|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Guys You are killing this board. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4375 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
It seems hardly worth looking in anymore. You guys are pretty good on Moderating here but this new proposed topic thing is IMO doing what I predicted it would, it is killing at least the Cosmology section.
Posting is wayyyyyy down. Since this board has evolution in it's title, let the threads be naturally selected. They shall whither or flourish on their merits. I just read the list of proposed topics and I saw one in particular that you chaps are holding off on for what seems like you guys don't know enough about the topic. That is a terrible reason not to post it out there. Sorry, I have always respected you guys but you are killing this board it seems. Respectfully Eta Carinae. PS I know this isn't a new topic but I wanted you to definitely see it. Delete it if you wish though i would like to see a reply or two from the Mods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
What percentage of new topics are approved in what period of time?
What are delayed? What percentage are not approved at all? Percy, who is worried about the changes suggests that we can't tell for sure what the volume indicates. Personally I'd be glad to have the topic approval process dropped. But the suggestion that we kill threads more quickly after they start going badly should replace it to maintain some sort of quality. Since many new topics are being posted why aren't they being posted to cosmology? Is it because the few that are suggested there tend to be crank? Do you want all of them to go through? Will you deal with them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I've moved this to allow non admins to have more say. This could have been conducted in the other thread on the same issue.
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum. This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 09-27-2004 09:50 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4375 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
sections seem much less active.
But the Cosmology forum used to be one of the more active and now it is often dead for 2 or 3 days at a time. And as I said earlier the topics suggested are refused seemingly at times because the Mods don't know anything about it. Plus a good crank post now and again livens things up. Heck if you need a Mod for the Cosmology section I'll do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Let's face it. The average creationist can't even understand the basic concepts of physics and cosmology. The few creationists that have boldly taken positions in cosmology in the past have been disturbingly "wise", as was defined by CHRIS PORTEUS jr as "a hard laborer that perhaps lacks education and only has a few simplistic beliefs but does not question those beliefs is wise."
My head almost exploded when I was dealing with desdamona. Ever since the admins started not allowing crackpots to post anything they wanted here, we suddenly started seeing a decrease in the number of crackpot ideas about cosmology. Coincidence? Personally, I'd prefer to have a humor cosmology forum just so the creationists could post their ideas there. That way, I don't have to worry about my blood pressure shooting off the roof again. The Laminator For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Eta writes:
I wholeheartedly nominate Eta as our cosmology moderator. Please take my nomination into consideration. Heck if you need a Mod for the Cosmology section I'll do it.
The Laminator For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4375 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
I actually see genuine topics being refused.
I admit though, I miss the old days of letting people start topics directly. As I said above let natural selection take effect. No one was being hurt by it and at least we got to choose what was worth playing with and what wasn't. QUESTION: Why was the Bodes Law topic refused?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
You are right. I just looked at it here, for those of you that don't know what we are talking about. I couldn't really think of any reason why it was rejected. It wasn't vague, as AM implied.
The Laminator For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
It's a trip into futility for bonafide Biblical creos to engage in cosmology debates in this town. Why? Because if we debate on Biblical fundamentals involving the supernatural dimension we believe to exist in the universe, we are accused by admin as well as our counterparts of posting against forum rules. EVC. Think about it. Evolution versus Creationism. Assuming creationism is referring to Biblical creationism, that involves the supernatural. Duh! But the supernatural goes against physics, doesn't it, my evo friends? So either rename the forum or allow us to debate on Biblical creationist supernatural assumptions as set forth in our Biblical ideology. Maybe then, business would pick up in cosmologytown. And you, Eta are the worstest of the worse for intolerance towards creos who debate on the assumption of the supernatural. The only preaching you are capable of is to your evo choir without insultingly blowing your top.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
buz writes: So either rename the forum or allow us to debate on Biblical creationist supernatural assumptions as set forth in our Biblical ideology. If you want to make assumptions as legit debate tools, might as well allow us evo to have unsupernatural assumptions. Heck, might as well allow just about every crackpot assumption known to man as legit debate tool. You have to draw the line somewhere, and cold hard fact is where I put my money at, not assumptions. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November! Why? Bush is a right wing nutcase.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4375 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
I just rail against people who apply bad science and try to say it is good science.
I do not attack someone who says the supernatural does it because I can disagree with that as unlikely but I cannot prove it wasn't. But what I can do is turn the bad science attempts by Creationists around on them because they never seem to know any science. That is what I did with you for instance. I cannot attack the supernatural, it is by definition outside of science and not subject to testing. I don't believe in the supernatural but you will never see me attack someone for positing that. I might accuse those arguments as being contrived or fantasy however. Lam, thanks for the support on the Bode's Law topic whch seems a valid subject and has been refused for the wrong reasons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
If you want to make assumptions as legit debate tools, might as well allow us evo to have unsupernatural assumptions. Heck, might as well allow just about every crackpot assumption known to man as legit debate tool. You have to draw the line somewhere, and cold hard fact is where I put my money at, not assumptions. Assumptions can be legitimate in debate. For example, when I was debating Eta about the ASSUMPTION of the appearance of age pertaing to the sun, he blew his top, but I did establish by that ASSUMPTION that the sun would have at the very least to have appeared 30 million plus years old to even exist as a sun, even if it were created suddenly a few thousand years ago, simply because it would take that long to even finish the protostar stage of it's life, let alone to make it do what it has been doing for our planet. Thirty milliion plus years may be relatively much less than 4.5 billion, but still a whole lot more than a few thousand years that a literalist interpretation of the Genesis record has it being created. Adam was not created as the appearance of a baby, nor was anything else, if indeed I am allowed to debate on the basis of Biblical creationism. My point in all this is that, as you people interpret forum rules, people like me who take the Bible literal are constantly out of line and breaking them. And you all wonder why some of our better people don't show up and if they do, why they leave so soon. They're not thick skinned enough for the insults that ensue. Simple as that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4375 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
I did get frustrated after 10 pages worth of posts and the fact it was obvious nothing scientific was going to sink in. And every other person chiming in on the thread agreed that you weren't getting it and that your posts showed you didn't even know what you were posting yourself.
And reading your current post you still don't get it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
I do not attack someone who says the supernatural does it because I can disagree with that as unlikely but I cannot prove it wasn't. Well I would be ashamed to repeat the insults I got in debate with you on the basis of the supernatural, Eta. My memory isn't that short.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
I did get frustrated after 10 pages worth of posts Mmmm, ten pages, yes, ten pages. Must be I gave you enough of a run to stay with me 10 pages. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024