I endorse everything Nij says. I would have posted the exact same things, but it takes time to carefully compose such condensations.
Unfortunately Adminnemooseus and I are the only active moderators in the science threads right now, and since I'm one of the primary participants I cannot moderate in that thread. Adminnemooseus closed the thread at one point for being off topic, but I reopened it in my role as Admin because as a participant I knew that it was off topic in appearance only.
I think the thread is still on topic. It is trying to discuss whether ICR is teaching science or religious apologetics, but it looks like the thread is off-topic because we've digressed into trying to figure out what Dawn Bertot is saying. I think if Dawn can be encouraged to clarify what he is trying to say that the thread can then return to discussing whether what he's talking about is science, and if it is, whether that is what ICR is teaching. But it all depends upon whether Adminnemooseus is willing to try moderating the thread.
I admit I was confused about the distinction, too, so maybe if I give my understanding of it now it will help clarify.
The originator of the Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 thread points to what look like contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 and asks participants to assume, for the sake of discussion, that the contradictions are real. He then asks for a discussion about whether the contradictions call the inerrancy of the Bible into question.
Some frustration is beginning to spill over in the Why are there no human apes alive today? thread. Mazzy is ignoring most rebuttals and just repeating his favorite points. The discussion isn't moving forward at all.
Here's an example from my own recent experience. Mazzy first stated that Linnaean taxonomy was based upon ancestry in Message 428:
Percy the Linneaus system is based on the concept of ancestry.
This is a simple error, easy to correct, and I did so in Message 445, stating that it was based upon morphology and providing a couple quotes from Wikipedia. But there was no reply, and then in Message 480 Mazzy repeats the exact same error:
You mean your Linneaus system that presumes ancestry...
I can probably come up with 4 or 5 more examples of ignoring rebuttals just from my own responses to Mazzy, and many of the other participants can probably name 4 or 5 of their own examples.
Mazzy is responding to only 1 out of 4 messages. By no means can he be expected to reply to all messages, not even most, but a good part of the reason his ratio is so out of whack is because the other participants have to keep repeating the points he ignores, and there are a lot them. Some of the other participants are beginning to post rhetorical responses like, "Are you even reading what anybody writes?" and so on.
Mazzy is courteous and sincere for the most part, but as far as actually discussing anything, meh! The responses he gets serve only to provide a reply button for him to use to repeat what he keeps repeating yet again.
Characterizing every fallacy and misbehavior Mazzy is engaging in would take too much time, so I'll just point to Message 650, a post composed by Nuggin while rightfully very frustrated.
I suppose in capsule form Mazzy could be described as posting nonsense and non sequiturs while ignoring the responses and many corrections. He never quotes anything anyone says. It almost seems that to him the only significance of a response is that it provides a reply button to click.
Mazzy sincerely and strongly believes those he's debating with are wrong, he seeks out links to support his position (though the links are almost always accompanied only by bare assertions rather any argument or presentatoin of evidence), and he's mostly polite and courteous, but since he is very unfamiliar with the process of connecting data to conclusions I don't know what really can be done beyond following the suggestion of a few people to narrow the focus to one or at most a few things at a time.
I'm also a programmer and we can have an error in our own program that we cannot see, but as soon as someone else looks at it the error jumps right out at them. It's the same with proofreading ourselves. The only technique I have found to be at all effective is to read what we wrote out loud, word for word, even if it's still only inside our head.
If you set the code aside for a month or two (which happens not infrequently because of short-term emergencies) then the errors stand out later.