General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0

Ah, thanks for the heads up. I wasn't aware of that, which certainly changes the dynamic of the whole situation. If what you say is accurate then a suspension was in order. True. I had an issue with the bad mouthing about a week ago and resolved not to converse with him any longer, because its constant. Pretty much immediately. I can't argue with that. Certainly. Jar as many positive points. He's a loyal dog. The problem is, his loyalty usually extends only to those of his ilk.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Percy, look at the following picture and tell me what you find funny. Hint: look in the red circles. Just in case adminphat can't wait to ban me for disappearing more posts, I went ahead and undisappeared posts 8, 9, and 10.Added by edit.If you want a demonstration to see how I did it, I want a guarantee that I won't be banned for it.Edited by Tazmanius Devilus, : No reason given.Edited by Tazmanius Devilus, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.Edited by Admin, : Reduce it some more.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Just reading down this thread made me laugh. You can't get rid of old Jar. Ban him, and he's causing more activity than he does when he's here.Perhaps the ban should be shortened or removed to keep him quiet.A week's far too long for someone who's part of the EvC furniture, anyway.I remember having a similar clash with Buzzsaw recently when I claimed that there was no such thing as a creationist post with substance. It ended in me asking him to start a thread listing some creationist posts with substance in them.He hasn't done it yet, and it might solve the problem if he did. Then, if anyone else makes the kind of comment that Jar and I made in the future, Buzz could just point to his list.

Perpetuate = to make something last or continue.Perpetrate = perform an act, usually with a negative connotation.What I said as moderator/admin is what I wanted to convey in my statement that the conduct has been ongoing.Brennakimi, and others, what you people seem to be discounting is the fact that nobody's ideology has been proven. We all have methodology which we use to support our views regarding origins etc when we apply history, archeological observations, application of science laws, etc to our respecive ideologies. For you people to agree with Jar that our methodology of supporting our ideology is nothing but emotion and Biblical authority is the epitamy of insult when folks like Rob, Nemmesis, me and others have continually applied logic reason, science, history, archeology etc to our debates. Because you people, our debate counterparts don't agree with our application of these aspects of debate you are perpetuating and perpetrating adnausium this blatant falsehood
(I'm being nice here) that all we do is blather emotion and preach Biblical gospel/doctrine.So long as I'm moderator for ideological balance and respect for all members, I'll not tolerate this behavior to the extent that Jar has been perpetuating it and some of you people are perpetrating it. I very much appreciate Admin's unpopular supportive action on behalf of the minority constituency at EvC. May God bless him for doing something he felt needful to do for the good of all.I am listening to Admin and the others of you who don't appreciate the lie word so I'll not apply it in the future.I suppose a more compatible term might be "deliberate falasy" or something of that nature. Imo, it's more than a mistake. To believe you people actually think people like Rob use nothing but emotion and Bible doctrine to fill a 30 page science thread engaging one against 10 or so in science debate would be for me to insult your intelligence. I'm sure you know in your heart of hearts that such a charge is a blatant deliberate falsehood. Regardless of how some of you regard his arguments, he's gone to a whole lot of effort and put a lot of time into attempting to support his arguments doing science research study, bringing forth documentation data etc all of which have nothing to do with emotion and Biblical authority. Others like Randman, Faith etc have done so as well. Yes, there are times when Biblical authority is applied such as the Exodus account, but when I brought forth the work of Swedish scientist Moller, marine biologist citing his marine photography, exploration, and archeological data as evidence, it was put forth as additional corroborative evidence to support the historical aspects of the Biblical record. Don't forget, one of the properties of the Biblical record is history, whether you admit it or not. history has little to do with emotion and much to do with interpretation of archeological observations etc.Imo, its coming to the point that if further debate is to be engaged on this subject it should be a separate thread. I have no interest in spending more time on it. It takes me hours to compose things like this so as not to mess up, being the slow thinker that I am. I just don't have the time for further debate on this matter.

i don't really care if i'm right or not. what i care about is that you were debating in admin mode and still are. period.

