quote:You dont think a warning would have been nice?
Or maybe a comment on one of the failed proposed threads that I was doing something wrong?
Or maybe a list of the proposed new topic rules that I can get get banned for breaking?
So when I told you it was unconscionable to throw 7 threads at one member, you didn't get the idea you were doing something less than desirable?
When I told you, that you didn't really have subject matter in the thread for others to debate, you didn't get a hint your actions were undesirable?
The fact that you didn't seem to understand you weren't really presenting a viable topic is probably what sparked Adminnemooseus' actions.
When the rules say start a new thread, it means make a reasonable presentation that all can participate in unless you want a Great Debate.
Putting out the equivalent of "Oh yea? Prove it" doesn't make a good start for a topic. You also have to realize that the moderators have been around a bit and watched which types of threads move and which ones don't. We may decide to let one through to see what happens.
One concerning IAJ already went out and it didn't bear any fruit. You should have watched to see what happened with that thread before dumping similar threads in the PNT.
quote:Just say something like - there is an unspoken set of rules with regards to new topic proposals here, I know that the rules state to start a new topic when you want to discuss a new topic, but I doubt this will bear fruit. Keep in mind that if a new member starts many new topics that we do not consider to be alligned with the flow of our forum, they can be banned from starting new topics.
Each new member that comes in is a new personality for the moderators to understand. Just as you are learning about the site we are learning about you.
We've learned that the kindest of words can still annoy some people and that warnings go unheeded.
Timeouts, restrictions, or bannings are a universal way of getting someone's attention.
Now you know, you may get a warning and you may not. It all depends on the situation. We try to use our common sense, just as we ask you to. Sometimes we don't have time to see if you get the hint.
This would have been an effective way to deal with his Gish Gallops.
I will have to bring this up when I get suspended for wandering off topic to further discuss his claims that are off topic when he makes them in future. Message 71
No it would not have been an effective way to deal with the issue. Here's a hint: those who make copious off topic claims don't usually defend them in another thread. It is your responsibility not to go off topic. You just have to let those issues go.
Just remember this is a debate forum. The topic is the issue, not erroneous claims that are off topic; and not every erroneous claim can be turned into a good topic starter.
So now you know and I shouldn't see you go off topic in threads chasing erroneous claims; and I can expect your next PNT request to be well thought out, full of substance, and eloquently written.
quote:This, IMO, shows me how much leeway the religious get, regardless how much they want to throw the persecution complex card.
Cry me a river. Good grief!
Both sides get away with a lot of crap.
If IAJ or anyone else is off topic, DON'T RESPOND! If IAJ or anyone else doesn't make sense, DON'T RESPOND!
How hard is that?
In one case IAJ started on topic, but someone had to pick the one off topic comment out of the post and try to correct it. Then it went amuck.
How many times have we asked people to stop the useless one liners? Both sides.
This is a debate forum, not a correct-every-wrong-thought-or-fact forum.
A debate is a discussion involving opposing viewpoints of a specific topic. Notice the bold part. Specific Topic
How many times do we have to hear from some of those who are religion free that they feel religion is stupid? If it isn't the point of the topic, get over it.
How many times do we hear from some of the religious that unless one believes a specific way they will go to hell? If it isn't the point of the topic, get over it.
We are guests on this board and the owner has rules.
I like the rubber dart post.
A Request It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots.
In the Republican thread. IAJ's first post was basically on topic. After your response, his answer was baffling to say the least. Two others responded to that nonsense and kept the ball rolling off topic. Why? No one wants to hang up first?
Why respond to a post that is off topic? Why respond to a post that seems incoherent?
This goes for both sides. Neither side is immune from the "holier than thou" attitude.
If people want to help? Stop the useless wisecracking oneliners that don't move a discussion forward. Stop responding to off topic posts or even off topic portions of an on topic post. Stop responding to incoherent posts.
We are guests. Put our best foot forward, not our worst. IOW, try to keep our own bumper free of rubber darts.
Participants aren't necessarily trying to come to a mutual understanding.
The problem with the academic debate model is that it assumes that both "debaters" are fully rational, emotionally detached human beings that are trying to come to some sort of mutual understanding or settlement in the most efficient and correct way possible. I can count on one hand how many debates like that I've managed to be a part of; most people can safely set the count at precisely zero, since both sides have to cooperate and very few people are emotionally capable of detached debate at all. (Note that "emotionally detached" does not mean "not emotional"; I get emotional about many issues such as "abortion", but that does not mean that in the debate I let my emotions, such as anger at my opponent, frustration, etc., play out in the debate in the form of insults, slurs, intellectually dishonest accusations, etc. Not that I'm perfect but I do try.) The Metaphor Rant
The side that is offended or annoyed wants the other side banned or moderated.
A common assumption is that the more trivial a debate topic is the less passionate the debate will be. So, a debate about Presidential policy may lead to insults flying back and forth, but a discussion over teen literature will be tame and respectful. This is a logical belief. It is also horribly, horribly wrong. The topic of a debate has absolutely no bearing on the tone of it. If, for example, you feel that government run healthcare is a good thing, you will be called a communist; if you believe that The Backstreet Boys are a better band than N*Sync you will be called a communist child molesting faggot. No matter what you believe in at least one guy you encounter online will think you are the worst person to have ever existed. (My bold) Internet Debates
Those who enjoy the battle will continue to feed the "trolls".
On the Internet, rational and well thought out statements are scorned in favour of ridiculous hyperboles and personal attacks. Internet Debates
If you choose to feed the trolls or trollishness, don't whine when they don't appreciate the tidbits.
quote:The reason remains that I'm not allowed in science, that I kick too much evo butt in them. Admin always sees to it that any effective threat to his own must be run off, no matter what it takes.
What Admin is trying to get you to do is understand what constitutes scientific evidence, not Biblicist evidence.
One also needs to understand the difference between evidence and inference. Evidence is an outward sign, something that furnishes proof. Inferences we should derive from facts, not from guesses.
In my simplistic understanding, evidence is something we can prove and inference is a conclusion we can draw from that which has already been proven (evidence). Theories are inferences.
IMO, a prophecy is a theory (inference) as to how the future will play out. So if one's contention is that Prophecy A has played out as described by the writer, then one has the task of showing the facts (not inferences) that support that contention.
Now the owner of this board has made it clear that on the science side of the board, the rules of science are to be followed. So when you contend that a prophecy is no longer a theory on the science side of this board you must play by the rules of science.
That means that if a Biblicist wants to show scientists or science minded individuals that a prophecy is no longer theory, then the Biblicist needs to use scientific evidence to make their case. This is the difference that Admin is trying to get you to understand. Biblicist evidence isn't going to make the cut on the science side.
Inferences are not evidence and Biblicists evidence is not necessarily scientific evidence.
If you want to play the game, you need to play by the rules. Besides, if you could actually make your case based on the rules of science, the impact would be much more impressive.
Bottom line: This is a privately owned board and as guests we should respect the owner's preferences.
As Paul supposedly said:
5 Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person. (Colossians 4:5-6)
Respectfully, you need to continue working out your evidence issues with Admin, not whining to the membership.