General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0

Do not continue in the vane.

You have to ask to be allowed into the Showcase forum if you want to "debate" with one of the denizens. That should be enough of a warning that you are wasting your time.It is to separate those out who such well-meaning individuals into post replies to them and wasting the time invested. Then those who choose to post in Showcase should know what they are getting into.Personally, I have no interest in wasting time with them.

Because it is "showcase". It hasn't happened for a long time now but once upon a time I found the creo posts in EvC rather useful. A few friends (and others) thought that "balanced treatment" was the right way to go with the "controversy". I may not have any of that left but I'm sure others do.They were very quickly convinced that there was nothing to the other side of the controversy after browsing creo posts here. The showcase captures really great examples of the astonishing nuttiness of the creo supporters. Just left to rant themselves they supply such wonderful ammunition if you do have someone thinking there is something to consider.There is, of course, also need for more rational detailed discussion of the arguments put forward by the more thoughtful representatives of YEC, ID and other positions. This is to expose the flaws and it is very educational to all.We owe gratitude to all those knowledgable folk, on BOTH sides, who take the time to supply reason and facts. It's too bad there is something of an imbalance between the two sides in that regard.

As PaulK told you he said that when someone denies an obvious, objective truth (in the particular case what was written in plain Engish at TO) that is evidence of a mental illness.No where did PaulK say that it was a sign of mental illness to disagree with him.As asked if you wish to make the statments you are making you are going to have to read (with comprehension) exactly what was written.It is PaulK's considered opinion that rand is denying obvious, objective truth. I can't believe that even you would disagree that doing so is a sign of mental illness -- it is about the basic definition of what it means to be mentally ill.Now you can start a thread (or review the existing one) to demonstrate that PaulK is wrong in his assessment of rand's comprehension of the TO articles. If so you have made a point. If you can't demonstrate that you have helped make PaulK's case that rand exhibits some signs of mental illness stronger.