|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I get your point but there are people on the opposing side who are just about guaranteed to give me headaches, ulcers and fits. If I don't want to be trapped with a particular opponent how about an opt-out possibility.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Why?
Sorry but I don't see that as at all reasonable. When in a discussion the goal is to respond to the opponents arguments, not the opponents personality.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Apparently I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about their personality, I'm talking about the irrelevance or illogic or strawmanning or game-playing of their typical arguments.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, that is simply not relevant. If they use those things then you certainly should be able to show that they are using those tactics.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You'd think so but in my experience things don't happen that way when I'm the one doing the showing. And that makes for a discussion that wanders all over the place, raises my blood pressure, and accomplishes nothing.
However, because it's probably too much to ask I'll drop this line of thought and just hope for the best. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13032 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
The participants feature is planned for release 5.0 and will be under the control of moderators. It will have two modes of operation: inclusive (all members on the list can participate) and exclusive (all members on the list are excluded from participation). The default setting for all new threads will be exclusive with an empty member list.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
wrong thread
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Faith writes:
quote: Do you truly not see that this statement applies to you? If you don't like the responses you are getting, Faith, then improve your argumentation. From what I can tell, there isn't anybody here whom you haven't accused of those very things. Every time someone contradicts you, you accuse and demean and whine and complain. If you don't want to have a discussion with someone, then simply don't engage with them. To artificially remove people from the discussion is nothing more than an attempt to appear "reasonable." It means you won't be seen avoiding questions and counterarguments. When you claim that others are "irrelevant, illogical, strawmanning, or game-playing," you put yourself in the position of being judged and as I'm sure you are aware, you are rarely found in the right on those matter. So it is no wonder that you seek to run away from any responsibility for your actions. I can understand why the moderators might want to keep certain people out of certain discussions because they have shown themselves to be incapable of behaving with any sense of integrity or decency, but you are in no position to make that decision, Faith. And I mean that not only generally (posters don't get to deny those who would respond) but also personally (there isn't a single person here whom you would let respond to you). We have a system, the Great Debate, where if there is one person you want to talk to, you can do so there. And since we also have a Peanut Gallery process for those who aren't part of the Great Debate to comment, I fail to see how there is any benefit for the poster to say who does and who doesn't get to respond. It simply means two of every thread for those who meet the poster's "standards" and everybody else.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
I'm wondering if it's possible to turn this thread,
Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity Through Mutation EvC Forum: Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation into a Great Debate even though it's late to ask. Genomicus knows her stuff and I get more out of debating with her than anybody else there, even though sometimes she piles on the technical language too deep for me to wade through. Ideally a creationist with the same level of science would show up on my side, but if wishes were horses etc. [By the way, I think she's a she because of a comment she made about Dawn calling everybody "Sir" but if I'm wrong she/he can correct me.] I can still try to answer all the others up to this point but it's going to take time. But they could continue to make their points in a Peanut Gallery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1967 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
I'm certainly game for that, and I appreciate the suggestion, especially since I've never tried that format here at EvC. It may help keep the conversation centered on the core points I intend to deliver and demonstrate.
So I guess this is something the moderators would set up? I'm all for it. P.S. Not that this is relevant, but I'm not going to reveal my gender here, inasmuch as I've never revealed my religious/metaphysical beliefs or lack thereof. There is a reason for that, and that's that the less that is known about me personally, the more one is able to focus on any merits my arguments have. If you're comfortable calling me a "she," that's fine, and if you're more comfortable calling me a "he," that's also fine. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Yes the moderators have to decide to set it up. There's nothing really different about it except that we'd only be talking to each other, which would take a lot of stress off me from getting piled on as so often happens. Your thread was aimed at me anyway and the others are bringing different arguments into the mix. I'm glad you like the idea.
abe: OK I'll call you she, but it probably won't be necessary to refer to you in the third person on the thread anyway. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13032 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I can get a Great Debate going if someone creates a thread proposal for the topic over in Proposed New Topics. I have a lot going on right now, but when it appears I should be able to review it within a day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
cancelled and answered Percy's post instead.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
I thought maybe we could just turn the existing thread into a Great Debate but maybe it's too far along for that. If so, then Genomicus should propose the Great Debate. I wonder if we should preserve our exchange to this point by copying our respective posts into the new thread, or start with a new OP and go from there. This is a question, I'm not sure what the best approach would be. The more new posts get added to the existing thread the more swamped I'm getting.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024