Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 9:02 AM
28 online now:
jar, JonF (2 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,268 Year: 15,304/19,786 Month: 2,027/3,058 Week: 401/404 Day: 5/63 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 1043 (608928)
03-15-2011 11:05 AM


Hey idiots

I'm reminded of this thread:

Message 1

I was drunk...


Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by ringo, posted 03-15-2011 11:23 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 1043 (629940)
08-21-2011 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Buzsaw
08-21-2011 7:02 AM


Re: Buzsaw Banned From Biblically Related Threads
Hey Buz,

I tried to explain to you before how you misunderstand what evidence is and how to use it, but it didn't sink in. I don't care about any of the stuff you're calling the reasons that people are against you. You're just plain ol' wrong about what consititutes evidence and how it is supposed to be used. I'm just gonna repost what I said before, let me know what you're not getting:

quote:
how about refuting the corroborative evidence that I have cited rather than incessantly demanding more? If you can't empirically falsify what I have given, you can't truthfully say that I've supplied no supportive evidence for the Exodus.

You're doing it wrong, Buz.

Providing evidence for an event is not taking a story from the Bible, and then looking for pieces of evidence that would fit within that story if it were true.

You have to start with the evidence, and then show how it leads to a conclusion of the event happening.

Finding a chariot wheel in the sea isn't really corroborative evidence of the story from the Bible if it simply doesn't contadict it and happens to be lying in the spot you'd expect it to. You need to eliminate the possibility of coincidence for it to be evidence pointing to the event.Message 279


quote:
Reading the Exodus, interpreting the story, guessing at the location, and then finding a wheel...

The wheel is not supportive evidence that the Exodus happened. Its a post-hoc rationalization of something neat that you found.

If you're not eliminating other possibilities for the wheel then you're not supporting anything.


quote:
This, corroborated by so much other evidence descriptive of the flood account is significant supportive scientific evidence of the Exodus event as described in the Biblical record.

No, this is where you're wrong. Its a common misunderstanding. You're assuming causation from the correlation. You have not eliminated any other possibilities. It is a post hoc rationalization of something neat that you've found.

It is not scientific.

For example:
I thought I could control the weather with my dancing. I did a rain dance yesterday, and today it rained.

According to you, that would be supportive evidence of the legitimacy of my Rain Dance.

It is not.

I have not ruled out other possibilities as the cause of the rain.


Do you think that rain dancer would have corrobotive evidence that his Rain Dance works if it rains after he does the dance?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2011 7:02 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 1043 (631665)
09-02-2011 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Coyote
09-01-2011 8:46 PM


Re: Moderation problems
Moose, your moderation is getting increasingly erratic.
This is becoming a serious problem for this forum, and for me.

If it wasn't for the extremely superior software, I would have abandoned this board long ago simply because moose is such a jerk.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2011 8:46 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 1043 (631707)
09-02-2011 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by cavediver
09-02-2011 2:23 PM


Re: Any chance we can end the petty vindictive moderation...?
Any chance we can end the petty vindictive moderation...?

Nope.

"Vote with your feet"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by cavediver, posted 09-02-2011 2:23 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 520 of 1043 (663544)
05-25-2012 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 504 by foreveryoung
05-25-2012 12:39 AM


Re: Fyoungs posts of hate
I have already acknowledged my own rage. That is why I am able to clearly see that same rage in many of your self righteous, pompous asses.

But seriously, you're getting pissed off in real life because of an internet forum!?

This is the internets, man:

Perhaps you need some assistance:

None of this shit matters, dude. Calm down.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by foreveryoung, posted 05-25-2012 12:39 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 603 of 1043 (669794)
08-02-2012 11:45 PM


Moose Announces
People, I'm seeing a fair number of messages that pile up a bunch of (+) ratings. Would someone please start plugging some of these into the POTM topics. - Adminnemooseus

That ain't gonna work. If you weren't such a dick people might take your advice. Just sayin'


Replies to this message:
 Message 604 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-03-2012 2:07 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 605 of 1043 (669822)
08-03-2012 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 604 by Adminnemooseus
08-03-2012 2:07 AM


Re: Moose Announces
Oh darn, I should have created that announcement anonymously. Now people aren't going to post to the POTM topics because I suggested it. Might as well shut the POTM forum down.

No, that's dumb. People are still gonna post POTM's, its just not gonna be because of your announcement.

You can't be mean to a group of people and then turn around and ask them to do something. That don't work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-03-2012 2:07 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 628 of 1043 (670054)
08-08-2012 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 626 by PaulK
08-08-2012 9:48 AM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
It seems to me that I am clearly following this policy, and I cannot see your objection.

