Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   AdminNosy banned?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 188 (365762)
11-24-2006 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by nwr
11-24-2006 12:40 PM


An open message to soreheads
I am leaving this site. I did not join evcforum to participate in public drama. I joined to participate in rational discussion.
This, from the guy who felt it was completely reasonable to reject a scientific theory because he didn't like the color of an avatar?
Look, nobody has to post here. When it stops being fun, you should stop doing it. But do we all have to be subjected to these attempts at self-martyrdom? It's all sour grapes; stuff and nonsense. If you don't want to post here anymore, don't. But try to refrain from acting like you're the last champion of reasonable debate on the internet as you scuttle away, ok? Especially when we can instantly disconfirm that with a quick peek at a posting history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nwr, posted 11-24-2006 12:40 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 66 of 188 (365879)
11-24-2006 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Buzsaw
11-24-2006 8:08 PM


NWR expresses his guarded doubts about the BB, redshift, and some of Percy's pet doctrines as he participates by invitation in discussion. He gets harrassed to death throughout the exchange as though he were some nuthead creo.
Well, I mean, did you read the thread? NWR said he got to disregard science because he didn't like the color of Percy's avatar.
That doesn't strike you as a little nutso? Just a little unreasonable? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone, here, but it's exactly what I've come to expect from a culture that sets science and nonsense on exactly equal footing, so long as the nonsense gets to call itself "religion."
Like Buz, I'm not interested in a debate site that will brook no departure from orthodoxy, but if it's a matter of disqualifying from the debate voices who clearly are not here to debate but to obfuscate, aggrivate, and prevaricate, well, draw that hoop a little tighter. That NWR no longer feels welcome is no loss that I can see. He made abundantly clear that he believes he gets to hold the most ridiculous positions on the most specious ground, and that he gets to advance those positions completly protected from the views of any who might disagree.
Good riddance. That kind of nonsense doesn't belong on a debate site. And I simply can't understand the position of those who disagree. How is debate moved forward by those who refuse to take part in it? Who demand that "debate" be nothing more than a platform for them to promote their views absent any response or rebuttal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Buzsaw, posted 11-24-2006 8:08 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by AdminPhat, posted 11-24-2006 10:30 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 11-24-2006 10:32 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 188 (365888)
11-24-2006 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Buzsaw
11-24-2006 10:32 PM


CF, you quote mined this out of context so as to further demean NWR. It was a tongue in cheek thing in conjunction with other words to make a sensible point.
What point was that? I didn't get the impression that he was joking or kidding. Can you substantiate that? He might have been using hyperbole but his essential argument was that any criteria whatsoever was valid for rejecting science, if one felt it should be rejected.
It's no quote mine. It's what he said, and the context doesn't change it. Everything he said was in conjunction with a point that's basically nonsense.
You show no appreciation for NWR's valuable contribution to this site both as super Jonny-on-the-spot administrator/moderator and as an amiable, respectful and interesting posting member.
I didn't think he was a great administrator; I think he played favorites and pursued vendettas. I don't think he was impartial.
It's folks like NWR, Jar, Asgara, Moose, Percy and others who do all the work.
Where their contributions are positive, they are to be commended (preferably where it's on-topic to do so.) And I have commended them when I've remembered to do so.
But it's pretty surprising of you to lambast me for speaking ill of the dearly departed in a thread where you've just finished lambasting Percy for running his website as he sees fit. You just advised him to turn the reins over to you and your buddies, and you think I'm being arrogantly ungrateful? Please.
How arrogantly ingrateful of you to laud the departure of this good member!
I'll laud whatever I please, thank you very much, as I imagine my eventual departure might be lauded from many quarters. If NWR's departure means a net reduction in the EvC nonsense quotient, as suggested by the fallout from the thread in question, that's nothing but a change for the better.
When did NWR suddenly become immune from criticism? And when did these rules against ad hominem suddenly develop exceptions for people like Percy and myself, and others? Why are the admins making private determinations about who it's ok to call names, and who it's not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 11-24-2006 10:32 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 11-25-2006 4:11 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 76 of 188 (365933)
11-25-2006 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Modulous
11-25-2006 4:11 AM


That really wasn't what was being said. nwr's argument was not that any criteria was vaild for rejecting science, but that any criteria was valid as any other to qualify as an opinion...even if that opinion was essentially a rejection of science.
I don't see the difference. And I don't see the basis for an argument that one's opinion is always immune to criticism or response; that one's opinion must always be taken as valid and legitimate, no matter what. But I see that's not what you're saying, exactly.
It isn't, it is simply another way of saying 'I'm not going to debate the issue, just tell you my opinion on it'. And that is not what EvC is for.
Well, I agree 100% obviously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 11-25-2006 4:11 AM Modulous has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 91 of 188 (366161)
11-26-2006 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Buzsaw
11-26-2006 8:06 PM


