea party he calls a evo vs creo debate site, systematically insuring that the balance remains firmly in his ideological corner.

---

Did Admin make you cite a crank website. Did Admin prevent you form carrying out basic checks that would have indicated that it was at the least a questionable source ? Or did you just not bother ?I think what you mean is that Admin actually permits criticsm of Buzsaw. That Admin actually suggests that Buzsaw should make a good-faith effort to try and avoid making such mistakes. That is what you are complaining about.What you WANT is for Admin to rig things so that you win more often. To lower standards especially for you just so you can claim some wins. That isn't what this site is about - and doing it WOULD be self-destructive to the site. How can we find the truth if the site is intentionally rigged to favour one side because they keep getting things wrong ? Such a bias necessarily favours untruth. But that's what you want - because how else can you "win" by citing falsehoods ?

quote:

---

My action here has nothing to do with martyrdom and everything to do with what's best for the board at large in order that this ever so prevalent problematic issue concerning member Buzsaw be resolved. For the good of the board and for member Buzsaw, I find this action to be the right moderative action to take.

---

The ban may indeed be the best, given Buzsaw's problems and unwillingness to actually correct them. However the false and baseless accusations made against Admin are certainly not in the best interests of the board. They have everything to do with whining and trying to paint Buzsaw as a martyr and trying to undermine Admin - all in order to deny that Buzsaw makes his own problems.

Again we see the problem. You think that it's OK for you to do wrong - and nobody should be allowed to point out that you're doing wrong.Well tough. The solution is for you to at least make a good faith effort to mend your ways instead of whining whenever your faults are exposed.The simple fact, Buz, is that you do not make good use of google. You do not check the sites you find for reliability - or even carefully read some of them. Rather than try to deal with that you come up with this torrent of denial and whining and abuse.That is the truth Buz. We all know it. And using your Admin account to continue this ridiculous pretence of persecution is hardly helping the site - or you.

quote:

---

Actually that is patently false as others afterwards posted conclusions in agreement with the view of QM I discussed which is not surprising because I was just quoting quantum physicists themselves.

---

In the case I remember it was I who posted quotes from one of your favoured experts showing that he agreed with my view and disagreed with yours.

quote:

---

Additionally, nearly every IDer and creationist, or actually all of them, that have visited this board that I know of are in full agreement on the nature of the biased moderation and general phoniness employed by evos here.

---

Generally such claims result from the creationist or IDer breaking the rules and getting caught - or at least behaving badly and then behaving worse when it is pointed out that they are behaving badly. In Buz's recent case the primary issue from the admin side was his refusal to even consider vetting the websites he used to "support" his case more effectively. Although Buz admitted that it was necessary to filter out unreliable sources and it was obvious that he was not doing a good job at it he refused to even try to do better. Naturally this promoted a rebuke from Admin who - rightly - expects participants to make a good-faith effort to try to produce productive discussion. So where's the bias ? You tell me.

Edited by AdminPD, : Contents rendered invisible. If you must view, use the peek button; but do not respond.

I think that it isn't worth promoting at present. Either he doesn't understand how to make a rational argument or it's hopelessly obscure.
(I think it's the former but he should be given the chance to rewrite the post before we assume it's total nonsense).

I consider referring to information theorists as "moralliy destitute magicians" consititute a personal attack (or was it merely intended to apply to Percy ?) Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Buz, the text ypu object to is basically what you told me. You refused to cite the verses you referring to because in the past, when you did I looked at verses you cited I often found that they didn't say what you claimed. Obviously you didn't want me (or anyone else) to see what the verses you were referring to really said.

I note that Nemesis Juggernaut has chosen to revive an months-old Showcase thread as an excuse to make the usual Creationist slanders about evolution.If he really wants to discuss the subject - and I don't think that he does - he has every opportunity to propose a thread to deal with the issue in the other forums. The only advantage of using the Showcase forum, are to escape moderation and to make it harder for people to point out the falsehoods in his post. Hardly noble motives.Edited by PaulK, : Corrected age of old thread

I agree that that is relevant, but I think AdminPD shut it down because of Nemesis Juggernaut and his theocratic politics.

quote:

---

First of all, I'm not a creationist. I'm an ID'ist. Secondly, I didn't revive anything. It was a brand new thread.

---

Virtually all IDists are Creationists. So that's not much of aa distinction. And your second point is disproven by the dates in the thread itself. The first post was possted on 04-08-2007. Your reply was posted on 07-08-2007. That's three months. April to July. So you did revive a months-old thread, and - given the way this forum works - it would be hard for you not to know it.

quote:

---

What are you talking about?

​

All you have to do is address my post IN Showcase if you have a problem with it and debate the issue there

---

Not true. I believe that I currently have access to Showcase, however that was granted to pursue one particular thread - not that one. So by replying to you I would be going against the conditions under which the access was granted. Unless access has been generally opened - which I have no memory of - then many people have no access to Showcase.

quote:

---

instead of running in here and making slanderous accusations. You want to talk about sleazy tactics, yet here you are crying to the Admins over spilled milk. What exactly do you want them to do, Paul? Order me not to use the Showcase forum?

---

I would like the Admins to close the thread and make you go through the usual process to start a thread. i.e. actually follow the forum rules rather than let you take advantage of the Showcase forum. What is wrong about that ?And I love the double standard. Telling the truth about you is a "slanderous accusation" - while you feel free to make vicious and baseless accusations against anybody who doesn't agree with your views. It's just so typical.

quote:

---

I just so happen to respond to the threads that interest me. The one in Showcase just so happened to interest me. Seriously, what's the problem?

---

There are two problems that I believe should be addressed by moderation. The evasion of forum rules. The abuse of the Showcase forum.

quote:

---

There is a major distinction. One group does not invoke the image of a Creator, only reasons that there must be one, while the other invokes specific images and rules for the game.

---

No, if you believe in special creation - as most IDists do - you are a creationist. If you don't want to admit to wehat you beleive it doesn't make you any less a creationist.

quote:

---

For whatever reason, Syamsu's post fell under the radar. If you'll note, my reply was the first reply ever. I revived nothing because it was never alive to begin with.

---

i.e. what I said was true. Your only excuse was that nobody else bothered to reply at all. Which only makes reviving it worse, not better.

quote:

---

Showcase is open for business. There is literally nothing that would prohibited you from posting a reply in Showcase. If you could only gain access from an Admin, just ask one. I'm an Admin. You want in? I'll make it happen.

---

I am also an Admin. Howeve Showcase was inended for discussions involving particular people who were restricted to Showcase. And there are none currently active. It is not for others to slip around the PNT rules, or to raise obsacles to others who might wish to reply

quote:

---

What for?!?!?

​

I can't respond to someone else's thread? Seriously, what exactly is your objection?

---

If you have to ask why you shouldn't abuse the forum's rules for your own convenience maybe you shouldn't be an Admin. You have avoided the requirement for PNT and you are abusing the Showcase forum.

quote:

---

What great "truth" about me have you exposed, Paul?

---

A typical rhetorical trick - I never said anything about a "great" truth. Just ordinary truth. All I am saying is that the points I made were true. And you called them slander. So that's one example. We can point to your reply in the post, or the attacks you made on the ACLU.

quote:

---

The viciousness and baseless accusations seem to be all on your side of the table.

---

Why ? What have I said that wasn't true ? Vount that as another example of a vicious and false accusation