General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0

I am forced to agree with Nuggin's recent one-day suspension.Just because someone is being mulishly thick-headed is no excuse for pointing it out.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

For the record, I do think I was biased against Brenn. She also should have received a one day suspension...in retrospect.I am human and am working on my idiosyncrasies

I tip my hat to the gent in the red boots.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

quote:

---

Just because someone is being mulishly thick-headed is no excuse for pointing it out.

---

Nuggin is easily bright enough to figure out a way to point out mulish thick-headedness without calling someone retarded.It's less direct, but more fun to write.

That's why I agree with the one-day suspension.But it was fun to write in just my way.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I see two options, really. As far as I'm concerned, the entire purpose of message one in that thread was to 'point out' my incompetency in reading/comprehension. Now, nator asked, in message one,

quote:

---

What I want to know is how the heck can anybody read my posts in that thread and just ignore the SEVEN seperate times I repeated the same simple idea?

---

If this was truly the purpose of that thread, if all nator wanted was to ask "why can't you people read?" then does not the entire topic seem overly childish and immature? If it really is that the thread is meant to continue on that topic, then I think it just needs to be shut down. I believe we tend to hold ourselves to higher standards here at EvC, no?Now, the other option. Since the thread has essentially mutated into an extension of the original Guns thread, I think we could discuss that instead, which brings up some issues.Nator has said: "guns make the violence that is going to happen anyway much more lethal." Apparently she didn't think I understood it when it was worded that way, so she decided to word it this way: "guns make the violence that is going to happen anyway much more lethal." In fact, she posted the same post twice. She also said that she was arguing that GUNS = INCREASED DEATHS, which has been my take on her position from the beginning.I responded by stating that if someone WANTS to kill, they will do it anyway, because they WANT to. If that person just wants VIOLENCE”for example, threatening, roughing up, etc.”then they are not going to shoot someone to kill them, even if they have a gun in their pocket, hand, etc. Nator then said: "It is precisely BECAUSE killing people is so EASY with guns that, when the violence that is inevitably going to happen occurs, more people die." I replied with "This assumes that when someone sets out to be violent, their intent is always murder. "Now, nator never responded to that. Crashfrog did, and you know what, I thought his argument was valid to a certain extent provided he could back up the data he had provided regarding involuntary manslaughter. I understand the opponent's argument, have from the start:"Guns increase deaths." Nator admitted to it in Message 207. (You will have to review the message to which she replied there, since her quote of me is a quote mine. In its entirety it read: "So, while no one here has specifically said outright that guns increase deaths, it has been implied in their logic all along." In other words, I GOT what they were getting at.)My response was:"Not everyone who sets out to be violent sets out to kill."Crashfrog understood what I was saying, and he replied to me with a good message that had a good point that was worth further investigation. What was nator's reply? Just look at Message 229

quote:

---

Look, I am starting to think that you are just making us jump through hoops, then pretending that you don't understand why we are leaping through those silly things, to get your jollies or something.

​

Read the OP.

​

Say something substantive about it.

---

Funny thing is, I DID say something substantive about it”which is more than I can say for message 229”, and crashfrog and I were on the way to debating that substantive reply of mine.So, this is MY question: Nator's the one being "mulishly" think headed at the moment. Why was I given the warning?You said I don't get what's going on, but the funny thing is, I have been all along, and demonstrated so in Message 192, and in Message 292 in the first thread. Once again, a quote mine taken out of context would show that I was only arguing "violence in general," but Modulous and I discussed that and it was shown that post 292 in that thread was dealing specifically with murder, and that my quote referred to murder specifically when in its context.Anywho, my counterargument was made, and the other posters have been making headway working off of that... but nator's still stuck in the "Jon can't read stage."What the Hell gives?

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10

I don't see that you made any reply to my post, actually. Did I miss something? Because it seemed to me that the debate ended the minute I provided evidence you were wrong.

