General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel

em..no I use you as an example and our conversation prompted me to raise the question in a more directed manner. It's not a thread about you.You need to take that hairshirt off.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 02-Aug-2005 09:21 AM

---

And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of he youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of GodSt. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the bible)

Basically, you can say whatever you want in the religious fora with the only difference is that admins cant ban you for saying stuff like, "I reject science because it conflicts with my religion." But you still have to support your assertions about the real world when you make them. Your rabid, spitfire, random evolution bashing should be moderated as the nonsense that it is wherever it occurs. That is all I have been arguing. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with you arguing against evolution. Just the way you have been doing it lately has been nothing more than the worthless, empty, stereotypical creationist rant.Admins, if you guys need more moderators then recruit more. But please do not let this place permanently decend into the madness that some of have been seeing lately. I am okay with you whole affirmative action for creos but does that mean they get to run this board into obscurity?

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

What did Archie do wrong?TTFN,WK

nothing at all - I'll bring back at some stage or maybe some other brit. I just thought it would be nice to have an avatar with a religious theme for a bit.

I disagree with your characterization of what I have been saying. For starters, AGAIN, I ought to be able to give my reasons for rejecting the ToE on a thread for that purpose without being harassed about those reasons, and in any case I have GIVEN reasons and you are mischaracterizing them. I have not ever and do not intend to ever support a belief about physical reality with the statement that it conflicts with my religion. I'm sorry that's the only criterion that is accepted here besides nitpickingly "correct" scientific standards which change with the wind of the moment and whoever's posting.

quote:

---

Allowing people with a nonscientific background to think they are welcome to argue their case, only then to slap them around for not meeting this or that supposed scientific standard (and who knows really if the supposed standard is valid?) is some kind of cruel practical joke. Spell it out. What do you want? What scientific degrees would be most helpful? What degree of experience do you require? What books must we have read?

---

This is incorrect and you know it. The problem is that even when told POINTBLANK that certain terms are not used in the sciences and why, you just want to argue the toss about it. You don't actually want to discuss science, you just want another platform to rant about the theory of evolution as if that is the only theory in science and to imply that science methodology and method have been in some way specifically framed to give some advantage to TOE.You are free to sprout off whatever rubbish you like but you cannot act all surprised when people tell you what awful crap is and how you don't have a clue what you are on about.Do you reallythink arguing the toss about the word "proof" and trying to impose some pseudo-science version of how you think the scienctific method should work is going to convince anyone here?Let's not beat around the bush - you are considered a "spoiler" when it comes to the discussion of the sciences, your current behaviour only acts to that rep.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 02-Aug-2005 12:32 PM

Faith is correct. You guys use terms like "prove" whenever it suits you, and yet bash Faith for doing the same when in context it's pretty clear what she is talking about.You are not being honest with yourselves on this stuff.Evolutionists here make unscientific claims that they cannot back up all the time with virtual impugnity, such as claiming IDers are motivated by a lust for political power rather than a love for truth.But if someone makes a claim like I did, that evolution is the result of indoctrination, you guys have a fit demanding peer-reviewed papers to support my contention.I never claimed there were peer-reviewed papers but do give evidence, and a whole lot of it, but it doesn't matter.The truth is talking with evolutionists reminds me a lot of trying to talk with a Jehovah's Witness. They had pat answers they memorized. They are indoctrinated, not educated.Now, there are exceptions in the JWs, and there are exceptions among evolutionists, but that doesn't change the fact of indoctrination being the MO, producing certain characteristics.

Unfortunatly, it seems that the Admin jury is still out on how to moderate the new fora.No matter what happens, I sincerely hope that they do not simply turn into assertion fora where no one is required to support their argument. That is what I am talking about when I say nonsense. Rapid fire posts of nothing but handwaving of a number of important topics because that is just "how you feel" is fine and it is also fine for me to challange you on it.The only difference in those fora should be when you say, "I disagree that evolution is true because the Bible conflicts with evolution." In that case I can bring up the bibilical and religious reasons for rejecting evolution and debate with you on those grounds.But if you say, "I disagree that evolution is true becuase the evidence is sketcy and it is common sense that anyone can see the flaws." In this case you move into the realm of reality and I can debate you by calling out your BS and YEC flash tactics. I can also request that you support your claim of sketchy evidence and provide clarification on your meaning of common sense.No one should be allowed to just yell at the top of their lungs for no reason and with no regard for ......the debate. I hope that you do remember that this is a debate forum. Therefore if you don't want to debate, you should just leave. Go start a blog where you can rant and rave about evilutionists all day long. Just don't pretend that your posts, "should be an unassailably legitimate post on this thread".I cannot believe you would actually assume that anything on a debate thread was unassailable. That is just so rediculous. If you just want to preach, leave.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

You can return there and support your assertions.

I guess you must have thought that I was joking the other day, I really CANNOT see your posts, I can see you are replying to me - but your posts appear as blanks to me (well that's actually not quite true - the script turns your message text the same colour as the background).I can post an image if you are a bit too slow to get this. I have no interest at all in debating with you, you are the worst type of creationist, you work via misrepresention and slur. I'll thrash it out with most people but you are just two low for me.(and in case you don't get it - I CANNOT SEE YOUR REPLIES - THEY DO NOT APPEAR - NO POINT ANSWERING).

Thank you. Leave it open and I will get to it. There is supposedly no pressure in a Great Debate but last time there was enormous pressure and it was closed after three days of no answer, which is not done on any other Great Debate here that I've seen. Just leave it open.

This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 02-Aug-2005 12:15 PM

Randman is the best creationist debater of a certain type I've seen here. He recognizes the offenses of the opposition and he calls them every time. It's no wonder he's unpopular. What's amazing is the total blindness to his excellent BS detection skills.I do believe that Charles Knight should be suspended for an indefinite period for his extreme immaturity, blasphemy, destructive comments, lack of constructive contribution to the topic, and all around obnoxiousness.

Faith, honestly please!All you have to do is go back to that thread and look at the dates. It had been over 2 weeks closing on 3 before your last substantial reply. You made it clear that you didn't want to participate any more so Admin closed it.Why do you have to mischaracterize everything here as an attack on you?

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Really - I think my discussion with theliteralist has been good, I think I've been on topic with the comments in the objective morals threads. My recent comments in the pornography thread seem good. I've tried to be helpful to Iano in his new thread.In regards to Randman, it's clear that my conversation with him are unproductive so I've decided it's best to not to engage him. That seems a good and productive attitude for a board member to take.blasphemyI'm not a believer it's impossible for me to do that - if I'm banned for that I would consider it a hate crime and a attack on my non-beliefs and human rights.Next you will be saying I should be banned for using a picture of Jesus as my Avatar! (A man who, all joking aside, seemed a good sort).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 02-Aug-2005 12:23 PM

---

And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of he youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of GodSt. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the bible)