|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2228 Joined: |
Pars, you want us to start posting in Latin? No Pudding, but even if I did, it would still make discussions with Brad a lot easier. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it's either lingua franca or hic finis fandi for Brad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
Ha ha. Although his posts are much clearer than before.
That reminds me of this saying: Mandare quemquam litteris cogitationes suas, qui eas nec disponere nec illustrare possit nec delectatione aliqua adlicere lectorem, hominis est intemperanter abutentis et otio et litteris. Applies to everyone really.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5289 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Sorry Pars it's not coming. But I am planning next to simply explain what Bertrand Russel meant by the center moved percipient. It will be over by the time I post anyway. We might as well enjoy the custard while it lasts. There will be a quote, a simple program, a possible extension, some conclusions and a provision for the future. The future is already here. I have expanded Lewontin's two genetic determinant blueprints with the fracolin etc and two consequences of evoutionary outworkings are drawable in limits. I am sorry if I am the only one who knew. Sorry that it took so much time.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-02-2005 15:02 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2228 Joined: |
Well, his post are enticing allright, but more as poetry than as discussion material.
Brad just walked in, let's see if he's got something intelligible to add. (This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 02 March 2005 20:04 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5289 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
right! nothing inTELLigABLE as of yet.
I am not going to post beyondIn the region of the interface itself a number of factors may play a role in adsorbtion. (A) An important factor must be the competition between molecules of A and B for the interface. This occurs because the interface is limited in extent, and nonexpendable (in the cases under discussion) and so differs very much from the bulk liquid phase.BOOK ON CHROMATOGRAPHY AND ADSORBTION MATH and BIOLOGY supplied LIFE with a means of permitting notions of extinction from becoming emergent out of the analogy. For the two different kinds of 1-D symmetry will operate formally in reproduction no matter what survivability the biophysical equivalent of chemical competition is for any Darwinist. To the extent that DNA replication is not in competition with it’s interface nature some of the nonexpendable issues will not apply. Crucially however, polyploidy might DELIMIT something here that is a limit figure in the homological reality. Anyway a baramin does not seem to be able to contain an unlimited number of chromosomes per logical divisions of kinds of baramins. Interestingly the evolutionist Dyson insisted that there was a logical difference of replication and metabolism but this might not be strictly true in the case that the baramin discontinuity is more continuous than the distance across base pairs in DNA. It is not yet decided in any way that traditional genetic INVERSIONS are not point locations of perversions that provide discontinuous systematics more life than is purviewed by present purveyed against things that smack of nonsecular contributions. It is quite impressive to attempt to particularize the physical nexus by using the fluidity in Maxwell’s electrotonics where only thermal contacts are presently fathomed. You see that is what you asked NOT be posted. DONE- pretend you didnt see it and wait till next time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Brad writes:
quote: You may confuse the hell out of me at times, but I have to admit that you just as often make me laugh out loud. That's rich! Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
Rather than just shutting down topics that would normally get thrown away, there could be a Questions and Answers forum where people could ask questions and learn about things without necessarily debating. I agree with Gary. We could have two forums to handle many new topic starters.1) Questions and answers about Evolution. 2) Questions and answers about Faith and Belief. When a sketchy proposed new topic comes along, throw it in as a question to one of these two forums. That way, we have less clutter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Inactive Administrator |
...although I may have been wrong to have moved it to the "Suggestions and Questions" forum.
Please see Creationist Friendly Q&A. But I will make a short reply here:
quote: As seems to work, I don't see these proposed forums working any different than the existing forums covering the same themes. I think that they would be experiments that would have a simular success (or failure) as did the "Boot Camp" forum. Adminnemooseus This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-04-2005 13:36 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I think that the difference might be a "no dicussion" rule. One question - one or a very few answers. No back and forth. The questions should be well formed and put through the PNT.
These threads would end up as a kind of FAQ list.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
I must clarify. These would be two topics rather than two forums.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
In Message 107 Adminnemooseus wrote:
Bill also supplies a lot of off-line references. While I do think it is good for Bill to show that there indeed are considerable amounts of such references in existence, I do think that the reality is that no one (other than Bill) is ever going to actually go to a library and look at the referenced articles. Thus, they are mostly just causing message clutter. ... While Bill does present a massive amount of information, I must now make the observation that (IMO) the writing style and message structure of Bill's messages leaves much to be desired. His messages (again IMO) tend to be tough to read (and I'm one who does have a (very rusty) geology degree). I strongly disagree. IMHO references are the hallmark of well-researched and supported arguments, and the plain fact is that most scientific references are off-line. That my be changing, but it hasn't yet changed. Bill's posts contain a lot of information and can be difficult to read. That's somewhat inherent in the subjects. He's not going to get it down to Reader's Digest level without inducing error. I get most of what he says, and I don't have any formal training in geology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4384 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
I agree with JonF, the nature of the material that Bill is presenting and the level that he is pitching at is going to inform and guide the style/terminology. As for the subject of references, I would perfer that Bill keeps them in - more and more of the academic journals are now providing their material online and those of us who have access are able to follow those up if we choose (I realise this brings questions of access).
I'm not sure what Bill is suppose to do? Dumb his material down or provide inferior citations? While much of the discourse here is never going to follow the model that Bill is using, I say "more power to his keyboard finger!" This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 13-Mar-2005 06:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Inactive Administrator |
I certainly have a high regard for Bill's output. I (non-admin mode) have been one that has given him POTM nominations. But I am proposing that there is room for improvement in his presentation.
He's not going to get it down to Reader's Digest level without inducing error. I'm (hopefull) not pushing for "dumbing down". But there is the art of presenting quality information to the scientificly disinclined. There is a difference between a message with a lot of good information, and a well written message with a lot of good information. I repeat myself: I am proposing that there is room for improvement in his presentation. I may be wrong. Certainly, I am posting this as a person that fully recognizes that I am incapable of posting a message of "Bill Birkeland level of content". Bill, I love having you participate here. Don't let me drive you away. But, even to you, I offer my attemps at advice for improvement. Adminnemooseus "He who can't post a quality message, trys to advise one who can"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
But there is the art of presenting quality information to the scientificly disinclined. Well, there's an art of presenting quality information to the scientifically ignorant but inquisitive; and there's a different of art of presenting quality information to the scientifically disinclined. Bill and many other scientists could be better at the former. IMHO none of us have figured out the latter ... what we're doing mostly isn't working ... so I'm leery of criticism (admittedly constructively intended).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
more and more of the academic journals are now providing their material online and those of us who have access are able to follow those up if we choose (I realise this brings questions of access). It's getting better. I don't know how the economics are going to play out, but more and more articles are bcoming available to non-academics.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024