Actually, I was waiting for you to get back to anglagard with actual links to the information. You can't just say that some source says something else, you need to link us to it too. I believe that was the intent of angla's reply to you, and it was what I was waiting for before going any further with our debate.However, I don't think this is the thread to discuss this in But, it would be nice for you to give a link to your information so that it can be substantiated and we can go on, I would like to explore what you've said in more depth Let's bring this back to the gun thread if we have any more to say about it, eh?
Jon

quote:

---

I see two options, really. As far as I'm concerned, the entire purpose of message one in that thread was to 'point out' my incompetency in reading/comprehension. Now, nator asked, in message one,

---

Essentially the thread is about the misrepresentation of her/their position. You also know that she wasn't just talking about you.

quote:

---

Nator has said: "guns make the violence that is going to happen anyway much more lethal." Apparently she didn't think I understood it when it was worded that way, so she decided to word it this way: "guns make the violence that is going to happen anyway much more lethal." In fact, she posted the same post twice. She also said that she was arguing that GUNS = INCREASED DEATHS, which has been my take on her position from the beginning.

---

Now you have stated her position correctly, but the issue she had was your misrepresentation of that position in Message 292 of the first gun thread in which you stated: I'm curious where you feel that claim was made. I couldn't find it.If I have read her posts correctly, Nator's position is that guns do not equal violence or increased violence, but guns do equal increased deaths in violent situations when guns are present. (The scenerio I gave you in chat is an example of that.)Do you understand the difference between what you said and what her position is?

STOP USING THIS QUOTE MINE! Modulous and I went through this, and I explained that even though the quote said violence, it was MEANT IN THE CONTEXT OF MURDER. Modulous accepted this 'correction' so why the hell can't everyone else? Why do people CONTINUE to use that QUOTE MINE trying to 'prove' that I don't understand the opponents' position? All they have been doing is trying to BLAME ME for 'misunderstanding' where they're coming from because they do NOT HAVE ANSWERS to my MULTITUDE of questions/counterarguments. What I said was TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. Read my exchange with Modulous and you will see that we cleared that up. And I replied to her! In fact, she has yet to address my counterargument, and crashfrog”having made a somewhat valid argument against me”has yet to provide any means to access his 'sources' on the matter.Is it so difficult to see that the only people we are waiting on now are the anti-gunners who just want to continue to blame the pro-gunners of misreading their position simply because they have no argument against ours?To sum up: The people who DID misrepresent their opponent's position were the ANTI-GUNNERS when they used my sentence in message 292 of the earlier thread to QUOTE MINE me in an attempt to blame their opponents because they themselves had weak arguments that THEY STILL HAVE NOT GIVEN.Good grief! That's enough from me in THAT thread. Impartiality is clearly a myth.

quote:

---

STOP USING THIS QUOTE MINE! Modulous and I went through this, and I explained that even though the quote said violence, it was MEANT IN THE CONTEXT OF MURDER.

---

Don't yell at me again.That quote was the point of the thread whether you like it or not. Did you at any time explain to Nator clearly that your statement in Message 292 was taken out of context? I didn't see that you did.Your discussion with Modulous wasn't until message 181.You need to take time to write clearly. Right now you are making blanket statements and having to argue you way out of them, such as: Message 209
Then you say that two people misunderstood that statement. Quite frankly it very clearly says, "People only use guns when their intent is Murder!"Instead of accepting that your statment is in error, you make excuses. Poor excuses at that.I gave you no warning in the admin msg, my comments were to bring to your attention that you are not communicating clearly. Even though Mod tried to help you, you still were having difficulty.The bottom line: Pay attention to what you're writing. Learn to communicate clearly with your writing.

Well, Jon certainly seems very worked up from receiving some of his own medicine.Maybe a lesson will be learned?

I humbly request that Kader's topic The moment of illumination located at Message 1 be promoted without further delay.

Would you promote it as is if you were an Administrator? I always respect the editing skills of a Librarian! Add By Edit: Looks like he edited it. I promoted it here. Edited by AdminPhat, : double take

Hi AdminPD. In the thead about the existence of God I'm wondering why the stuff in these posts were off topic. Evidence for the existence of God includes the phenomenon of fulfilled prophecy and other corroborating evidence. It's not the same as digging up bones et al. It's a different realm which requires documentation of the phenomenal and the unnatural.Imo your admin action essentially killed the thread at the crucial time when the most substantive evidence for the existence of God was being debated.
http://EvC Forum: God's existence cannot be proven logically! -->EvC Forum: God's existence cannot be proven logically!

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW