Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8950 total)
44 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 40 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,364 Year: 22,400/19,786 Month: 963/1,834 Week: 33/430 Day: 33/63 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 312 (442150)
12-20-2007 10:37 AM


brenna bitching out

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by AdminSchraf, posted 12-20-2007 5:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 515 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 272 of 312 (442281)
12-20-2007 5:31 PM


Catholic Scientist needs some consequences
CS attacked Brenna with a very personal, abusive ad hominem in Message #253 of the IUD thread.

I'd suspend him myself but I'm participating in the thread.


Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by anglagard, posted 12-20-2007 5:42 PM nator has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 273 of 312 (442292)
12-20-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by nator
12-20-2007 5:31 PM


Re: Catholic Scientist needs some consequences
I agree, the level of abuse was uncalled for. I think Brenna deserves an apology at minimum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by nator, posted 12-20-2007 5:31 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 5:58 PM anglagard has not yet responded

AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 312 (442308)
12-20-2007 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by New Cat's Eye
12-20-2007 10:37 AM


Re: brenna bitching out
quote:
It is totally uncalled for, for brenna to tell me what I think when she is so far from it.

Stop whining.

If you think she's wrong, you have several options that are within the forum rules. You can ignore her, or you can explain how she is wrong in a well-reasoned, non-abusive manner.

You've been here far too long to be in any doubt of the forum guidelines, so I shouldn't have to tell you that you were totally and completely out of line.

You chose to act the boor, and I expect you will suffer the consequences. I can't suspend you becasue I am actively posting in that thread, but I sure wish I could.

Edited by AdminSchraf, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-20-2007 10:37 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2007 6:53 PM AdminSchraf has not yet responded

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 986 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 275 of 312 (442311)
12-20-2007 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by anglagard
12-20-2007 5:42 PM


Re: Catholic Scientist needs some consequences
An apology at the very least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by anglagard, posted 12-20-2007 5:42 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 276 of 312 (442338)
12-20-2007 6:48 PM


AdminNosy: "Delusional"
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=52#52 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=52#52">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=52#52

What exactly is "delusional"?

I actually replied to the OP and did not derail. If you say the pro-creationist element of my responses are "delusional" then you are deciding what the creationist view is, and that my view is not the creationist view.

Apparently you are ajudicating a personal vendetta under color of Moderation since there is nothing delusional in my post.

This is a classic example of a evolutionist Moderator protecting an injured evolutionist who is being taken to the cleaners. My posts anger you because they make perfect sense; in response you slander them and threaten to ban me for holding the creationist view.

Objective persons know you are just an angry evolutionist unable to obtain any intellectual satisfaction on your enemy.

Ray


Silent H
Member (Idle past 4164 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 277 of 312 (442340)
12-20-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by AdminSchraf
12-20-2007 5:56 PM


crash...
If you think she's wrong, you have several options that are within the forum rules. You can ignore her, or you can explain how she is wrong in a well-reasoned, non-abusive manner. You've been here far too long to be in any doubt of the forum guidelines, so I shouldn't have to tell you that you were totally and completely out of line.

Really, well the same could be said for Crashfrog in this post #69...

Oh, fuck you and your personal attacks, Holmes.

Certainly he's been around long enough to know the rules.

Mod was in the thread so he can't do anything. But maybe you can suspend him and get me an apology?

Just kidding. I can take it. But I do think its odd who gets whacked for saying what. I never know what's legitimate commentary around here.


h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by AdminSchraf, posted 12-20-2007 5:56 PM AdminSchraf has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-20-2007 7:05 PM Silent H has responded
 Message 283 by nator, posted 12-21-2007 5:20 PM Silent H has responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 278 of 312 (442346)
12-20-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Silent H
12-20-2007 6:53 PM


Re: crash...
Certainly he's been around long enough to know the rules.

Mod was in the thread so he can't do anything. But maybe you can suspend him and get me an apology?

Just kidding. I can take it. But I do think its odd who gets whacked for saying what. I never know what's legitimate commentary around here.

Crashfrog cannot ever get truly whacked since he is the darling of this forum. Evolutionists run this place and that gives them the right to be biased. The point is that the evolutionist, if you notice, cannot take his own medicine. Anyone who is angry enough to assert that apes morphed into men over millions of years is certainly capable of excessive bias. I suspect this is the real reason why Creationists and Designists boycott this forum.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2007 6:53 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2007 7:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 282 by anglagard, posted 12-21-2007 12:09 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4164 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 279 of 312 (442350)
12-20-2007 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Cold Foreign Object
12-20-2007 7:05 PM


Re: crash...
Crashfrog cannot ever get truly whacked since he is the darling of this forum.

Hey, that's what he always says about me! Though I don't swear at people... and I'm sure I wouldn't get away with it if I did.

Evolutionists run this place and that gives them the right to be biased.

Just to let you know I do believe in evolution. To be honest, I think you guys get the short end of the stick sometimes, but not always. I find Phat, Nem, Moose, and PD to be decent moderators (and I think at least two support evolution). I'm sure there are others, but those guys I've seen giving consistently agreeable decisions.

I'm sad to hear Designists are boycotting the site. Those are the ones in particular I'd like to debate.


h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-20-2007 7:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2473 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 280 of 312 (442359)
12-20-2007 7:49 PM


It's a fair cop!

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 281 of 312 (442386)
12-20-2007 11:52 PM


Question for Admin(s) or Director(s)
I would like permission to talk to RAZD about his stipulated definition of evolution. I need permission because AdminNosy has told me not to post in that topic.

I only want to understand RAZDs proposition. I think I do, and I think I can show him some errors in his stipulated proposition, which, if you read the OP, is attempting to portray Creationists as lying about evolution, when in fact we do not need to lie about evolution.

RAZD in OP writes:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=1#1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=1#1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=798&m=1#1

The big lie is what creationists say about evolution, that evolution is a problem for creationist beliefs, that there is something else to evolution than the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation or that this is NOT evolution (but will they define what is?).

RAZD has stipulated a definition of evolutionary process, which is perfectly legitimate, as he has pointed out repeatedly. RAZD does not seem to understand that if microevolution, as defined by him or Darwin or any other evolutionist or creationist, has indeed occurred on this planet, then Creationism is falsified.

But his topic is about his stipulated definition and the pasted text in the blue box, and that is the parameters that I will observe.

RAZDs stipulated definition: "The scientific definitions from universities are consistent with the definition that evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation"

Ray


anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 282 of 312 (442389)
12-21-2007 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Cold Foreign Object
12-20-2007 7:05 PM


Re: crash...
Ray writes:

Crashfrog cannot ever get truly whacked since he is the darling of this forum.

I'm not so sure as they let me slide on this OT post Message 65

I would like to feel I am an equal opportunity poster, rest assured, if you, crash, or anyone else says something that IMO is utterly ridiculous concerning the value, classification, or dissemination of knowledge and I see it, I will hold that person to account.

As to the rest of what I consider your silly assertions, it appears others are dealing with that just fine. :)

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 AdminPD, : Warning


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-20-2007 7:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 515 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 283 of 312 (442568)
12-21-2007 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Silent H
12-20-2007 6:53 PM


Re: crash...
quote:
Just kidding. I can take it. But I do think its odd who gets whacked for saying what. I never know what's legitimate commentary around here.

Well, crash has been suspended for stuff like that in the past, and more than once.

I think the big difference in this particular case was that CS's post was just an abusive attack with no content whatsoever. He was obviously only interested in being mean and made no effort at all to correct brenna or discuss anything.

Crash, on the other hand, can pepper his very well-written, thoughtful posts with jabs, but he rarely just hauls off and clocks somebody with pure abuse. But, there's usually a lot of good stuff in those posts as well.

CS's post had no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2007 6:53 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2007 9:08 PM nator has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4164 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 284 of 312 (442870)
12-22-2007 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by nator
12-21-2007 5:20 PM


Re: crash...
I'll agree with you that CS's post was purely abusive, adding nothing to discourse. Though I would note Crash's post really wasn't much better.

I'll also agree that Crash can pepper otherwise well written posts with unnecessary vitriol. I'm not sure if good content excuses abusive language, but I get what you're saying and agree.

Like I said, I was just kidding. If swearing was allowed then I wouldn't have thought anything about it. That kind of stuff doesn't bother me, other than its not very useful. I was just surprised, given that I thought that was verboten around here, he didn't even get a verbal warning. And then to see to see CA get the whammy so quick and it suggested that CS owes brenna an apology... well okay then, I'd like mine! Heheheh.

Your point is noted, but then the rules might be made clearer. Is swearing allowed at all, or at others, given sufficient argument otherwise? You don't have to answer, just something to think about (and not just you, I'm not trying to single you out) in the future.


h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by nator, posted 12-21-2007 5:20 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by AdminNem, posted 12-23-2007 8:41 PM Silent H has not yet responded

AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 312 (443150)
12-23-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Silent H
12-22-2007 9:08 PM


Re: crash...
I'll agree with you that CS's post was purely abusive, adding nothing to discourse. Though I would note Crash's post really wasn't much better.

While I also agree, it is really ultimately a moot point. Your own quote (which I enjoy, btw) expresses why in many ways it might be worse.

If swearing was allowed then I wouldn't have thought anything about it. That kind of stuff doesn't bother me, other than its not very useful.

Expletives aren't allowed or disallowed in and of themselves. Its all about context. While somebody yelling "f***" to express their displeasure might be considered tasteless, it usually is allowed without any challenge. But when somebody yells at someone else, it is a different story.

I was just surprised, given that I thought that was verboten around here, he didn't even get a verbal warning. And then to see to see CA get the whammy so quick and it suggested that CS owes brenna an apology... well okay then, I'd like mine! Heheheh.

CS should have, and was, promptly suspended over his egregious use of ad hom. You are right to have been taken back by the lack of a warning given to Crash. I personally would have issued a warning, but I wouldn't have suspended him. I wasn't aware that he even said it, otherwise I would have.

Your point is noted, but then the rules might be made clearer. Is swearing allowed at all, or at others, given sufficient argument otherwise?

You're right. The rules are a bit subjective here. There seems to be no concrete guideline concerning it. However, it is my understanding that it expletives are only disallowed given the context of their usage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2007 9:08 PM Silent H has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019