Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
50 online now:
CosmicChimp, jar, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 878,008 Year: 9,756/23,288 Month: 771/1,544 Week: 163/322 Day: 17/66 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   AdminNosy banned?
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2651 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 121 of 188 (366282)
11-27-2006 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Wounded King
11-27-2006 12:14 PM


Re: Admin's Hidden Prejudice??
Well it seems that my opinion of the class divide is not in sync with Admin's. I still stick by mine.

There are 2 classes here, the working class and the 'criminal' class; the creationists are overrepresented in the latter.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Wounded King, posted 11-27-2006 12:14 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Admin, posted 11-27-2006 12:39 PM Wounded King has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 122 of 188 (366289)
11-27-2006 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Silent H
11-27-2006 11:06 AM


Re: conspiracy theory?
holmes writes:

Buddy, you shut me down with a threatened suspension when I questioned your decision.

You'll have to say more, I don't recall this.

While I can agree with most of the idealistic commentary you put in this post, it is my opinion that you don't live up to that ideal. And some of your desires seem a bit less than realistic.

It will be interesting to see if you begin to match these ideals.

Heck, I don't think I live up to any of my ideals. That's the point of ideals, isn't it, to serve as goals, not as achievements?

In all of this, you did not discuss how arguing the person should not be tolerated within any attack on a position. It seems to me a couple people noted that was an issue within your posts to nwr, and that sure as heck goes for what your defender has been posting around evc these days (including regarding nwr).

Yes, this is true, many did seem to perceive me as making personal attacks on Nwr. No one actually went to the trouble of quoting something in context and attempting to make the case, though. I was never provided any substance to respond so, though to be fair to Buz he attempted it in the admin forum, but before I could reply Phat closed the thread suggesting that it wasn't constructive at this point in time, and I thought that perhaps he had a good point that maybe we should come back to it later. But no one's attempted this in the public forums, so perhaps you could remedy this.

But before you put any effort into it, keep in mind that my claim isn't that I was blameless, only that I wasn't anywhere near as bad as Nwr, and that I didn't think moderator attention was called for.

Its always easy to describe opponents as thin-skinned, but that sure is a conveniently arbitrary estimate. If personal attacks are to be allowed perhaps you should describe how thick a person's skin is supposed to be when posting here.

I was referring to people who are thin-skinned about having their errors pointed out, of which Nwr made an incredible, and incredibly uninformed, number. While you don't mention it here, you have up till now been countering my references to Nwr's errors with claims that he had a point. I again suggest that if you really believe he had a point that you go to the No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper thread and make that point, but that otherwise continuing to just state he had a valid point is an unsupported assertion. It is my assertion that it is flim-flam that is for some reason appealing to a number of people. If it really had any substance then Nwr would have stuck around and argued it so he could show he was correct. Instead he had to resort to posturing and making a show. This isn't the behavior of someone who believes he has a strong case.

Edited by Admin, : Change authorship.

Edited by Admin, : Fix sig.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2006 11:06 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2006 3:23 PM Admin has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 123 of 188 (366298)
11-27-2006 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Wounded King
11-27-2006 12:18 PM


Re: Admin's Hidden Prejudice??
Your point has merit, too. While that wasn't how I was using the term 2nd class citizen in that instance, it is certainly one of the ways it can be used.

The point you're making is more about how dramatically unsuccessful creationists are in arguing their position in debate. But it can be looked at another way. I'll bet that we couldn't do half so much with their arguments as they do. They often prove surprisingly resourceful with extremely meager weaponry, and they should at least be credited for that.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Wounded King, posted 11-27-2006 12:18 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Wounded King, posted 11-27-2006 12:42 PM Admin has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2651 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 124 of 188 (366301)
11-27-2006 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Admin
11-27-2006 12:39 PM


Re: Admin's Hidden Prejudice??
I guess you can do a lot of damage even at a gunfight with a knife, provided you are crazy enough.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Admin, posted 11-27-2006 12:39 PM Admin has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 660 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 125 of 188 (366304)
11-27-2006 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by kuresu
11-27-2006 11:35 AM


Re: Admin's Hidden Prejudice??
If you really think of these people as 2cd class citizens, I'm done here. I don't feel like living in the 1850s south.

