Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total)
63 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (3 members, 60 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,114 Year: 4,226/6,534 Month: 440/900 Week: 146/150 Day: 16/23 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 256 of 312 (438162)
12-03-2007 6:49 AM


Discussions Closed
The moderation concerns in the Atheism and Logic threads have been resolved to the best of our ability.

Since the discussions concerning moderation in these threads have ceased to concern moderation, it is time for those discussions to close.

Thanks
AdminPD


Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 312 (438228)
12-03-2007 1:50 PM


Admin's Nosy suggestion on the Fired Teacher thread.
I wrote a long message on the thread "Teacher Fired for Disagreeing With Literal Interpretation of Bible". Evidently NosyNed wrote his warning while I was writing, so I didn't see it until I posted. (Not that it's much of an excuse, since I admit that I knew it was off-topic.) I promptly hid most of my message when I saw Ned's warning, except for the part about Beretta being continually off-topic, and digressing further with each subsequent post.

In response, AdminNosy suggested:

quote:
Why don't you help even more by actually stating a topic for Beretta?

Probably a good suggesting, but any suggestions for a topic? Beretta brought up several and I'm not sure which one he would most like to talk about.

Added by edit:

Actually, I do have an idea (evolution and morality), but it'll be a bit before I can compose it. Anyone can still offer suggestions, though.

Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.


Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2279 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 258 of 312 (438500)
12-04-2007 11:02 PM


Why is NJ suspended?
what

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by kuresu, posted 12-05-2007 12:03 AM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action
 Message 261 by Taz, posted 12-05-2007 11:16 AM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1744 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 259 of 312 (438504)
12-05-2007 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Cold Foreign Object
12-04-2007 11:02 PM


Re: Why is NJ suspended?
you'll have to ask him. It seems he suspended himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-04-2007 11:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 312 (438565)
12-05-2007 10:48 AM


Boo PD
:mad:

Whoa, that thing looks mad. I'm not that mad.

I'm just disappointed that AdminPD shat all over this thread.

Sure, we were not strictly on the topic (although we were close), but I was enjoying the discussions and felt like we were actually "getting somewhere". I was really interested in reading the answers to the serious questions in my post.

Now, however, its all over. Admin PD sprayed her graffiti and the discussin must cease.

I feel like I got Moosed.

I guess its really no big deal, I just want to express my dissatisfaction with that moderation.

Whoopty-frickin-doo if we're a little off the topic when the discussion is going good and actually getting somewhere.

Is it really that big of a deal?


Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by imageinvisible, posted 12-06-2007 2:34 AM New Cat's Eye has taken no action
 Message 264 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2007 2:30 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

Taz
Member (Idle past 2522 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 261 of 312 (438575)
12-05-2007 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Cold Foreign Object
12-04-2007 11:02 PM


Re: Why is NJ suspended?
CFO writes:

Why is NJ suspended?


It was an evolutionist conspiracy. All the evolutionist admins pressured him into suspending himself.


Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-04-2007 11:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by kuresu, posted 12-05-2007 12:06 PM Taz has taken no action

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1744 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 262 of 312 (438594)
12-05-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Taz
12-05-2007 11:16 AM


Re: Why is NJ suspended?
thank you for agreeing with him. That would mean he is now wrong (or would he still be right since I disagree?).

CFO, your "logic" is truly a wonder to behold.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Taz, posted 12-05-2007 11:16 AM Taz has taken no action

imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 5149 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 263 of 312 (438744)
12-06-2007 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by New Cat's Eye
12-05-2007 10:48 AM


Re: Boo PD
HA! Its almost worth getting suspended for BUT YOU LOSE CATHOLIC.
A CRAWLS ON FOUR LEGS FLYING INSECT http://www.insecta-inspecta.com/mantids/praying/index.html :p THE WORD OF GOD IS INFALABLE. BUT I STILL LOVE YOU.

{edit. I take that back. It will be worth getting suspended for.}

*Heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of the Lord endurith forever.*

OFF TOPIC! This thread is restricted to discussing moderation procedures. Anyone disrupting this process may lose access to this forum until the situation is resolved. Posts not addressing moderation procedures may be rendered invisible.

