Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-19-2019 8:43 AM
21 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,600 Year: 6,637/19,786 Month: 1,178/1,581 Week: 0/393 Day: 0/30 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 301 (379097)
01-22-2007 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Percy
01-22-2007 9:31 PM


I'm sure when he goes over to Terry's trainwreck of a debate site they welcome him with open arms. "Sure, Heckel and Pacitus. You're absolutely right Randman. Anything to stick to them evos."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 01-22-2007 9:31 PM Percy has not yet responded

ekman
Junior Member (Idle past 619 days)
Posts: 21
From: North Carolina, USA
Joined: 02-27-2006


Message 227 of 301 (379101)
01-22-2007 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Percy
01-22-2007 9:31 PM


quote:
Is Randman really all peaches and cream at other boards? Or is that just another li..., er, misunderstanding.

I'd like to be able to say randman's behavior here is an anomaly, but the truth is that he's definitely the same randman. Like here at evc, he directs most of his abuse at "evos." There are a number of scientists on this other board, and pretty much all of us have earned his scorn at one time or another. Same accusations of lying, immorality, inability to comprehend complex concepts, etc. Same obsessions with Haeckel, QM... even the same argument over Einstein and Spinoza.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 01-22-2007 9:31 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Clark
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 301 (379103)
01-22-2007 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Percy
01-22-2007 9:31 PM


AFAICT Randman behaved similarly at IIDB a few years ago. Check for yourself:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/search.php?searchid=1473347

From randomly selected posts by Randman at IIDB:

Both are false accusations, and I am not surprised. Evolutionists appear to need to rely on false accusations and lies, which doesn't apeak highly of them having real data to back up their claims.

It is quite clear, as is the fact that many of you resort to ridicule and lies to avoid a rational discussion of what you beleive and the evidence

Because your arguments are weak, and you fear admitting to them completely. You have to overstate, deny plain facts, etc,...or many of you kind of freak out.

Talk about a broken record. So Randman was either LYING when he said he had absolutely no problems at other sites or ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 01-22-2007 9:31 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by arachnophilia, posted 01-23-2007 12:26 AM Clark has not yet responded

Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1102 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 229 of 301 (379104)
01-22-2007 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by ekman
01-22-2007 7:39 PM


ekman writes:

Wow.

I would like to compliment you all on a very fine train wreck. Personally, I'm not sure why anyone would bother to engage either Randman (though I've done so on other sites) or Herepton.

Thank you.

I prefer to think of it as a frank and vigorous exchange of views.


Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.

-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732–1799)

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by ekman, posted 01-22-2007 7:39 PM ekman has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1102 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 230 of 301 (379106)
01-22-2007 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by ringo
01-22-2007 7:32 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
Ringo writes:

The sane are expected to be sane, even when visiting the asylum.

True, as far as it goes.

But in my experience, asylum residents who throw feces at visitors lose their privileges: tolerating unacceptable behavior from the impaired does them no favors.

AbE: I know I said I was exiting this thread. I lied.

Edited by Omnivorous, : apparent


Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.

-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732–1799)

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by ringo, posted 01-22-2007 7:32 PM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by kuresu, posted 01-22-2007 11:34 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 647 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 231 of 301 (379114)
01-22-2007 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Omnivorous
01-22-2007 11:08 PM


Masochists, Judas, and Rob??
your liar! you judas! (i think that's the line, quite possibly not, though). But that's okay.. Rob said he was gone, leaving us to "reap what we've sown", and he was going to stop having pity on us (or something like that. again. not even 2 days later he's back.

I guess deep down, we're all masochistic.


Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Omnivorous, posted 01-22-2007 11:08 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 301 (379117)
01-23-2007 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object
01-22-2007 6:23 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
You should admit, PaulK.

Evening, Ray. You left off the part where you specifically named "Dan Carroll" as someone who said that anyone who does not agree with him is mentally ill.

I'm sure that, since you are an extraordinarily honest and sane person, about whom nothing bad can be said, this simply slipped your mind. So I'm politely reminding you of your civic duty to point out where I said, or even implied, "anyone who does not agree with me is mentally ill."


"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert
This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 6:23 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 233 of 301 (379122)
01-23-2007 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Clark
01-22-2007 10:21 PM


From randomly selected posts by Randman at IIDB:

Both are false accusations, and I am not surprised. Evolutionists appear to need to rely on false accusations and lies, which doesn't apeak highly of them having real data to back up their claims.