In the EvC debate, most of the evolutionists here are 2nd class citizens, with a few first class citizens (ie, people that are doing the discipline versus those that merely debate it). A first class IDist then would not be Buzz, but instead would be Behe, Dembski, Sal Cordova etc. With creationism it might be Gish, Hovind, etc. The people that are actually doing the stuff, not the people that just believe it. Not just celebrities of course - but anyone who does the science, the public debating, is generally consulted with regards to the issues etc.

Given the context of Percy's post, I think that is what he was driving towards. I just don't think there are that many 1st class evolutionists here. There are some, but not as many as there are at, for example, the Pandas Thumb or Pharyngula. If we can Matzke to participate, this place would be going on the up and up. He's probably busy enough with the 'thumb though.


From another perspective, the evolutionists here are treated as 1st Class Citizens and Creationists are second class. There are less moderators from the YEC side, they are often fiercely criticized for every logical hiccup, whereas evolutionists are frequently given passes.


That's how I read it anyway.


Abe: Too late. Woe is me.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by kuresu, posted 11-27-2006 11:35 AM kuresu has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 126 of 188 (366335)
11-27-2006 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by NosyNed
11-27-2006 11:01 AM


Re: Sometimes I just can't keep my mouth shut
Good to hear from you! Hope you continue to check in occasionally. I'm going to change your admin account to inactive. Let me know when you want it back so you can come here and wrestle us back on topic! :D


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2006 11:01 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4376 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 127 of 188 (366348)
11-27-2006 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Admin
11-27-2006 12:27 PM


Re: conspiracy theory?
You'll have to say more, I don't recall this.

Guess the smack down meant more to me than you. I'm past it (it was a while ago) so we don't have to relive it again, and as you admit you don't live up to your ideals, lets just leave it at that.

The more important question is if what you say will be true from this day forward? I hope so.

But before you put any effort into it, keep in mind that my claim isn't that I was blameless, only that I wasn't anywhere near as bad as Nwr, and that I didn't think moderator attention was called for.

Do you remember telling me how mods have the final authority and that authority should be respected? That included NOT questioning why a decision was made as well as pointing to what was done wrong. I believe you also commented that it doesn't matter who was worse. As I mentioned before, both you and nwr in this situation ended up doing things you both criticized me for doing in the past.

In this case I am not about to go back through the thread and point out where I think you personally insulted him. Reading through it three times was enough and I am much more interested in results springing from it, than by rehashing everything.

I again suggest that if you really believe he had a point that you go to the No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper thread and make that point, but that otherwise continuing to just state he had a valid point is an unsupported assertion.

Uh... I explained it upthread. Indeed I believe I stated that I disagreed with his epistemic position so I am not the person to carry the flag for it. Here is what I think IS valid (using what has already been stated here)...

I pointed to his opening comments were that it was pure opinion, that he was not intending to challenge BB, and he admitted a lack of knowledge. And his "reopening" comments were an argument that he was not accepting BB personally, due to his not feeling it had enough evidence such that he could be confident it would stand the test of time as a full explanation.

There would be severe problems if he used that to open and advance that BB was errant, or that he was able to reject BB. But he didn't do that. Lack of acceptance is NOT rejection. It is holding it in a more tentative state than others might. Rejection would mean its lack of recognition for having any possible merit.

That he had incorrect ideas about the nature of evidence (which you did show) is besides the point to that position. If I had been you I would have made sure he restated it was just his opinion, that he wasn't stating BB wasn't science, and he wasn't trying to refute BB, and then dropped it myself.

But you appeared to want to make him a scarecrow, picking away at any possible errors where he admitted less than adequate knowledge.

This isn't the behavior of someone who believes he has a strong case.

He stated up front that he had NO case. I'm not sure how that could not be more clear. Whether he went on to show ignorance regarding the field as a reason for holding it more tentatively means nothing.


holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Admin, posted 11-27-2006 12:27 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Admin, posted 11-27-2006 4:17 PM Silent H has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 128 of 188 (366356)
11-27-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Silent H
11-27-2006 3:23 PM


Re: conspiracy theory?
holmes writes:

But before you put any effort into it, keep in mind that my claim isn't that I was blameless, only that I wasn't anywhere near as bad as Nwr, and that I didn't think moderator attention was called for.