Edited by imageinvisible, : spelling

Edited by imageinvisible, : see edit

Edited by imageinvisible, : added text *

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning - Use the peek button to view hidden contents.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2007 10:48 AM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

RAZD
Member (Idle past 636 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 264 of 312 (440312)
12-12-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by New Cat's Eye
12-05-2007 10:48 AM


Moosed

I feel like I got Moosed.

Yeah, I know how you feel.

Message 44 was edited by moose bleeding red all over it.

I want to know what part of:

quote:
Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are two theories of evolution -- yours and mine. We'll call yours Newflyerolution and we'll call mine RAZDolution.

We'll assume for the sake of argument that your "(insert creationist assertion here)" is a valid observation, and it totally disproves Newflyerolution (or at least so you claim). The problem is that it does not disprove RAZDolution, because RAZDolution doesn't depend on the "(insert creationist assertion here)" problem to study biology (I leave that to the physicists, chemists and others that deal with this issue). What is RAZDolution? The theory that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - explains what we see in life that exists today. Life can be a little as 100 years old and RAZDolution is still valid. Now we can compare RAZDolution with standard evolution as taught in universities and as studied by scientists and find that it is a good match.

What this demonstrates is that your understanding of evolution is invalid, not that evolution is invalid.


Is not about evolution.

I then provided a redirection of the poster to a site to learn about his PRATT du jour without discussing it at all, and closed with:

quote:
Notice that they do not talk about evolution or biology.

In other words specifically pointing out that the issue of the PRATT had nothing to do with evolution, even though newflyer OBVIOUSLY thought so and needed to be told otherwise.

How does that NOT relate to evolution?

Maybe I should use red for the background of all my posts ...

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : merryxmas


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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 260 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2007 10:48 AM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-13-2007 4:23 AM RAZD has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3957
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 265 of 312 (440428)
12-13-2007 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by RAZD
12-12-2007 2:30 PM


Re: Moosed
The following is the entire part of the message that I red highlighted and commented on:

The foremost and most recent one is the helium leak rate.

Oh, you are a fun one aren't you? Here's an intellectual excercise:

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are two theories of evolution -- yours and mine. We'll call yours Newflyerolution and we'll call mine RAZDolution.

We'll assume for the sake of argument that your "helium leak rate" is a valid observation, and it totally disproves Newflyerolution (or at least so you claim). The problem is that it does not disprove RAZDolution, because RAZDolution doesn't depend on the "helium" problem to study biology (I leave that to the physicists, chemists and others that deal with this issue). What is RAZDolution? The theory that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - explains what we see in life that exists today. Life can be a little as 100 years old and RAZDolution is still valid. Now we can compare RAZDolution with standard evolution as taught in universities and as studied by scientists and find that it is a good match.

What this demonstrates is that your understanding of evolution is invalid, not that evolution is invalid.

What I find hilarious is that in Message 19 you replied that "no one is 'bobble headed' ... " and then you go on and post a series of PRATTs from creationist websites that you accept without question as being true ... when they turn out to be known falsehoods from creationist sites, well know as being PRATTs (see example #2 on the list of 4 they give).

For instance search this site for "helium":

Index to Creationist Claims

and find the following listed:

quote:
CE: Astronomy and Cosmology
  • CE000: Earth
    ....• CE001. There is not enough helium in the atmosphere for an old earth.
  • And then from the link to Claim CE001:

    quote:
    Claim CE001:

    The radioactive decay of several elements produces helium, which migrates to the atmosphere. There is too little helium in the atmosphere to account for the amount that would have been produced in 4.5 billion years. Escape of helium into space is not sufficient to account for the lack.


    You can read the article to see why this is not a problem. Notice that they do not talk about evolution or biology.

    {Inserted by edit by Adminnemooseus - The above highlighted in red is off-topic. It not only does not belong in this topic, it does not belong in this forum (Biological Evolution). Someone take it to a proper place, if that line of discussion is to continue.}

    I wanted to do something without blowing a lot of time on the effort. Essentially I was trying to head off "Helium diffusion" from becoming a further part of the topic. In all, a heavily blotched effort on my part. My apologies.