Amen, Sister.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

You addressed my admin action and about all of what I've said to you was pertaing to that action. Being a creationist moderator appears to require a lot of detailed explanation for folks like you and Omni when I work to serve the board. Now that you've ran outa gas on being right, if that's all you have left I must've finished my job and back on member status. As Paul Harvy might say it, "Good Day?"

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

which you've responded to with debate and side-stepping and neener-neener i'm an admin!! you've given no such explanation, and instead have continued to debate the question of whether or not creationists get all their source material from the bible or not. *cough* oh look. more neener-neener. congratulations. you argue bullshit archeology that's been proven crap for decades. your source is still a text and authority. period. if that's all i have left?!?!
you're debating in admin mode! what the fuck is wrong with you that you don't see a problem with that?! what the fuck is wrong with every admin on this board that no one sees a problem with that!?!?!jesus horsefucking christ on a stick. you people make me sick.

Amen.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

quote:

---

Yes, there are times when Biblical authority is applied such as the Exodus account, but when I brought forth the work of Swedish scientist Moller, marine biologist citing his marine photography, exploration, and archeological data as evidence, it was put forth as additional corroborative evidence to support the historical aspects of the Biblical record. Don't forget, one of the properties of the Biblical record is history, whether you admit it or not. history has little to do with emotion and much to do with interpretation of archeological observations etc.

---

Thanks for proving the falsity of your allegations.For the record, Moeller is not an archaeologist or a historian.Moeller IS a believer in the discredited fraud Ron Wyatt.Moeller produced NO significant archareological evidence.The threads about the views of Moeller and Wyatt DID produce misrepresentations of the archaeological and historical evidence - from the creationist side.These are the facts.If you've got good exampes of arguing with the facts and evidence why not produce them ? Let's face it - the only reason for believing Moeller is an emotional attachment to the idea that he and Wyatt "proved" the Exodus. It's certainly nothing to do with the evidence which only shows incompetence and fraud.

Paulk, this thread is not the place to extend old debates. Imo, it leads off topic. Nobody has soundly debunked anything on that issue. My point for the purpose of this discussion was to show that the primary methodology of that debate of creationists was not emotion and Biblical authority but archeological discovery and exploration.All I have to say regarding the recent remarks of others, so much for civility, decency and respect.It's not for me to take any action here, but Brennakimi is borderline on violation of the rules and becoming a disgrace to the board by the hate-speak she's spewing, imo.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

and you're debating in a moderation thread.i'm spewing no hate-speak. i'm cursing. there's a difference. just because your preciousssss is referenced doesn't make it hate-speak. now stop debating in a moderation thread, stop threatening admin action based on personal dislike, and don't ever debate again in admin mode. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Paulk, this thread is not the place to extend old debates. Imo, it leads off topic. Nobody has soundly debunked anything on that issue.

---

By which you mean that nobody should expose the falsity of your assertions.In fact several things were debunked;Wyatt's rewrite of Egyptian history, apparently repeated by Moeller. Evidence oof misues of archaeological and historical data was shown.Evidence that Wyatt is a fraud has been produced.It has been shown that Wyatt has a history of making sensationalist claims without sound evidence.Wyatt's use of dowsing has been exposed. And the assertiosn of the Wyatt camp to the contrary were debunked.Wyatt's "land bridge" claims were debunked.But no significant evidence - nothing that would convince a reasonable person - was produced to support Wyatt's Exodus views.Now obviously you don't like these facts. You want to present Moeller's claims as a sterling example of creationists producing substantive arguments. But that wasn't the case. It's not a matter of differing interprretations. It is a matter of creationists distorting, misrepresenting and it appears even fabricating evidence.

quote:

---

My point for the purpose of this discussion was to show that the primary methodology of that debate of creationists was not emotion and Biblical authority but archeological discovery and exploration.

---

And MY point is that you are wrong. It's an example of reliance on Biblical authority and emotion.

Another Amen.If nothing else, it undermines the authority/dignity of the admin position. It's like a judge arguing the case with the defendant.

And yet another AMEN.