Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 178 of 312 (435189)
11-19-2007 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by molbiogirl
11-19-2007 6:05 PM


Re: Simple aka reversespin
hover over his name and you will see a list that starts with Bret, Charley, Craig, johnfulton, the Golfer ... his aliases in alphabetical order, so if it listed all of them would include Tom, Simple and whatever (the first name I knew him by).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by molbiogirl, posted 11-19-2007 6:05 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by DrJones*, posted 11-19-2007 6:20 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 211 of 312 (437757)
12-01-2007 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Admin
12-01-2007 8:40 AM


Re: some action needed in the Logic thread
When someone starts a topic they should be allowed to wander on it or to stay stuck in a rut if they so choose - it's their thread. If they want to reach the 300 post limit with no argument being completed then that is the best case one can make that their argument is a failure.
This would be an argument for re-opening Beretta's thread and directing his misinformation on evolution to that thread and Beretta can use up his own threads with nonsense instead of being off topic on other threads.
http://EvC Forum: Your reason for accepting evolution -->EvC Forum: Your reason for accepting evolution
Similar behavior should not be allowed on other threads where the is some actual discussion of the topic by the person who started it.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Admin, posted 12-01-2007 8:40 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Fosdick, posted 12-01-2007 11:49 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 214 by molbiogirl, posted 12-01-2007 3:55 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 224 of 312 (437972)
12-02-2007 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by molbiogirl
12-01-2007 3:55 PM


thread restriction as admin technique
Admins can (and have) restricted posters to certain threads. If we have a problem poster (Beretta, Simple, Ray, Faith, Randman, Whatever, Syamsu, ... just to name a few off the top of my head), rather than shelve them to the "showcase" zoo we could let them start threads promoted to any forum, but restrict them to posting on their threads, along with anyone who wants to play along. If they play nicely, dealing with issues, etc. then the restrictions can come off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by molbiogirl, posted 12-01-2007 3:55 PM molbiogirl has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 244 of 312 (438065)
12-02-2007 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by nator
12-02-2007 4:45 PM


Re: some action needed in the Logic thread
why can't I buy a new dress and feel good?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by nator, posted 12-02-2007 4:45 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by nator, posted 12-02-2007 9:56 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 264 of 312 (440312)
12-12-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by New Cat's Eye
12-05-2007 10:48 AM


Moosed
I feel like I got Moosed.
Yeah, I know how you feel.
Message 44 was edited by moose bleeding red all over it.
I want to know what part of:
quote:
Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are two theories of evolution -- yours and mine. We'll call yours Newflyerolution and we'll call mine RAZDolution.
We'll assume for the sake of argument that your "(insert creationist assertion here)" is a valid observation, and it totally disproves Newflyerolution (or at least so you claim). The problem is that it does not disprove RAZDolution, because RAZDolution doesn't depend on the "(insert creationist assertion here)" problem to study biology (I leave that to the physicists, chemists and others that deal with this issue). What is RAZDolution? The theory that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - explains what we see in life that exists today. Life can be a little as 100 years old and RAZDolution is still valid. Now we can compare RAZDolution with standard evolution as taught in universities and as studied by scientists and find that it is a good match.
What this demonstrates is that your understanding of evolution is invalid, not that evolution is invalid.

Is not about evolution.
I then provided a redirection of the poster to a site to learn about his PRATT du jour without discussing it at all, and closed with:
quote:
Notice that they do not talk about evolution or biology.

In other words specifically pointing out that the issue of the PRATT had nothing to do with evolution, even though newflyer OBVIOUSLY thought so and needed to be told otherwise.
How does that NOT relate to evolution?
Maybe I should use red for the background of all my posts ...
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : merryxmas

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2007 10:48 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-13-2007 4:23 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 268 of 312 (441990)
12-19-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Adminnemooseus
12-13-2007 4:23 AM


Re-open with topic statement
Thanks for closing Evolution and the BIG LIE when I asked.
I do want to discuss the issue on the thread, but want to keep it from running off-topic (particularly in response to creationists trying to avoid the issues).
Could we reopen it with a statement that:
The issue of the opening post was whether we could use this definition for evolution:
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation
Or at least acknowledge that this can be used as a working definition for the sake of the argument to see what develops from it.
It was to set a foundation for further discussion, not to discuss examples of evolution or what could or could not happen - that will be covered later.
The consensus appeared to be yes, so we moved on to part 2.
The issue of Part 2 was whether we could use this definition for a "Theory of Evolution":
A Theory of Evolution is that all the diversity of life is explained by a synthesis of validated theories on how hereditary traits in populations change from generation to generation.
Or at least acknowledge that this can be used as a working definition for the sake of the argument to see what develops from it.
Again, it was to develop a foundation for further discussion, not to engage in discussions of examples of evolution or what could or could not happen - that will (still) be covered later - in part 3.
We never got to that consensus and this topic is being reopened so that can be done.
Part 3 will be examples of how this theory applies to some evidence to show that it works in those cases. At that point we can discuss examples where people think the theory above cannot explain the diversity of life, and whether this is due to contradictory evidence or just absence of evidence.
Thank you for your consideration.
Feel free to copy this for reopening.
Thanks again.
Edited by RAZD, : a instead of the theory

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-13-2007 4:23 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-19-2007 2:35 PM RAZD has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024