Re: Public Statements and Private Positions
This statement articulates in one short paragraph what Archer has so masterfully detailed. No IDist creationist no matter what the credentials can possibly qualify for your on-limits discussion/debate fora as per your bill of rights you have established for this site.
How so? Why wouldn't ID theorists and creationists want to debate their ideas? Why would they insist that they be beyond challenge if they believe their ideas are correct?
You essentially demand that All science debate MUST assume EvC perrogatives as THE science and if the position does not conform to THE science, the messenger needs to find another site.
I think you're completely misrepresenting Percy here, and I find that surprising since you've leveled accusations of myself and others doing that in the past. Dissent with "THE science" is perfectly acceptable, according to Percy; but it has been and remains the case that those who dissent should not expect to be able to promulgate their views without challenge.
Why should anybody get to promulgate their views without challenge? You can't seem to explain the logic, there.
Percy, you're really quite alone in your stubborn unrelenting stance here.
Absolutely he isn't. Rather, Buzz, you're way off the farm when you assert that ID views should have the privilege of being promulgated without challenge. You can't, of course, explain why, but that's par for the course.
I stand with Percy, proudly, in supporting his anti-nonsense agenda. I simply can't understand the criticisms of those who disagree. To them, and to Buz, I ask - what use is a debate site where people are prevented from responding to you? You people have the Showcase, where the normal rules are suspended for you; give a creationist an inch, though, and I guess they want a mile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Buzsaw, posted 11-26-2006 8:06 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Buzsaw, posted 11-26-2006 10:48 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 101 by Wounded King, posted 11-27-2006 2:48 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 104 of 188 (366224)
11-27-2006 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Buzsaw
11-26-2006 10:48 PM


Re: Public Statements and Private Positions
Why do you think Percy rejects Dr Baumgardner's IDist science research papers as unscientific as well as other such examples?
Because they're objectively nonscientific.
Why do you think IDist creos are discouraged or banned from science forums here?
Because they've proven that they can't debate according to scientific principles, regardless of their position.
Buzz, nobody starts out banned from the science forums. You have to prove, as you and others have, that you're completely incapable of debating from a scientific perspective, or even understanding what that would mean. It's hardly Percy's fault that the state-of-the-art of ID conjecture is a nonscientific mishmash of religion and ad hoc mythmaking.
Where ever have I even hinted ID views should be priviledged to be promulgated without challenge??
In the post I replied to, and indeed, in this very message of yours. It's your position that ID views should be allowed to be promulgated in the science fora - as well as any place else, I suspect - without first undergoing what other scientific ideas must undergo - a rigorous test to prove that they represent valid science.
It's your belief that it's unfair to subject ID to the exact same requirement as other scientific conjecture. Hence, you're arguing that those views should be privileged. Look, if ID is science, what do you have to lose by trying to prove it?
EvC disallows IDist views to be aired in science fora because THEY ALLEGEDLY AREN'T SCIENCE.
If you disagree, prove that they are science. That's the purpose of EvC. I find it indicative, however, that hardly anyone on your side even attempts to do so - they just complain about being put in the position, like everybody else, of having to do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Buzsaw, posted 11-26-2006 10:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 110 of 188 (366253)
11-27-2006 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Buzsaw
11-27-2006 10:58 AM


Re: Responses
Since EvC's core purpose is to refute the above
Once again, you've completely misrepresented Percy. Percy stated that the core purpose of EvC was to debate the above, not refute it.
Can you explain this error? I don't see anything in Percy's post where he has christened EvC's mission to be the opposition to creationism, only to its exploration in terms of how well it is supported by the evidence.
how is the IDist creo going to debate a hypothesis that is allegedly not science in the science fora?
By fulfilling the purpose of EvC, and succesfully defending ID as a legitimate pursuit of science. That's where they have to begin, like every other conjecture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Buzsaw, posted 11-27-2006 10:58 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Buzsaw, posted 11-27-2006 11:18 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 118 of 188 (366269)
11-27-2006 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Buzsaw
11-27-2006 11:18 AM


Re: Responses
But how can you fulfill the purpose of EvC by succesfully defending ID as a legitimate pursuit of science when:
1. ID is declared non-science, therefore off limits to science debate.
By proving us wrong. Honestly you've got the much easier job, here, if ID is actually legitimate. Our side is perfectly willing to tell you what you have to do to convince us. We've laid it out for you! All you have to do is follow the directions, if you can. If you can't it's because ID isn't valid.
Your side? Your side won't even entertain the notion of error. It's an uphill battle for evolutionists. Your side gets all the breaks.
2. All ID science implies the presence of higher intelligence existing in the universe than seclarists are willing to tolerate in science debate hypotheses.
Secularists are unwilling to tolerate such implications because the presence of higher intelligences is an extraoridnary claim for which extraordinary evidence has never been presented.
Present the evidence, and we'll revisit the claim. Maybe even change our minds if your evidence is sufficiently extraordinary and compelling.
Buzz, don't mistake the fact that your side is impotent in debate for an indication that we're unwilling to change our minds. You simply have to convince us, if you can. We'll even tell you how to do it. When was the last time any of you made the same accomodations for evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Buzsaw, posted 11-27-2006 11:18 AM Buzsaw has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 135 of 188 (366386)
11-27-2006 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Modulous
11-27-2006 8:27 PM


Re: evc
Come here and put your case forward where it will be critically examined by opponents of your position.
It's the "critical" part that Buzz seems to object to. To a certain kind of person, any criticism of their belief system - indeed, any response besides unquestioning agreement - is tantamount to oppression.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Modulous, posted 11-27-2006 8:27 PM Modulous has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024