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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 312 (425198)
10-01-2007 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Omnivorous
09-30-2007 9:37 PM


Re: Clarification on Jar
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
That
Was
AWESOME!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Omnivorous, posted 09-30-2007 9:37 PM Omnivorous has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 141 of 312 (429249)
10-18-2007 10:46 PM


WTF, moose?
Moose, in this post that you complained to me about going off topic, did you perhaps fail to notice that I suggested that ILG start a new thread, and again later suggest he join an existing thread?

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-18-2007 11:08 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 169 of 312 (434759)
11-17-2007 7:01 AM


AdminPD
Might you be inappropriately using your Admin status to lean on me, perhaps because you are resentful of what happened to you in the Misunderstanding Empiricism thread?

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by molbiogirl, posted 11-17-2007 8:20 AM nator has not replied
 Message 171 by AdminPD, posted 11-17-2007 8:23 AM nator has replied
 Message 172 by Admin, posted 11-17-2007 8:24 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 173 of 312 (434954)
11-18-2007 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by AdminPD
11-17-2007 8:23 AM


Re: AdminPD
quote:
Members do have a choice of who they respond to.
Yes.
Nobody forces anybody to post here.
Posting here is 100% dependent upon the person choosing to post.
There is no possible way that someone can post here unless it is of his or her own utterly and completely free will.
quote:
Continuing to demand a response is badgering.
Please show where I "demanded" a response.
Quote me directly, please.
Even if I did "demand" a response, though, I just agreed with you that:
Nobody forces anybody to post here.
Posting here is 100% dependent upon the person choosing to post.
If he doesn't want to respond, then nothing in the world can force him to, right?
quote:
Now we have a useless thread because you didn't get the hint that the member doesn't wish to respond to your post.
Useless? Not at all.
Pointing out hypocrisy and fallatious reasoning is never useless.
We can discuss Pertophysic's claims without him, and we can discuss how easy it is for people to self-delude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by AdminPD, posted 11-17-2007 8:23 AM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by AdminPD, posted 11-18-2007 12:17 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 183 of 312 (435278)
11-20-2007 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by AdminPD
11-18-2007 12:17 PM


Re: AdminPD
If he doesn't want to respond, then nothing in the world can force him to, right?
quote:
That's easy for an antagonist to say. At some point people will try to defend themselves especially if they wish to continue on this board and the issue is brought up in unrelated threads and hinders discussion.
So, what?
Does that mean that the person being asked to address rebuttals, that they have thus far avoided can do so indefinitely, and nobody is allowed to call them on it lest AdminPD suspend them?
Doesn't this simply allow people to simply repeat their position over and over again instead of addressing rebuttals, thus making any discussion impossible?
Doesn't this, in fact, encourage posters to simply ignore rebuttals altogether, as a debate tactic? We see it all the time here, and moderators rarely step in, even though such behavior violates rule #4:
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
Shouldn't such avoidant tactics be subject to moderator censure?
Shouldn't posters who wish to continue on this board without having their avoidant debate tactics pointed out to them be encouraged to debate honestly instead of protected from those who try to shine the bright light of free open debate upon their claims?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by AdminPD, posted 11-18-2007 12:17 PM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Admin, posted 11-20-2007 7:48 AM nator has replied
 Message 186 by AdminPD, posted 11-20-2007 10:54 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 187 of 312 (435422)
11-20-2007 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Admin
11-20-2007 7:48 AM


Re: AdminPD
quote:
Have you visited the admin forum recently?
Yes.
Why do you ask?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Admin, posted 11-20-2007 7:48 AM Admin has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 188 of 312 (435424)
11-20-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by AdminPD
11-20-2007 10:54 AM


