My rule for transitioning from participant to moderator in a thread is no posts for two days. Two days will have passed since my last post as Percy around noontime today (Eastern time), and then I will assume a moderator role for this thread.
My last post as Percy was three days ago, and so I am transitioning out of my participant role as Percy and into my moderator role as Admin. I will no longer be participating as Percy.
Discussion of the subtopic of continuums has gone on long enough and should be discontinued. I rule that the outcome of the discussion is that there is a continuum from life to non-life. The subject can be raised again if someone else joins the thread who also believes there can be no continuum from life to non-life, because a fresh perspective is often helpful.
About definitions: I'm also not going to tolerate detailed analysis of English based upon highly literal applications of dictionary definitions. Fluent speakers of English have no need of doing this. Participants can either conduct their discussion as if they were a fluent speaker of English, or they can cease participating.
Please, no replies to this message.
Edited by Admin, : Correct misstatement in 1st para: "moderating as Percy" => "participating as Percy"
Since you love analogies so much, here's another: Alsace-Lorraine is closer to France than it is to China. It is also closer to Germany than it is to China. However, sometimes in history it has been part of France and sometimes it has been part of Germany. The only way to define it unequivocally is to pick an arbitrary point in time.
Didn't expect to find this tidbit of history in this thread. In case there are other history buffs around, this is an off-topic plug for the documentary Apocalypse: World War II. Narrated by Martin Sheen, it uses original colorized footage (except for portions related to the holocaust) and is excellent. Available to Netflix members.
This came to mind because in episode 1 (there are 6) it mentions Hitler's desire to reclaim Alsace-Lorraine, and it's mentioned a couple more times in episode 2 as the German advance into France is recounted.
Repeating what I said there in different terms, because continuums are a side discussion that doesn't seem to be moving toward resolution, I ruled that at least in this thread there is a continuum from life to non-life.
I also ruled against demanding strict and unambiguous word definitions. If it were really possible to communicate complex concepts and detailed processes in a few words then textbooks would be much shorter (in times past I would have said much lighter). There is gradation and subtlety and nuance everywhere, and insisting on particular precise word definitions don't make it go away. Almost all words have more than one definition. There is so much meaning to communicate that most words are shared by many meanings. Insisting that all meanings of a word but one be ignored might make meaning more clear for a particular sentence in a particular context on a particular day, but not everywhere all the time, and in the end it makes communication more difficult.
Apologies for suspending you for 24 hours, but I want you to realize that I meant it sincerely when I ruled that arguments based upon strict and precise definitions held inflexibly and determinedly should cease. That approach could be used to block progress in a discussion on any topic, as has occurred in this thread for nearly a month. I want to see constructive approaches, not accusations, complaints and inflexibility.
I would also like to see more consistency, as opposed to the inconsistency you have often displayed. For example, here you are at the end of November in Message 141 saying you reject a continuum from chemicals to life:
What you and others are wanting to do is say that life is a continuum from chemicals to life, and that is a faith based premise that I do not accept.
And here you are just a couple weeks later saying the opposite in Message 292:
However, if "life" is definable and clear, and "obvious" as I argue, then there can be a "chemical evolution" from chemicals to life.
Many times you appear to disagree just to disagree, regardless of how inconsistent with your past arguments. When you return after your suspension, please change your approach. No more "argument from definition." No more complaints about moderation. No more claims of what you have demonstrated. No more accusations that people are ignoring your arguments. Just calmly and straightforwardly make your points, and if they are rational and supported by evidence then they will carry the day.
You're ignoring moderator rulings again. Me in Message 335:
quote:Discussion of the subtopic of continuums has gone on long enough and should be discontinued. I rule that the outcome of the discussion is that there is a continuum from life to non-life. The subject can be raised again if someone else joins the thread who also believes there can be no continuum from life to non-life, because a fresh perspective is often helpful.
quote:Repeating what I said there in different terms, because continuums are a side discussion that doesn't seem to be moving toward resolution, I ruled that at least in this thread there is a continuum from life to non-life.
You in this message:
Now what about this "almost life" stuff. And what about the so called continuum from chemicals to life. It's all hypothetical. This continuum is hypothesized, not observed. At best, what is observed...etc...
I'm suspending you for 24 hours again. Next suspension will be for a week.