|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
General Krull writes Faith:
quote: She's spreading Christian love and charity. Can't you tell? Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4024 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Chas, you know how it is with a persecution complex---you want to quit, but you have to keep coming back for a fix.
When I tot up what Faith has contributed in 1000 posts, it comes to precious little. In the geology series, she might have made us explain sedimentation more clearly. In the Isaiah chronicles, we learned that having ONE out of 850 scrolls agreeing with the Masoretic text means that the bible is unchanged from the originals. Doesn`t seem like much when you are felling the equivalent of several electronic forests.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
I think we may need to restart the "Boot Camp" for some of you.
Closing this topic for a while. DON'T START ALTERNATE TOPIC! Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Yes, motives, motives for ABANDONING certain threads, Percy, isn't that what you said, I didn't continue because I didn't know the science?? Sorry, that is NOT why I didn't continue. YES, that's an accusation about my MOTIVES, which you are now topping with a further accusation of my "making up charges" that it was about my motives, SO par for the course here. Now you're arguing about definitions. I explained that you abandoned threads because you were intellectually defenseless. Ignorance is not a motive. Ignorance is the reason you were unable to maintain an objective tenor in discussion and so resorted to abusing your fellow members.
Schraf indulges in abusive interrogation tactics worthy of the KGB perhaps, or the Grand Inquisitor, or a demented adolescent version thereof, but not science, useless nitpicking with no creditable objective. She's possibly but not necessarily the worst of the lot here. The pretense that any of that has anything to do with science is the most abusive thing done here. This is the type of emotional response with which we've become so familiar when you find yourself unable to respond. My advice is to simply answer the question or explain why it isn't relevant to the issue. Giving things labels like "nitpicking" is just more unsupported assertion on your part.
Your ignorance of the provocations, the ENDLESS insulting rude nasty provocations, practiced by YOUR side of this, needs to be challenged. Apparently no amount of explanation gets through, then if the person erupts in rage at the mistreatment FURTHER punishment ensues, as if what he's already endured hasn't been enough already. I think you have a chip on your shoulder. The facts are that you managed to take offense from almost everyone. Your idea of a provocation is someone expressing an opinion you disagree with.
I will simply ignore your impertinent moralizing about my behavior here. Starting when? Is this like the last 97 times you announced you were leaving? You have no shame. You have no decency. Do you even have no sense of consistency? Do you not even feel any embarassment when you fail time after time to do anything you say you're going to do?
I have no respect for the kind of nicey nice lobotomizing that passes for Christianity these days that leads people to call themselves Christians who have compromised its truths to the point of irrelevance. Ah, I see, reject the impertinent moralizing of others, but engage in it freely yourself.
I am more than capable of dispassionate discussion as has been amply demonstrated by at least 90% of my near 1000 posts here, but when the opposition plays the tricks that are played here, and has the effrontery to call them SCIENCE, then answering nonsense with nonsense is the only way to go. No, Faith, you are answering sense with nonsense and then abusing everyone who disagrees with you. You could have learned what you didn't understand with the goal of explaining how it is wrong, but you instead pinned labels on it and the people involved. You proved incapable of leaving your emotions out of discussion, and this combined with your lack of knowledge makes you a very inappropriate participant for this type of debate. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
If you're going to post here, make it good.
Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
From here.
Godfearingatheist writes:
Ken the author of : 'keep rolling along Deep in my heart[blah BLAH ... ]'" ******************************************************************* Ken ??? Ken Who? An Administrator here at the Forum ???"Creationist Admins are subject to suspension EVEN as an Administrator, huh? No? (?) If an Adminstrator gives a short Link they're not some pain in the ass for doing that WHAT AM I TALKING ABOUT ex. Below Url/LINKEx. NOVA | Transcripts | NOVA scienceNOW: April 19, 2005 | PBS >> > I find the Adminstration very Helpful ;-) In an Example from what follows: ....Is there some REASON to believe one way or another? It would be interesting if there's any evidence available that is regarding this or to be discussed. No or Yes! NOVA | Transcripts | NOVA scienceNOW: April 19, 2005 | PBS |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
obstructionist I am not familar with this word, I think you have just made it up No, faith didn't just make up the term. It's been in use for quite a long time here in the US. It means to have a general principle of getting in the way with the purpose to obstruct something getting done, usually referring to politics or interpersonal discussion. "The Democrats' obstructionist tactics prevented the Republicans from passing the bill. Edited to fix a shameful number of typos. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-07-2005 11:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, Faith, I started a thread for you to discuss this very issue regarding specific scientific claims that you made, but you never responded. I am still more than willing:
Are the ToE and GTT imposed upon or products of science? edited to fix link Added by edit: I would be more than happy to not participate at all in the above thread if my presence is keeping you from answering the question. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-07-2005 11:39 PM This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-07-2005 11:53 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, what does everyone else think? Do I have "Vays ov makink you talk?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Ignoring the thinly veiled insults from Adminnemooseus, I await an answer from AdminJar:
Why is it inappropriate to point out when someone is lying? When the forum guidelines make a point of maintaining integrity, not misrepresenting things, etc., why is indicating that someone has violated those standards problematic? Or is it OK to lie in this forum? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Because when you do so you WILL be sanctioned.
Continuing this line of questioning will result in sanction. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 508 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
I wonder how Faith is going to reply to all the posts you responded to her, considering that she is currently suspended.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
There may be rare occations when someone is lying AND you can show that unequivicably. In those cases all you have to do is show your evidence that some statement is wrong. Others may draw conclusions that the individual was wrong in such a way they HAD to have been lying. You do not have to make the statment yourself.
It will be very rare indeed that you can be sure that a person is lying rather than mistaken and/or very stupid. For this reason calling someone a liar is always a bad idea. To maintain civil discussion the policy is that you simple don't use the word but may choose to make the contrast between the statment made and the facts very clear. The intentions of the person making the statment are something each individual has to suss out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 508 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Isn't it better to accuse a person of lying than to accuse him of being stupid?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Calling someone stupid will also not be tolerated.
You are free to show where someone is in error. Dispute the content all you like. But calling someone stupid serves no useful purpose. Please do not do it. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024