Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Retire Free For All Forum?
Autocatalysis
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 110 (45925)
07-13-2003 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Admin
02-03-2003 3:38 PM


My concern is that forums where unregistered can post acts as a recruiting device. We could do with more creationists in this forum. I have been watching the number of members steadily grow since I registered. But I don’t know how effective open forums are. Besides, we do want to attract a high calibre of discussion. HmmmI could go either way on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Admin, posted 02-03-2003 3:38 PM Admin has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 110 (45984)
07-14-2003 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by NosyNed
07-13-2003 10:13 PM


quote:
Buz, it hasn't sunk in yet has it? You understand that you have a limited education yet you think you have something significant to say on some complex topics. You simply can't expect to make any progress on these discussions until you understand that you do need to know somthing about the issues.
It has sunk in loud and clear that the more I researched and used links from those who were educated, including those of evolutionists, to the advantage of my argument the louder the insults got and the more the warnings of forum violations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by NosyNed, posted 07-13-2003 10:13 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 07-14-2003 2:57 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 110 (45985)
07-14-2003 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Buzsaw
07-14-2003 2:51 PM


It has sunk in loud and clear that the more I researched and used links from those who were educated, including those of evolutionists, to the advantage of my argument the louder the insults got and the more the warnings of forum violations.
Not that this hasn't been covered, and not that this is place to do so again, but I think what people were really getting riled about was how you would cite a link that you had obviously misinterpreted, and then simply repeat your misunderstood interpretation when we asked you to defend it.
Research is good, we really like it, but it doesn't do anybody any good when you present a link that says (for instance) "radiometric dating may not be accurate in every situation" and then claim it says "radiometric dating is totally bogus". And it really doesn't do any good when we point out how that's not a valid interpretation, and then you refuse to budge - as well as refusing to present evidence to support your interpretation.
That's what we mean about not understanding the issues. It really looks like you're not understanding what the links you cite really mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 07-14-2003 2:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 07-14-2003 3:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 34 of 110 (45989)
07-14-2003 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
07-14-2003 2:57 PM


Thanks for the clarification, Crashfrog.
If I could add a little bit more specific to the guidelines, there's nothing in the guidelines against misunderstanding something, or misinterpreting something, or not knowing something. All of us are huge repositories of ignorance and misinterpretation, and considering the rapid growth of scientific knowledge our ignorance and misunderstanding grow daily. And that's okay.
The problem only comes in when you (this is the neutral you - it could be anyone) assert something, and someone else replies, "You're wrong." If they stop after the "you're wrong" then they're in violation of the guidelines. They are obligated to explain *why* you are wrong. And you in replying cannot merely reply, "No, I'm right." You have to explain *why* you are right. This is how we hopefully avoid the pointless "are not"/"are too" merry-go-round.
The goal here is for debate to actually get somewhere, and for that reason we try to remove the possibility that someone could provide bogus views a false veneer of substantiality through careful use of debating tactics. EvC Forum is not the place for parliamentary maneuvers or debating machinations. Once they've been challenged, assertions should be supported with argument and/or evidence. It's rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines. And rebuttals should not be ignored - in other words, one should debate in good faith. That's rule 2.
Hopefully this helps a little.
------------------
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 07-14-2003 2:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Admin, posted 07-14-2003 4:26 PM Admin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 36 of 110 (45998)
07-14-2003 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Admin
07-14-2003 3:27 PM


To everyone,
If I could provide just a little more clarification...
It is often asked, "Why are you warning me about following the guidelines when no one else is following them either?" A good question.
It helps to think of the guidelines as traffic laws. Our traffic laws are not strictly obeyed, but they're obeyed well enough that our roads are pretty safe. But consider how many traffic laws aren't followed. Most people roll through stop signs. Some people roll through right-turn-on red. Some people think it's okay to cut off traffic at yield signs. Almost everyone goes over the speed limit. In other words, our traffic laws aren't hard and fast. In some respects they're a little like guidelines - mostly follow them and you'll do fine.
But some violations are worse than others. Going 5 or 10 miles per hour over the speed limit is fine. In fact, on some roads this isn't fast enough and you have to follow the non-statute but well-known rule of "keeping up with traffic." But go too fast and you'll get pulled over - not always, not even most of the time, not even very often in fact, but if you make a common practice of it probably a couple times a year. Run red lights and you likely won't get pulled over since the odds of a policemen being there at the right time is small, but you'll be spending a lot of time filling out accident reports and insurance forms.
There's additional variation between policemen, and even between time of day with the same policeman. Blow through a speed trap at 13 mph over the limit and some policemen give you a pass, others pull you over. Maybe they're looking for the big "double penalty" speeders of 20 mph or more over the limit that day. Maybe they're in a good mood or a bad mood. Who knows? Sometimes you commit a moving violation and get pulled over, sometimes you don't. Maybe even sometimes you get pulled over when you didn't do anything. I once got pulled over three times in two days - I later found out a car similar in appearance to mine had been reported involved in a robbery.
So, if you get a warning about following the guidelines, it's possible you didn't do anything wrong, but you probably did. And you've probably been doing it a lot. And other people have been doing it, too, but probably not as much as you, or maybe just not with quite as much panache. Anyway, if you get warned, please just say, "Okay, okay, I'll be good." And then be good. Or at least better. Thanks!
Edited by Admin, : Minor cleanup.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 07-14-2003 3:27 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 07-14-2003 10:27 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 41 by Peter, posted 07-16-2003 5:08 AM Admin has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 110 (46005)
07-14-2003 5:37 PM


