General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7

Faith has proposed a new topic on fossils. She wants it put in something other than a Science forum so that a Flood explanation for the fossil record can be explored. I suggest this be allowed because I for one would like to see a YEC explanation for the order of fossils found in the geological column as well as the YEC explanation of how fossil dino footprints were formed during a flood.

After some reflection I think I must respectfully disagree with AdminNosy's judgement that my post # 6 in the fossil ID thread was off topic. At the time I held my counsel to see how the thread would progress but I was suspicious as to how things were going to go and my suspicians were confirmed. In light of the direction the thread has taken I think we would have been better off having Faith respond to my post and tell us how the Flood could have sorted the fossils in the geological column. Just my opinion.

I responded to a post by Faith on the Fossil ID thread and then I removed it because I realized it could be considered a response to an off topic post and we had a specific warning about that in the thread. Then I saw that Faith responded to the point in my post in her Admin mode. Somehow that doesn't seem kosher. Can someone clear this up for me? Is it proper for someone to respond to the point being made in a post in the Admin mode?

Ok. Thanks AdminJar. No problem Faith.

In the "Fossil Evidence" ThreadI believe I was addressing Faith's behavior, not her personality. She has been making a habit of saying "I will think about it later" to avoid addressing inconsistencies in her arguments. She also deliberately pretended to confuse "layer" with geological age by equating them, which is a gross distortion of the geological evidence. I called her on the "I'll think about it later" and rightly so I believe. However I will concede it probably should have been done here and not in the "Fossil" thread. I can put up with a lot but deliberate obtuseness taxes my patience.

I was pointing out evasive and deliberately obtuse behavior. I pointed out the layer/geological age confusion in one post and you presisted in repeating the same misunderstanding in a subsequent post. You get to make a mistake once. After someone corrects you it is not a mistake to repeat the same misunderstanding. Likewise on the "deal with it later" business. There was nothing to "deal with later" The significance of where pollen is found was explained clearly by at least one other poster and by myself. Yet you pretended that there was something difficult about it. Pointing out intellectual laziness and faulty logic is not a personal attack. It is pointing out something that could be corrected if you wanted to correct it. I might also add that in the same thread you made a big deal about having to do all kinds of research and study for years because scientists were somehow conspiring to withhold data about fossils from lay people such as yourself. Several of us tried to correct you on that point and it eventually got you banned. Then you proceeded to complain that only you got banned and not the rest of us that you tried to drag off topic with your ridiculous charges. This type of behavior is not honest debate. You can choose to consider this as a personal attack or ou can take it as constructive criticism.

Well I had no intention of debating it. I made a comment here in response to Phat's suggestion that I was making personal comments. I thought that Faith's debating methods in the "fossil" thread deserved some comment. I still feel that way. I don't really think that a PNT should be used to discuss debate decorum. I thought that was one of the purposes of this thread. But you are the administrator. I will abide by your call.Edited by deerbreh, : correct typo

I have no problem closing it. I think it had some potential but it has become clear that there is not going to be a serious discussion of how the Flood model could explain fossil deposition any time soon. Maybe it is not possible to have that discussion. Anyway we have probably exhausted any possibility that there might have been. I see no point in beating a fossilized horse.

Post 56 is an abusive post, imo.On edit: I see it is in the Coffee House but it still seems over the line to me.Edited by deerbreh, : More information

Sorry Mike. I don't normally "report" people but calling someone a "liar" let alone a "Goddamned liar" is well over the line and can't exactly be remedied with a retraction unless you manage to delete the offensive words before anyone sees them. "I was making a point" is no excuse. I realize you can't respond now and it is not me you should be apologizing to anyway.

Logical trick? Maybe. But it cuts no ice with me. I am of the mind that saying offensive things to "prove a point" or "just joking" is somewhat like (note, not the equivalent of) carrying a gun through airport security to "test" the system. Somehow the person gets their little dig in under the guise of something else. It is the m.o. of the verbal bully. Then, when confronted, no apology is tendered, only something along the lines of, "I am sorry if someone was offended" which puts the onus right unto the offended person. No, words have meaning and we need to pay attention to the meanings.

Maintaining civility is everyone's concern, not just that of administrators. Anyway a post was addressed to me justifying your behavior and I responded to it.

My vote would be to outlaw "idiot" "liar", the "f-word", "yo mama" insults and anything deemed to be the equivalent or derivitive by the moderators. Everything else goes.

Well, under the proposed deer rules, it is a moderator call as to whether any of those are equivalent to idiot et al. However, as my dictionary defines ninny as fool or simpleton, I think a fair minded moderator is going to say that is the equivalent of "idiot". You will have to ask William Safire about "nattering nabobs....", as I believe he was the author of that pugilistic piece of puffery. As for the others - they strike me as falling into the category of childish, and since that usually reflects more on the author instead of the recipient (think of calling someone a poopy head, for example), I would tend to let it go were I a moderator.

Spiro "Ted" Agnew spake it, but William Safire (Nixon speech writer) wrote it. Ted Agnew wouldn't have known a nabob from a kabob, let alone a nattering one.