Do you remember telling me how mods have the final authority and that authority should be respected? That included NOT questioning why a decision was made...

I wasn't questioning a moderator decision. I was alluding to Nwr's decision to post a complaint in the moderation thread. It was a reference to the irony of the primary offender making the complaint.

holmes writes:

As I mentioned before, both you and nwr in this situation ended up doing things you both criticized me for doing in the past.

Is this about recent events? Or is this about you?

In this case I am not about to go back through the thread and point out where I think you personally insulted him.

That's fine as long as this is the last time you mention that you believe I personally insulted him without supporting it.

As to the rest, all I can say is that I don't see it the same way you do. If I were to reply to the specifics of what you said I'd just be repeating myself, but it is probably worth repeating that it was never the intention of EvC Forum to allow ways in which positions could be stated and not defended. If you think you've found such a way then you're wrong by definition. It was always the intention that that not be possible here. I remember my motivations for creating this site as if it were yesterday. If you think the Forum Guidelines need to be clarified on this point it would be helpful if you could suggest some wording.

Edited by Admin, : Add clarifying sentence to first paragraph.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2006 3:23 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2006 5:46 PM Admin has responded
 Message 133 by Buzsaw, posted 11-27-2006 7:38 PM Admin has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1848 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 129 of 188 (366363)
11-27-2006 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by NosyNed
11-27-2006 11:01 AM


Re: Sometimes I just can't keep my mouth shut
Hey Ned, as much as us balding/balded men would like, leaving this site won't bring our hair back. It made me feel better to find out that male pattern baldness is also found in ape populations. Perhaps it'd make you feel better as well.

Come back soon!


Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

The thread about this map can be found here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2006 11:01 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4376 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 130 of 188 (366367)
11-27-2006 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Admin
11-27-2006 4:17 PM


Re: conspiracy theory?
That's fine as long as this is the last time you mention that you believe I personally insulted him without supporting it.

Fine. I'm much more concerned about what comes out of this.

If I were to reply to the specifics of what you said I'd just be repeating myself, but it is probably worth repeating that it was never the intention of EvC Forum to allow ways in which positions could be stated and not defended.

Okay, but then doesn't it make sense not to pursue such positions, rather than treating them as if they could be? I suppose from now on when a person states that its just an opinion, they should be warned not to continue because its a forum violation.

That said I am still perplexed. Your position seems to only allow a person to accept a theory or reject it, and not claim remaining neutral pending more info? Nor apparently is someone allowed to doubt the longterm explanatory power of a theory? That is there must be some concrete reason for this doubt?

Let's say this forum was run way back before heliocentrism had its conclusive support, or say plate tectonics before conclusive sea floor info. Am I correct in understanding a poster could not have said they doubt that geocentrism or stationary continents were the correct (or full) explanations?

If you think you've found such a way then you're wrong by definition. It was always the intention that that not be possible here.

I can't tell you what you've made legal, I can only tell you what is logically valid. The two don't have to be the same, but it might surprise some to find out they aren't. This isn't to say you should change your intent or rule. I can work within that system if that's how you want it.

if you could suggest some wording.

In debate, do not state any personal opinions, or attempt to explain such. All statements should involve arguments that advance or attack a position, which are themselves open to attack via logic or evidence.


holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Admin, posted 11-27-2006 4:17 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Brad McFall, posted 11-27-2006 6:23 PM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 136 by Admin, posted 11-27-2006 10:31 PM Silent H has responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3589 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 131 of 188 (366372)
11-27-2006 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Silent H
11-27-2006 5:46 PM


Re: conspiracy theory or ...
difference of middle age vs present statements??