It is quite clear, as is the fact that many of you resort to ridicule and lies to avoid a rational discussion of what you beleive and the evidence

Because your arguments are weak, and you fear admitting to them completely. You have to overstate, deny plain facts, etc,...or many of you kind of freak out.

isn't this, uh, exactly what we are saying of randman? i've always found it highly ironic debating with randman in the past. he is about the worst case of projection i have ever met -- everything we find infuriating about him (his lack of ability to see the obvious, his ridicule and distortions to avoid debate, etc) are all verbatim his complains about evos. he seems to just see everything completely bass ackwards.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Clark, posted 01-22-2007 10:21 PM Clark has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2007 2:48 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14920
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 234 of 301 (379144)
01-23-2007 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by RAZD
01-22-2007 9:04 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
quote:

I would say there are four possible categories for denial of evidence - borrowed heavily from Dawkin's comment on evolution:

(1) lack of ability to understand the evidence (stupid),
(2) lack of {background\education\knowledge\etc} to understand the evidence (ignorant),
(3) malignant intentional deception (lying) - the creatortionista types on so many websites, and
(4) belief that the evidence is wrong (delusion).

Often there are mixes between these categories.


So lets consider the particular example I used earlier. Randman insists that an essay says one thing when it explictly says the oppoiste - and continues to do so after it has been pointed out.

It's not stupidity. He can read.
It's not lack of education
It might be lying
It's not really covered by a belief that they evidence is wrong.

I suspect that two factors are involved. Firstly many creationists don't seem to feel the need to know what they are talking about - so in the original instance I think that randman didn't do more than skim the essay (NJ clearly did this with the NYT article he wrongly attacked in the OP of "The Future of Marriage" thread). Then there comes an absolute stubborn refusal to admit to the existence of arguments that refute a claim that they have made. I consider this a form of delusion but it's not really a belief that the evidence is wrong - it's a refusal to admit that the evidence even exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2007 9:04 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2007 8:51 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 246 by arachnophilia, posted 01-23-2007 10:42 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14920
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 235 of 301 (379145)
01-23-2007 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object
01-22-2007 6:23 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
quote:

You are left with two choices:

1. Admit

or

2. Lie some more and insult everyones intelligence.

You should admit, PaulK.


No, I have another alternative. I can tell the truth. I can trust that the readers here have the intelligence to see that your quote does not prove your claim. The quote doesn't say that I'm talking about simple disagreement - it doesn't say WHAT I consider evidence of mental illness at all. Because you cut it out. The mere fact that you chose to remove necessary context is enough for any intelligent reader to distrust your claim even if they choose not to investigate - why would you leave out the evidence needed to support your case ? The obvious answer is that the evidence refutes your case - and if they do follow the link to investigate that is exactly what they will find.

If you bother to read Message 175 you can see that I provided a clear example of the sort of thing that I meant:


I faced Randman arguing that an essay on talkorigins.org claimed that universal common descent was a fact when it explicitly said that universal common descent should not be considered a fact. And Randman continued blustering and arguing long after it was pointed out.

If you read Message 172 - more context - you can see even more ( a short quote, read the whole thing)


It's these amazingly blatant examples [of falsehood - PAK] I'm talking about, because they do happen. And it's so paradoxically impossible to get anyone to believe that it's happening.

So the evidence establsihes that I did not refer to simple disagreement. I referred to blatant falsehoods - so blatant that I described them in Message 171 (more relevant context !) as


...the sort of a falsehood so blatant that a liar wouldn't try it

So we just have to establish what is going in in your case. Does the fact that you deliberately removed the evidence mean that you know what you are doing and are lying ? Or is the insult to the intelligence of your readers so blatant that you couldn't possibly believe that you would get away with it.

At this point - if you were a "reasonable and rational person" you would apologise and gracefully resign from the group. But then a "reasonable and rational" person wouldn't have got themselves into such an embarassing fix in the first place. So I suspect that you will just go on repeating your false accusation even after the clear disproof that I have provided.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 6:23 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14920
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 236 of 301 (379146)
01-23-2007 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by arachnophilia
01-23-2007 12:26 AM


In my experience it is very common to see creationists indulging in projection. It's almost as if it's OK to do something wrong if you pretend that someone else is really doing it. (Which is sort of ironic given the Christian view of what happens to an unrepentant sinner).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by arachnophilia, posted 01-23-2007 12:26 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2128 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 237 of 301 (379147)
01-23-2007 3:34 AM


Nest-messers
When someone keeps crapping in your nest (EVC), you either force them to wear diapers (Showcase) till they cure their behavior, or boot them out of the nest for good.

