General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0

1. The more secular minded members need to keep in mind that Jesus, John the Baptist, Ezekiel, Elijah, Elisha, the apostles John, Paul, and other Biblical writers would be considered "kooks" if they were here to sign up and participate. What they believed in and participated in is called miracle, which conventional science does not recognize. Thus when Biblical creationists engage in apologetics of these accounts, some notorious secularist counterparts often chide and demean in unison when they should understand that Biblical creationism entails a great deal of miracle involving the spiritual realm of existence, both good and evil. For the most part, eliminate the higher dimension of intelligence as per the Biblical record and you have no debate.2. Often counterparts in debate accuse Biblical apologists of rejecting what they consider to be empirical evidence repeatedly, instead holding tenaciously to Biblical flood geology, the Genesis record et al. What they should consider is that for creationists unfalsifiable aspects of the Biblical record are corroborated by the falsifiable adding credibility to the record.3. The ID factor is either disallowed or demeaned in the science debates which leaves the creationist at a disadvantage so far as propagating the creationist viewpoint. IDists are obliged to operate with about half our cylinders firing in science. For example, with flood geology, ID changes the whole senario, requiring a totally different pre-flood atmosphere to account for the water et al. I'm not advocating introduction of ID in the forum so much as I'm advocating some understanding regarding our position by some who tend to insult, demean and chide, charging ignorance and bulligerancy on our part.

I don't see this as a lie accusation so much as I see it as a poor manner of addressing ADMIN so as to communicate that he may be mistaken.

Ringo, my comments to which you refer were not in defense of Randman's MO perse, but meant as applicable to creationists in general, the more fundamentally Biblical being convinced of higher realms of intelligence capable of what we call miraculous.

Your point is well taken, Percy. I forgot to take in account that there are IDists who are not necessarily global floodists and for that matter not Biblicalists. I agree that it is also not synonymous to YEC, myself not being YEC perse. Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : Change message title.

I wasn't appologizing for anyone, Omni. I was simply suggesting that "bull crap" is not necessarily calling someone a liar. Rand is certainly not the only member of this board who resorts to this sort of communication. I and other creationists receive this sort of crap quite often by counterparts, sometimes with more vulgar choice of wording than Rand used.

DA, I've never regarded Randman as a liar. You may not agree with his argument, but when accusations are made of outright intentional lying, I'd advise that you not do that without on the spot documentation. I don't frequent the Showcase much. When I get some time perhaps I should have a look at your encounters with him, not that I would try to moderate that forum but so as to review your charges.From what I've read of Randman, I see his primary problem to be PR and self control as to how he generalizes on evolutionist's perceived faults and tends to loose his cool et al. If he can shape up his MO I see his input, controversial as it may be, as productive to the level of debate we need more of in the science forums.I believe Admin sees Rand as beating what Admin considers to be dead horses too much, as likely he sometimes does with me, but perhaps moreso with Rand. I'm not sure how serious this is as per Forum Guidelines as sometimes it gets hard for determination. What is a dead horse may have some relavence to ideological preference. Thus the need for representation in admin for both ideological camps.I've tried to advise him on MO some, but more needs to happen before Admin is going to consider restoring his priviledges. When on parole it's best to keep as squeeky clean as possible being your conduct is likely being evaluated fairly regularly.There's some acceptable conduct going on from time to time in the other forums which certainly, if conducted by Rand, would be counted against him, conduct which is too close to call and which more often is not frequent enough to make a call. Rand sees this as justification for his MO, but as I've said before, if we all work to keep our own noses clean offences will diminish and we'll all benefit by it.

---

A creationist Jesus knowing God loving Biblical fundie moderator for EvC.

No argument there, Ringo, so long as you apply it to both camps and as well, to all ideological positions. We're all part ideological AHs as fallible human beings and to what extent may apply some to ideological perspective as viewed by those we encounter in debate. Keep this in mind when choosing to use the term in communication regarding others on the www.

DA, unless you want time out you need to cool it and cease/desist calling Randman or any other member a liar unless you can, without loosing your cool, document empirically on the spot that what has been alleged is clearly an intentional lie and not a statement to which you do not agree. You are no more exempt from this violation of Forum Guidelines than any other member including Randman.Sorry to have to admonish you so soon after you spoke well of me but please, the term is mistaken or some synonomous term. Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : Eliminate phraseEdited by AdminBuzsaw, : To refix the fix

DA, you're a hair's thread away from suspension. I'll give you one more reprieve for clarification. I repeat, your charges of lying must be on the spot empirical documentation that an intentional lie was spoken.As I see it, Rand's problem with you is something like stonewalling the thread rather than moving forward as he requested. When he said you had the chance to debate and refused, it is possible that he was referring to your stonewalling which in effect meant you "refused" the chance to debate.To keep the peace it's always best to keep one's cool and allow the counterpart the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the serious charge of lying. As moderator, be advised that to me this is a serious charge which I do not regard lightly. Anyone who calls another a liar had better have empirical documentation on the spot if I see it or they will be called upon to account for their actions.
Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given.

Jar, you know what "empirical" means. My warning stands as stated. When you accuse one of being a liar, unless imperical documentation is cited, best to allow the other the benefit of the doubt, working to keep the peace. Rand has been admonished about this in the past also so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Rather than get into a debate about word meanings, AdminMod has reinforced my advice to allow the other person the benefit of the doubt by refraining from the inflamitory charge of lying since it is often difficult to draw a line between things like false assumptions/mistakes and lying. Nobody enjoys bickering and feuding going on at EvC. I don't know why a few of you apparently oppose measures to aleviate some of that by contending with moderation that serves to moderate inflamitory behavior.