I was suprised a bit by this explanation of Father Wagget 1909:

quote:

Click to enlarge

May I suggest that EVC has pushed the lability of "the harder statement" to it's rock solid equivalency, no matter the form, by its futherance of seperations of religion and science? I am not judging that this is desired, however. Perhaps the ultrasolidity of a 'hardest' statement should be acceptable. The technology can do nothing of the letter of law, no matter what ell is economized. Thus a limitation of the forum perhaps exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2006 5:46 PM Silent H has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 188 (366374)
11-27-2006 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by PaulK
11-27-2006 2:14 AM


Re: Public Statements and Private Positions
PaulK writes:

As Behe admitted during the Kitzmiller trial there is no original research supporting ID. As the Discovery Insittute practically admitted when they made their vague press release about their own spending on research - they didn't give a figure for the portion spent on scientific research. instead lumping together all the "research" they funded in just one figure.
So, you insist that IDist's must refuse to debate until certain lies are accepted. Well if they will only debate on those conditions then it proves that they are wrong. ID is a fraud and you have admitted it.

So long as you, Percy and other prominent EvCists have convinced yourselves that ID has been proven fraudulent you make my point that there is no place at EvC science fora for any IDist regardless of credentials to participate in science debate. So why is the site called EvC? What does EvC mean? Doesn't EvC debate forums essentially have a fraudulent name?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2006 2:14 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Modulous, posted 11-27-2006 8:27 PM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 188 (366376)
11-27-2006 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Admin
11-27-2006 4:17 PM


Re: Moderator Thread
Admin writes:

I wasn't questioning a moderator decision. I was alluding to Nwr's decision to post a complaint in the moderation thread. It was a reference to the irony of the primary offender making the complaint.

As I understand the purpose of the moderation thread, if any member, including moderators determine there is a problem worthy of moderation they may justly utilize that service. Imo, it was not for you, the alleged offender, as per NWR, to make the determination as to whether the request should be honored.

As I understand the purpose of the moderation thread, it was also the rightful place for you as a participating member in debate to go if you felt that NWR was a primary offender in debate with you. Instead, you chose to admonish administratively within the debate itself, resulting in the flare up. Perhaps another admin should have moderated NWR rather than you, the counterpart in debate.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Admin, posted 11-27-2006 4:17 PM Admin has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 660 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 134 of 188 (366384)
11-27-2006 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Buzsaw
11-27-2006 6:58 PM


evc
So long as you, Percy and other prominent EvCists have convinced yourselves that ID has been proven fraudulent you make my point that there is no place at EvC science fora for any IDist regardless of credentials to participate in science debate. So why is the site called EvC? What does EvC mean? Doesn't EvC debate forums essentially have a fraudulent name?

If the situation were reversed, and the board was mostly composed of Creationists who thought that evolution was wrong, would you complain likewise?

There are only two options. We screen members to keep an even split. Or we force people into having come to no conclusions. Neither seems practical.

An IDer is perfectly welcome to post a thread and say 'This is science, here it is.'. Other people are then welcome to say 'That's a load of bunkum and here is why'.

If the IDer then repeats the claims, or asserts that it is scientific and so we should pay attention. We have a problem.

Let us look at an example. The three domain hypothesis, which is under some debate at the moment. The participants don't ignore fundamental aspects of established science. They take them into account. I would heartily welcome a good debate with an IDist, someone who could present solid research, predictions and the like. Someone who can say - look here is some science.

The problem is that it doesn't happen. Whenever something is presented it is shown to be flawed. There is no point just going around and around in circles - the debate is over if nothing new is presented in defense. That is why Percy had the strong words about ID and Baumgardner - nothing new was coming out if it, the claims were being refuted, repeated and refuted again.

It's hardly a debate in science, it is a repeat of claims.

What does EvC mean?

You think Creationism is science, you think evolution is not? Come here and put your case forward where it will be critically examined by opponents of your position. If you are lucky, you might learn something and grow to understand your opponent's position. If you are unlucky, you will repeat the same claim over and over again and it will be refuted the same way over and over again and nothing will come of it. If you are lucky, you will be able to add further support to your position, which can then be argued, perhaps further support still.

Rest assured, it will be critically examined. Rest assured, repeating the same thing over and over again will be looked down on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Buzsaw, posted 11-27-2006 6:58 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 11-27-2006 8:37 PM Modulous has not yet responded
 Message 137 by Buzsaw, posted 11-27-2006 11:22 PM Modulous has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 23 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 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 © 2020