Most of the links I used were very clear and spoke for themselves needing little interpretation. And when there was a possibility of multiple interpretation, a chorus of adversaries were there to render theirs as the correct one. I don't see how the rules obligate one to rspond to all of these claims, some of which just weren't worth my time.
In the following exchange between Percy and myself, the link spoke loud and clear, but that didn't seem to make a whit of difference as to my performance, nor was there a retraction of any kind of the charges.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NS is impossible without RM. So the buck stops, so to speak with RM.
Percy:
Yet another meaningless, unsupported bare assertion, and another violation of the guidelines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact, I used plain old common sense to come up with my conclusion that alleged NS wouldn't happen before alleged RM. So when you debunked it as "unsupported bare assertion", in defense, the support was found very quickly in a search. Consider this from an academic source:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conventional wisdom suggests that random mutation precedes natural selection, i.e., random mutations that allowed giraffes to reach higher leaves than their competitors fixed in the population.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.inside.bard.edu/academic/programs/isrop/research

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 07-14-2003 5:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 38 of 110 (46007)
07-14-2003 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Buzsaw
07-14-2003 5:37 PM


If you'd like to resume discussion, why don't you repost this at the appropriate thread. I understand your rebuttal and will respond.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 07-14-2003 5:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 110 (46035)
07-14-2003 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Admin
07-14-2003 4:26 PM


quote:
...since the odds of a policemen being there at the right time...
quote:
...additional variation between policemen, and even between time of day with the same policeman. Blow through a speed trap at 13 mph over the limit and some policemen give you a pass, others pull you over.
...or, it could be a female police officer that pulls you over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Admin, posted 07-14-2003 4:26 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Peter, posted 07-16-2003 5:03 AM nator has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 40 of 110 (46197)
07-16-2003 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by nator
07-14-2003 10:27 PM


Maybe it's like 'actor' .... I mean you never hear
Halle Berry or Kate Blanchet referred to as 'actresses'
these days

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 07-14-2003 10:27 PM nator has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 41 of 110 (46198)
07-16-2003 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Admin
07-14-2003 4:26 PM


A group of police constables in the UK got reprimanded
for playing 'motorway snooker'.
Snooker (for those who don't know) is a game (like billiards
or pool) played on a table with a cue and a cue-ball. There are 15 reds and a selection
of colours ecah of different value. When you pot a red (for one
point) you are allowed to pot a colour (ranging from 2-7 points)
with black being the 7 pointer.
The police were stopping cars of different colours just to
improve their score!!
...on the other hand, they still only stopped offenders.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 07-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Admin, posted 07-14-2003 4:26 PM Admin has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 42 of 110 (58055)
09-26-2003 5:12 PM


Quoting myself:
quote:
People, even in the "Free For All" forum, there is the concept of "The Topic". Please try to stay somewhere in general vacinity of it. The topic of this string is pretty clear cut. See the title.
Adminnemooseus
I personally think that most of the "Free For All" topics belong in other forums.
That said, I now suggest that forum guideline rule 1 apply even at the "Free For All" forum.
quote:
1) Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
I am currently clashing with the ever profound "Wise", in regards to the above cited and quoted.
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Wise, posted 09-26-2003 11:44 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 72 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-28-2003 1:29 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Wise
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 110 (58119)
09-26-2003 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Adminnemooseus
09-26-2003 5:12 PM


Excuse me Mr. Moose,
But if you plan on closing topics down in the Free for All forum then you better change the "anything goes" "No hold Barrs" rule...don't you think?
Otherwise you're nothing but a big baby and a censor.
Wise
I believe in calling a spade a spade
So go ahead and throw me off.
[This message has been edited by Wise, 09-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-26-2003 5:12 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 09-27-2003 8:56 PM Wise has replied

  
Wise
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 110 (58121)
09-26-2003 11:57 PM


Don't like moderators? Then this is the forum for you. Anything goes, no holds barred, flame-on.
Mr. Moose,
Please give us some clarification on the above quoted rule.
Wise

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by hoju, posted 09-27-2003 12:07 AM Wise has replied

  
hoju
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 110 (58122)
09-27-2003 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Wise
09-26-2003 11:57 PM


Wise,
Who is this Mr. Moose?
[This message has been edited by hoju, 09-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Wise, posted 09-26-2003 11:57 PM Wise has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Wise, posted 09-27-2003 8:49 AM hoju has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 46 of 110 (58147)
09-27-2003 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Admin
02-03-2003 3:38 PM


Please retire it altogether
EvCForum is a pretty unique place, a board where people are called on bad reasoning, misquotes and downright lies. A place where arguments haved to be backed with reason and evidence. The FFA jepordises that while adding virtually nothing to the board. If I want a board where people mouth off and post picture of galactic nebula as proof of god there's plenty to choose from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Admin, posted 02-03-2003 3:38 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Wise, posted 09-27-2003 8:54 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024