Re: AdminPD
quote:
Given your response in Message 67 of the original thread, you already knew he hadn't been tested and your opening post in the mind reading thread shows that you knew what others had asked him and should have already read his answers. IOW, before your first reminder in post #95, you already knew he hadn't been tested.
Well, no, that's not accurate.
He provided an example of what he thought was a test with a positive outcome; the story of "reading the mind" of his 9 year old son. He presented this as evidence.
I pointed out some flaws of this test. He ignored my post.
Again, PD, you failed to actually address anything in the post you are replying to and are simply restating what you already said.
Does that mean that the person being asked to address rebuttals, that they have thus far avoided can do so indefinitely, and nobody is allowed to call them on it lest AdminPD suspend them?
Doesn't this simply allow people to simply repeat their position over and over again instead of addressing rebuttals, thus making any discussion impossible?
Doesn't this, in fact, encourage posters to simply ignore rebuttals altogether, as a debate tactic?
The irony is deep.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by AdminPD, posted 11-20-2007 10:54 AM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by AdminPD, posted 11-21-2007 6:58 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 193 of 312 (435643)
11-22-2007 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Buzsaw
11-22-2007 1:45 AM


Re: Suggestion
quote:
What is dishonest and what constitutes an obstacle is usually relative as per ideology so for the message to become meaningful or productive, you need to specify specific behavior which you have in mind.
Er, so a lie, or a statement that is in direct opposition to known facts can suddenly become the truth, or not contradict known facts if the person stating them holds a particular ideology?
Like, the Earth actually becomes flat if someone's idealogy states that it is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Buzsaw, posted 11-22-2007 1:45 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 11-22-2007 12:12 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 241 of 312 (438055)
12-02-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Hyroglyphx
12-02-2007 3:05 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
quote:
For someone that has been here as long as you, with over 15 billion posts, and no one has ever offered such a position to you is the surest way to know that no one trusts you. Even those of your own ilk find you objectionable. When are you going to stop alienating people?
He hasn't alienated me, and I don't find him objectionable.
And he and I have gone around a couple of times, too, before you jump to the wrong conclusion.
The truth is, I don't think Crash is particularly interested in being a moderator.
Moderating means suffering fools, and I don't think he much enjoys that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-02-2007 3:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by crashfrog, posted 12-02-2007 5:51 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 242 of 312 (438058)
12-02-2007 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Phat
12-02-2007 4:32 PM


Re: A joke, I hope.
quote:
Plus it gives him an opportunity to bow out of this argument gracefully!
That's one way of thinking about it.
Another way is that he did that to avoid the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Phat, posted 12-02-2007 4:32 PM Phat has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 243 of 312 (438059)
12-02-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Fosdick
12-01-2007 11:49 AM


Re: some action needed in the Logic thread
quote:
Maybe she needs to go out and buy a new dress.
Well it is good to know you are a sexist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Fosdick, posted 12-01-2007 11:49 AM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2007 4:55 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 252 of 312 (438129)
12-02-2007 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by RAZD
12-02-2007 4:55 PM


Re: some action needed in the Logic thread
quote:
why can't I buy a new dress and feel good? why can't I buy a new dress and feel good?
Despite what Hoot Mon might think, there's nothin' stopping you, honey.
Knock yourself out!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2007 4:55 PM RAZD has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 253 of 312 (438130)
12-02-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Cold Foreign Object
12-02-2007 6:13 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
quote:
But EvC Forum and the hardline pro-Atheist faction hated my thread.
Dude, how did a "hated' thread reach 300 posts, and relatively quickly, too?
If we all hated your thread, why did so many people participate in it?
If we had hated it, nobody would have posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-02-2007 6:13 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 254 of 312 (438131)
12-02-2007 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by crashfrog
12-02-2007 5:51 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
quote:
But thanks for the kind words, Schraf. We have been on different sides of stuff, but I've never thought less of you or anybody for disagreeing with me.
They weren't meant to be kind.
They are simply the truth.
...and you're welcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by crashfrog, posted 12-02-2007 5:51 PM crashfrog has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 272 of 312 (442281)
12-20-2007 5:31 PM


Catholic Scientist needs some consequences
CS attacked Brenna with a very personal, abusive ad hominem in Message #253 of the IUD thread.
I'd suspend him myself but I'm participating in the thread.

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by anglagard, posted 12-20-2007 5:42 PM nator 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