He's set up a conditional and you're countering that condition. Just assume its true for the sake of argument. If you can't, then just don't participate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 626 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 9:48 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 631 by arachnophilia, posted 08-08-2012 5:45 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 633 of 1043 (670097)
08-08-2012 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 631 by arachnophilia
08-08-2012 5:45 PM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
no, i don't think this is a particularly great way to run a debate board.

imagine, for a second, we had a thread that questioned, "creationists, why do you believe in a religion that tells you to eat puppies?" and then moderated all posts by creationists who argued that this is not what their religion says, because they were countering the conditional set in the OP? yeah, it'd be pretty silly.

exposing a flawed assumption is always a valid counterargument.

No, I feel you, but this was set-up as a special case. And a better analogy would be:

"Creationists, if your religion tells you to eat puppies, then is ketchup better than mustard?"

Or whatever, so long as its a conditional If-then. If you don't think your religions tells you to eat puppies, then the question doesn't apply to you.

In general you're right, but the mods specifically set this one so that it wouldn't get bogged down into that discusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 631 by arachnophilia, posted 08-08-2012 5:45 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 634 by arachnophilia, posted 08-08-2012 7:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 635 of 1043 (670111)
08-08-2012 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 634 by arachnophilia
08-08-2012 7:08 PM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
so the question was aimed at people who think the bible does not contain the 100% inerrant truth. paulk qualifies. the question was what value it would have. paulk answered, from his position. it looks quite relevant to me.

Like I said, he was countering the condition of the If-Then. And I think that's exactly what was intended to be avoided. You know, for the sake of discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 634 by arachnophilia, posted 08-08-2012 7:08 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 636 by NoNukes, posted 08-08-2012 10:20 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 639 by arachnophilia, posted 08-09-2012 4:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 714 of 1043 (693582)
03-18-2013 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 707 by Bolder-dash
03-17-2013 9:23 PM


How is it that Admin (you know the impartial referee guy, who also devises strategies to convince all the fence sitters lurking here) has allowed the the Origin of Novelty discussion (in which evolutionists seem incapable of describing any coherent theory from the onset) to spiral completely off topic for page after page after page?

Maybe he was busy doing something in real life rather than sitting around monitoring his forum all day?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by Bolder-dash, posted 03-17-2013 9:23 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 741 of 1043 (733877)
07-22-2014 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 740 by ringo
07-22-2014 12:12 PM


Coyote writes:

But Faith needs to meet us somewhere close to halfway.


From Faith's point of view, we're the Jehovah's Witnesses and she's doing us a big favour by just coming to the door, never mind listening to what we have to say.

You didn't analogize the part where she gets a free science education that she then spins back at us to suit her own purposes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 740 by ringo, posted 07-22-2014 12:12 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 742 by ringo, posted 07-22-2014 1:05 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 743 of 1043 (733879)
07-22-2014 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 742 by ringo
07-22-2014 1:05 PM


But if Faith did that we wouldn't be talking about her.

Right, its no surprise that she get's the responses that she does when she behaves the way she does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 742 by ringo, posted 07-22-2014 1:05 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 744 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-22-2014 8:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 763 of 1043 (733964)
07-23-2014 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 744 by Adminnemooseus
07-22-2014 8:32 PM


Re: Getting picked on by a gang
Right, its no surprise that she get's the responses that she does when she behaves the way she does.

It doesn't surprise me that Faith sometimes gets cranky.

I'm not talking about her behaving crankily.

I'm talking about her drawing a lot of time and effort from others, who offer her detailed explanations of complicated scientific principles, only for her to turn it back around on them as some sort of support for her pre-conceived religious beliefs.

She's using people. People don't like being used. I understand why they get tired of her shit.

Imagine yourself (as in any of the evo side) being in a debate in a creationist dominated forum, and you are the one against the many. Even if "the many" go about it nicely (and here, the evo side sometimes does come up short on that), there is a substantial pressure on you, and you'd be liable to get cranky.

Been there, done that. Against both creationists and evolutionists. Hell, look at the gun control thread. I can't ask a question without being accused of denial. And the best is arguing with Catholics on their forums only to have them end the argument with: "You can't be a Catholic, then."

Sure, its annoying. But we're on the internet. If you can't maintain a level head, then you need to get offline.

One side of the argument being cranky doesn't justify the other side getting cranky. I don't care who started it, you should be nice to your opponent. If you can't be such, maybe you shouldn't be posting that reply.

Its not her crankiness that draws crankiness, its the horrible way she treats people, i.e. using them for her own purposes.

So no, people aren't "picking" on her. She's being a bitch and getting the responses we should expect.

On a side note, one thing I could try doing, is a hard core enforcement of the forum rules.

We know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 744 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-22-2014 8:32 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 764 by Percy, posted 07-23-2014 12:59 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 768 of 1043 (734005)
07-24-2014 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 764 by Percy
07-23-2014 12:59 PM


Re: Getting picked on by a gang
Yeah, she treats people badly but because she's the only true creationist left then she gets special treatment from the moderators so she doesn't go away.

Well fuck her. Treat her like she should be treated, just like everyone else, and if she plays the martyr card and goes away then so be it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 764 by Percy, posted 07-23-2014 12:59 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019