Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Guys You are killing this board.
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 1 of 28 (145187)
09-27-2004 10:24 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 09-27-2004 10:49 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied
 Message 5 by coffee_addict, posted 09-27-2004 11:20 PM Eta_Carinae has replied
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 10-13-2004 1:34 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 28 (145190)
09-27-2004 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eta_Carinae
09-27-2004 10:24 PM


Statistics
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eta_Carinae, posted 09-27-2004 10:24 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 3 of 28 (145191)
09-27-2004 10:50 PM


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: 11-15-2003


Message 4 of 28 (145194)
09-27-2004 11:10 PM


Maybe I'm mistaken but several other of the ..
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by coffee_addict, posted 09-27-2004 11:21 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied
 Message 20 by Tony650, posted 09-28-2004 2:28 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 5 of 28 (145197)
09-27-2004 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eta_Carinae
09-27-2004 10:24 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eta_Carinae, posted 09-27-2004 10:24 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Eta_Carinae, posted 09-27-2004 11:22 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 6 of 28 (145198)
09-27-2004 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Eta_Carinae
09-27-2004 11:10 PM


Re: Maybe I'm mistaken but several other of the ..
Eta writes:
Heck if you need a Mod for the Cosmology section I'll do it.
I wholeheartedly nominate Eta as our cosmology moderator. Please take my nomination into consideration.

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Eta_Carinae, posted 09-27-2004 11:10 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 7 of 28 (145199)
09-27-2004 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by coffee_addict
09-27-2004 11:20 PM


But..
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by coffee_addict, posted 09-27-2004 11:20 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 09-27-2004 11:29 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 8 of 28 (145201)
09-27-2004 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Eta_Carinae
09-27-2004 11:22 PM


Re: But..
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Eta_Carinae, posted 09-27-2004 11:22 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 28 (145207)
09-28-2004 12:03 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by coffee_addict, posted 09-28-2004 12:07 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 10 of 28 (145209)
09-28-2004 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Buzsaw
09-28-2004 12:03 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2004 12:03 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2004 12:53 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 11 of 28 (145210)
09-28-2004 12:14 AM


No buzsaw...
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2004 12:59 AM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 28 (145220)
09-28-2004 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by coffee_addict
09-28-2004 12:07 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by coffee_addict, posted 09-28-2004 12:07 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Eta_Carinae, posted 09-28-2004 12:57 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 13 of 28 (145221)
09-28-2004 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Buzsaw
09-28-2004 12:53 AM


I did not blow my top but...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2004 12:53 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2004 1:04 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 28 (145222)
09-28-2004 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Eta_Carinae
09-28-2004 12:14 AM


Re: No buzsaw...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Eta_Carinae, posted 09-28-2004 12:14 AM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 28 (145280)
09-28-2004 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Eta_Carinae
09-28-2004 12:57 AM


Re: I did not blow my top but...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Eta_Carinae, posted 09-28-2004 12:57 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Eta_Carinae, posted 09-28-2004 1:11 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024