General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel

http://EvC Forum: Intelligent Design explains many follies -->EvC Forum: Intelligent Design explains many follies But I not talking about "how well or poorly anyone is doing" - I'm saying the argument used had been invalidated.What's the problem with stating that an invalidated argument is an invalidated argument?It's not like {person X} is the source of the argument, it was borrowed from a book after all.

The thread is not scientific, but philosophical, and should be moved.There should be a forum called "philosophy"--neither religious not scientific. I live, as Jar said, in a "philosophical fantasy world," and so often find it hard to find a slot for my topics.

Hi RAZD,It has taken a little work to keep the thread on topic. You might recall the earlier diversion between Crash and John about credentials and income. It is my view that your messages have the potential to again draw defensive responses having nothing to do with the topic. "Your arguments are weak,"..."No, your arguments are weak," and so forth. Here are some comments on excerpts from your Message 225: You address no specific arguments and accuse John of dodging rebuttals. Please focus on the topic and keep accusations of less than honest behavior to yourself. This is gratuituous patting of your own back having nothing to do with the topic, and statements about assuming he concedes his arguments are invalid is inflammatory, which of course includes the potential for drawing intemperate responses that draw the thread further off-topic.The rest of your message primarily addressed the topic and was much better.Advice to everyone: You can't force someone to understand something he doesn't want to or isn't capable of. All you can do is lay out the arguments and evidence as best you can. Personal criticisms usually only have the effect of causing people to dig in their heels, and it makes one look petty and uncharitable.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You bet I'll direct my comments to the Moderation Thread, Purpledawn. I don't call people bigots. My opponents call me that. If I point out that the term fits them to a T you jump on MY case.http://EvC Forum: immigrants -->EvC Forum: immigrantsThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-13-2006 11:17 AM

quote:

---

Critical to answering that question, though, is an analysis of the relationship of Christianity and the state in times past. Isn't it?

---

There is a difference between analyzing the relationship of Christianity and the state in history and trying to correct Faith's view of history.I understand using history to support your view of a Christian State today, but I don't want the thread to melt into a debate with Faith on whose history is right.See the difference?

Hi Faith,I'm looking at the immigrants thread for the first time beginning at your Message 105. I don't want to step on AdminPD's toes, but you seem to disagree with her assessment, so I thought I'd add my voice to hers and say that in my opinion you are crossing a line. You cannot equate this from EZScience in Message 101: To this from you in Message 105If the distinction isn't apparent to you then I don't think it can be explained, but in that case you will continue to find it very difficult to remain within the Forum Guidelines. I encourage the moderator team to have little tolerance for violations of rule 10 because they tend to derail threads.So please make a greater effort to stay within the Forum Guidelines or your posting privileges will only see further restrictions.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

PD, I apologize for derailing the thread... but at the same time it is tiring to see Faith spout nonsense over and over without challenging it. Calling liberals "america haters" and scientists "idiots".... spreading ridiculously false views of history, science, etc. I think it's only fair that we call her on it and make her back up her views with evidence.Then again, I should probably just ignore the garbage and not derail threads. It would be nice if Faith could debate a subject using facts and evidence instead of simply pronouncing wide-ranging slurs against all who don't agree with her.I'll try to hold back in the future (what can I say, I correct people when they say "That went good" "That went WELL!!!!"heheheedit: I will just ignore comments in the future and at worse post a quick correction and let it drop there. Again, I do apologize for derailing threads regardless of intent.This message has been edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, 04-13-2006 12:14 PM

I am replying to the post where I initiated boycott. My boycott of this Forum shall remain until members Nwr and Randman are restored posting privileges.It is fundamentally wrong to have in place a rule which protects liars and shields them from paying any consequence while shifting their guilt onto those who report the lie. The laws of this country are designed to punish liars and not protect them.This is not a Creationist v. Evolutionist issue as is confirmed by the fact that Nwr and Randman represent both camps. However, this is a Darwinian controlled board and you guys have a rule that protects liars. This can only be interpreted as insulating yourselves from exposure. If this was a Creationist controlled board I would say the same thing - but its not.We need a way to confront liars. If a Creationist lies then that person should be confronted, the same with an Evo. The rule needs to be changed OR a topic needs to be set up where a member can argue their case. There is NO PRECEDENT in civilized society that shields liars. EvC needs to do something.There is though, even a greater issue. I can (and have) produced a source/Bible to expose certains liars. A person (from either side of the aisle) should be allowed to legitimately label and identify lie IF they have a source. The EvC rule voids the Bible.My boycott will remain forever to protest the censorship of the Bible by an insignificant rule. The rule needs to be changed or amended. The subjective traitorous view of one Fundamentalist Admin seeking the approval of secular peers while grinding a personal hate axe will never be tolerated by myself. This person used classic weasel words to whitewash his support of the rule while shitting on Romans 1:25.http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel -->EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution SequelIn my rebuke of this person I predicted he would not come clean, but would "dig in his heels". Of course the prediction came true. He perpetrated and repeated the foundational issue: shifted his guilt onto the messenger (me).http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel -->EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution SequelI am greatly comforted that a Fundamentalist disapproves of me; Darwinian disapproval is expected.Many persons are aware that I am preparing a paper about Dr. Scott's refutation of Darwinism. It is taking longer than I expected but it is coming along. Dr. Scott has produced an invulnerable and impenetrable explanation and falsification of ToE. God has commissioned me (Dr. Scott's bulldog) to shove it in the face of the world. Darwinists are so used to refuting the moronic arguments of Fundies - we shall see how you do against the scholarship of a Stanford Ph.D.May I remind:Charles Darwin, common ancestry, macroevolution, Natural selection, human evolution, Theistic evolution, will all be CLEARLY refuted into oblivion. At the same time Paley's Argument from Design and the Creationist interpretation of scientific evidence will be invulnerably proven absolutely correct. The present state of society, that is, its enigmatic support of fallacious Darwinism will be explained and I will relish to see your rage - a rage that will make post 1996 Black Box rage look like a wimper.I have always maintained that EvC is the best debate forum of the Net. Darwinian Site owner has championed free speech to his worldview rivals. I have been afforded over 2500 posts. Thank You.My committment to publish this paper on the Net has not changed nor will it be thwarted. What will change is that I will not argue or defend the paper here - first, until the EvC rule that voids Romans 1:25 is changed. My committment to God and His word prevents me from supporting a Forum that censors His holy word based on the blood of Christ.Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist

I do equate it. He accused me of bigotry. I returned the compliment.

Faith, I did not. Where is this accusation?As Admin has tried to explain to you, the term arose when I said you had 'copied an email' that 'reflected biggoted attitudes', perhaps in the hope you might recognize them as such. You chose to identify with them and defend them. I respect your right to do so, but the only direct accusation of biggotry came from you.

Ray, do you plan to post a rant periodically to remind us that you are not posting?I don't think I'll suffer that gladly or long.

---

Trust me.

Its like when I tell my girlfriend to 'quit acting like a bitch'. Then she claims that I called her a bitch, but I say 'no, I didn't say that you were one, just that you were acting like one.Stll though, she's pissed.This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 04-13-2006 01:47 PM

No, Faith, he didn't. As I said before, I'm sorry if you don't understand the distinction, but that doesn't excuse you from following the Forum Guidelines. I'm going to remove your posting privileges in the [forum=-14] forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

These things always do. Can you give us a new estimated date? Before it was "april" but there are only a couple of weeks left of April.Perhaps a first draft date. This forum would be an excellent place to allow a first draft to be reviewed and honed.

Nope, its like saying "Those women over there are acting like bitches" and your girlfriend claims you called her a bitch.