    Adminnemooseus


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 264 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2007 2:30 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 268 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2007 2:30 PM Adminnemooseus has taken no action

    Nimrod
    Member (Idle past 4147 days)
    Posts: 277
    Joined: 06-22-2006


    Message 266 of 312 (441312)
    12-17-2007 2:12 AM


    IamJoseph hijacking threads.
    Everytime he hears the term "Palestine" as a neutral term for the land (which is a scholarly convention) , he dirupts every thread with off topic crap.

    He has not only refused to shut up on one thread he saturated with crap against Palestinians , but is now starting all over again on another thread.

    Is that clown really worth loosing productive discussion over? (Im sure he has actually cost this site many good posters too!)

    Its the Israel and Juduah in History and Tradition thread in Bible Accuracy.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 267 by AdminPD, posted 12-17-2007 5:57 AM Nimrod has taken no action

    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 267 of 312 (441342)
    12-17-2007 5:57 AM
    Reply to: Message 266 by Nimrod
    12-17-2007 2:12 AM


    Re: IamJoseph hijacking threads.
    I recommend you respectfully explain to IAJ how you are using the term Palestine as a neutral term. Once you do that, if he continues to disrupt contrary to your use of Palestine, then we have a stronger reason to act.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 266 by Nimrod, posted 12-17-2007 2:12 AM Nimrod has taken no action

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 636 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 268 of 312 (441990)
    12-19-2007 2:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 265 by Adminnemooseus
    12-13-2007 4:23 AM


    Re-open with topic statement
    Thanks for closing Evolution and the BIG LIE when I asked.

    I do want to discuss the issue on the thread, but want to keep it from running off-topic (particularly in response to creationists trying to avoid the issues).

    Could we reopen it with a statement that:

    The issue of the opening post was whether we could use this definition for evolution:

    Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation

    Or at least acknowledge that this can be used as a working definition for the sake of the argument to see what develops from it.

    It was to set a foundation for further discussion, not to discuss examples of evolution or what could or could not happen - that will be covered later.

    The consensus appeared to be yes, so we moved on to part 2.

    The issue of Part 2 was whether we could use this definition for a "Theory of Evolution":

    A Theory of Evolution is that all the diversity of life is explained by a synthesis of validated theories on how hereditary traits in populations change from generation to generation.

    Or at least acknowledge that this can be used as a working definition for the sake of the argument to see what develops from it.

    Again, it was to develop a foundation for further discussion, not to engage in discussions of examples of evolution or what could or could not happen - that will (still) be covered later - in part 3.

    We never got to that consensus and this topic is being reopened so that can be done.

    Part 3 will be examples of how this theory applies to some evidence to show that it works in those cases. At that point we can discuss examples where people think the theory above cannot explain the diversity of life, and whether this is due to contradictory evidence or just absence of evidence.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Feel free to copy this for reopening.

    Thanks again.

    Edited by RAZD, : a instead of the theory


    Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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 265 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-13-2007 4:23 AM Adminnemooseus has taken no action

    Replies to this message:
     Message 269 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-19-2007 2:35 PM RAZD has taken no action

    macaroniandcheese 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3159 days)
    Posts: 4258
    Joined: 05-24-2004


    Message 269 of 312 (441991)
    12-19-2007 2:35 PM
    Reply to: Message 268 by RAZD
    12-19-2007 2:30 PM


    Re: Re-open with topic statement
    is there a reason that had to be so blinding? a simple qs would have been sufficient.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 268 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2007 2:30 PM RAZD has taken no action

    GDR
    Member (Idle past 183 days)
    Posts: 5410
    From: Sidney, BC, Canada
    Joined: 05-22-2005


    Message 270 of 312 (442079)
    12-19-2007 11:05 PM


    I was just looking at that Science Disproves Evolution thread.

    You actually have a brand new, living breathing creationist on the site. So what happens? Great excitement because everyone wants a shot at him. Already he has 4 different responders.

    There are so few creationists on the site that just maybe when one comes along it would be more constructive to let him/her debate with one person at least for the first part of the thread.


    Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.1
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022