To take the load (and the mud-slinging) for decisions off the Admins, how about one member nominating the crapper for banning. A further nine votes in favour (ten sounds like a nice round number)and within say, a month, means he/she are out permanently.

In the spirit of democracy, if the potential departee can raise an equal number of votes (ten--within a month), the decision is rescinded.

I hope votes will be decided on whether said crapper is of benefit to EVC and not decided on party lines.:D


Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Wounded King, posted 01-23-2007 4:32 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded
 Message 247 by Buzsaw, posted 01-23-2007 10:56 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2229 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 238 of 301 (379154)
01-23-2007 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Nighttrain
01-23-2007 3:34 AM


Re: Nest-messers
I hope votes will be decided on whether said crapper is of benefit to EVC and not decided on party lines.

Except in the most egregious cases I don't really see any sort of bipartisan consensus being likely. And given the disparity in numbers between the evos and the antis I think it would be pretty much impossible to avoid the appearance of rampant bias. Of course we apparently can't avoid that appearance anyway in many IDist/creationists view, but I think your proposed system would make it worse if anything.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Nighttrain, posted 01-23-2007 3:34 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 239 of 301 (379166)
01-23-2007 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Cold Foreign Object
01-22-2007 4:17 PM


Dr Adequate and CK haved been banned. I protest: these persons should not be banned.

AdminModulous is drunk on "power" and should be relieved of his duties. He makes no sense and seems to be the stereotypical college type kid attempting to impress his older Darwinian handlers who have taken him in at the expense of EvC patrons.

Hi Ray, thanks for your criticism of my moderator actions, though I feel it is somewhat unconstructive. First, however, a clarification:

I did not suspend Dr A. I specifically stated that I would have done, but AdminBuz had given him a final chance. I suspended Omni and CK. Omni has gracefully accepted the suspension. Do you have a specific criticism of the CK suspension? I would be keen to hear it.

What is it that I have said that does not make sense? Perhaps I can reword or re-express it so that it makes sense to you?

I have been an Admin for some time now - are you suggesting that on the whole my actions have been at the expense of EvC patrons, or merely that my latest actions have been at the expense of EvC patrons? What about those actions have been at the expense of said patrons?

I would appreciate any constructive feedback any of the posters have, but there is little I can learn from what you have written here. Would you like to expand your reasoning, perhaps for the betterment of EvC patrons, or are you content merely to have aired your opinion on the matter?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 4:17 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by CK, posted 01-23-2007 9:55 AM AdminModulous has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 240 of 301 (379173)
01-23-2007 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by PaulK
01-23-2007 2:17 AM


Re: What would you have us do?
so in the original instance I think that randman didn't do more than skim the essay (NJ clearly did this with the NYT article he wrongly attacked in the OP of "The Future of Marriage" thread).

So it is partly ignorance, whether intentional or not.

It might be lying
It's not really covered by a belief that they evidence is wrong.

When it gets to the level that the evidence MUST be wrong then any evidence otherwise is ignored -- see above re skimming: another possibility is that they read it but it didn't register because it conflicted with their predisposed view of what it SHOULD say.

I consider this a form of delusion but it's not really a belief that the evidence is wrong - it's a refusal to admit that the evidence even exists.

And I agree that this behavior is not rational. This is part of why I brought up fanatical, because of the "broken record" behavior.

But the question is also where this behavior comes from, and it starts with being deluded by the falsehoods of others, whether family or "trusted preachers and teachers". It starts with misunderstanding & misrepresentations.

It's not stupidity. He can read.
It's not lack of education

I can read too, and I have several degrees, but I'm not sure I can fully understand quantum mechanics because of that. What you have learned flavors what you can understand.

Personally I think it is the fanaticism that is the cause for being "showcased" not the beliefs per se, or else all fundamentalists would be showcased: if Fred Phelps posted here he would be showcased.

For that and throwing feces.

Thanks.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2007 2:17 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2007 9:48 AM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 245 by arachnophilia, posted 01-23-2007 10:35 AM RAZD has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019