This post by PaulK Message 864 has gone over the line into sheer personal attack after tending in that direction over the last few posts. I followed suit unfortunately though not to his degree of total lack of content:
Shouldn’t you be mortifying your sins rather than indulging them ? But thanks for proving my point about your lack of honesty.
This kind of nastiness on PK's part is standard with him lately and it makes "debate" with him nearly intolerable.
I read the topic. I stand by my summation. I respect your methodology as much as I respect secular science, but it must be pointed out how the two approaches differ. I believe that the cartoon describes it quite well.
You have a right to voice your methodology as do your opponents.
My hope is that everyone gets better at expressing themselves and stops the personal attacks (and reactions to such attacks)
Hopefully, we here at EvC are learning to coexist. Nobody is being singled out or banned (or even suspended) because we all have earned our place here at EvC. It is unfortunate that you do not have too many other creationists to help you make your case. Usually, I enjoy reading what you have to say.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)
After reading this thread this morning from Message 60 onward I have serious concerns about those stating they will neither consider evidence offered nor offer any evidence of their own nor even educate themselves on the issues. Without specifying from whom or from which posts these quotes originate, I'm very concerned about the following statements. In my opinion participants expressing attitudes like these should not be permitted to post:
The evidence is everywhere, open your eyes. ... I'm not going to read your link. ... Not interested. Maybe later. Maybe not. ... I'm not keeping up with the issues,... ... No I'm not going to provide evidence... ... But all I'm going to say is OPEN YOUR EYES IT'S EVERYWHERE. Unless I feel like digging up some examples some time. ... The demand for evidence is just a way of calling your opponent a liar.
Then there are the substance-free personal insults that have no place in any thread at this forum:
Typical stupid rejoinder. Babyish and stupid. ... Typical stupid denigrating spin. ... I know you are a vicious namecaller who has no interest in being reasonable. ... I do wonder where your heads can be. ... Obviously the Left has no room for it in their sneering self-righteous arrogance.
The thread is about Jeanine's Pirro's book Liars Leakers and Liberals: The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy. The thread's originator should begin talking about what's in the book. So far the originator is avoiding their own topic and being unresponsive to questions about it. When people complain they're instigating insult wars and leveling unsubstantiated charges of bias and abuse, and when people offer evidence and/or make substantive arguments they're ignoring them. The originator's response rate is now below 50%.
The thread's originator should begin talking about what's in the book. So far the originator is avoiding their own topic and being unresponsive to questions about it.
Faith has already basically answered your question.
Faith,msg 1 writes:
I gave up a long time ago saying anything about it here or to anyone except people who share my views.
Faith is making it plain that she started this topic as a place to voice her views without appeasing the Left through the demand to provide evidence backing the validity of her views.
Guilty as charged. Please act accordingly.
As the moderator of this thread, I am relaxing my demands to focus solely on the book, as the responses have been more civil of late. If the thread gets out of line, I may close it at times until people simmer down...but you all are doing better so far.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
I do not want to DEBATE the book. Discussion is something else that hardly evey happens here although supposedly it's what the site wants to encourage.
As for your usual personal attacks who cares, but I'm asking for the basic kind of respect any human being owes another, I could not care less what you think of me personally, but I do care about basic decency as expressed in a discussion about anything whatever. I don't know why Phat didn't suspend you when he suspended the rest of us.
quote: I do not want to DEBATE the book. Discussion is something else that hardly evey happens here although supposedly it's what the site wants to encourage.
Plenty of discussion happens here. And the truth of the accusations in the book would seem to be a highly relevant point.
quote: As for your usual personal attacks who cares, but I'm asking for the basic kind of respect any human being owes another, I could not care less what you think of me personally, but I do care about basic decency as expressed in a discussion about anything whatever. I
Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
Should declaring up-front in a thread that one won't be following certain of the Forum Guidelines really absolve one from following those Forum Guidelines? Wouldn't this be a dangerous precedent? Doesn't this open the door to people possibly beginning their threads with a statement like one of these:
I won't be following moderator requests.
I'll be changing topics whenever I feel the urge.
I'll be making all my points via bare link.
Instead of making arguments in my own words I'll just be posting lengthy cut-n-pastes.
Plagiarism will be my guide in this thread.
I will lie and misrepresent whenever I feel like it.
I'll be making plenty of baseless accusations against my fellow participants.
Moderating threads can be a difficult challenge, and not enforcing some of the Forum Guidelines would make the task easier, but it doesn't seem fair to those who *are* following the Forum Guidelines. And maybe it's just me, but I think those guidelines are part of the reason a lot of people are here, especially rule 4.
I do think it makes sense in the current environment to cut some people some slack (but not total slack) in the interests of keeping discussion going, but what is occurring now doesn't seem like discussion. One side is begging for crumbs of substance. The other side is lambasting those unhappy with Trump while acknowledging they are uninformed and have no interest in supporting their claims nor in listening to the evidence provided by others.