Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,275 Year: 5,532/9,624 Month: 557/323 Week: 54/143 Day: 16/11 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 302 (287001)
02-15-2006 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
02-15-2006 3:04 PM


Re: no more funny links
I assume that we aren't supposed to post funny links, just for kicks in the coffee house.
In some cases, posting to Humor Strikes back might be appropriate. Creating a new thread for a "funny link" is usually inappropriate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-15-2006 3:04 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-15-2006 3:41 PM AdminNWR has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 302 (299606)
03-30-2006 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
03-30-2006 1:35 PM


Re: TIME TO CALL JAR ON HIS NONSENSE, EVC
NOTE JAR'S ARGUMENT CAREFULLY PLEASE: What he and others believe proves it's right to believe it, proves it true. You'd all be rolling on the floor gasping for breath with hilarity if a creationist had said something that stupid. I've been amazed over and over that other evos here haven't taken jar on about that absurd statement.
If I trace the arguments back, they seem to come from this statement (in Message 203): "True, but "Christian evolutionism" is an oxymoron." Producing an example of a Christian evolutionist should suffice to show that is not an oxymoron. And that appears to be what jar did.
Your general point is correct - belief that God exists is not evidence that God exists. But I don't see that your point is relevant to the particular messages you mentioned.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 03-30-2006 1:35 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by iano, posted 03-30-2006 5:42 PM AdminNWR has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 302 (300032)
04-01-2006 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by PaulK
04-01-2006 6:13 AM


Re: Randman rises again!
Personally I think that the ban was merited.
I also thought it was merited. However, if randman had sent me an email with an apology, I would have reduced the penalty to a 1 week suspension (with a warning about the need for more self control).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 6:13 AM PaulK has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 302 (312379)
05-16-2006 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by JavaMan
05-16-2006 7:21 AM


Re: robinrohan's complaint proposal
Can we have robinrohan's proposal to discuss in the Coffee House?
Promoted. See The problem with EVC.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by JavaMan, posted 05-16-2006 7:21 AM JavaMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by robinrohan, posted 05-20-2006 12:55 PM AdminNWR has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 302 (315898)
05-29-2006 9:09 AM


Not a debate thread
A quick reminder - this is not a debate thread.


AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 302 (319129)
06-08-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by arachnophilia
06-08-2006 1:28 PM


Re: reply to admin comments
do we have to AGREE with a post to nominate it?
No, it is not necessary that you agree. However, the nomination should express why the message deserves nomination. It should not express why you disagree with it, though it is okay to mention that you disagree.
I had similar reservations to those expressed by Adminnemooseus in Message 5. The problem was not that iano's message was nominated, nor that Legend disagreed with the nominated messaage. The problem was with using "a classic example of a blind, unfaltering, dogmatic mindset" in that nomination message. If, instead, it had said "a clear expression of a creationist viewpoint" there would have been no criticism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2006 1:28 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by iano, posted 06-09-2006 10:29 AM AdminNWR has not replied
 Message 283 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2006 10:34 AM AdminNWR has replied
 Message 287 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-09-2006 11:31 AM AdminNWR has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 302 (319504)
06-09-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by arachnophilia
06-09-2006 10:34 AM


Re: reply to admin comments
so it's not the act itself, just the phrasing of it?
The phrasing is part of the act itself. A POTM nomination is supposed to be a positive statement about a post, so negative comments don't belong in the nomination.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2006 10:34 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Legend, posted 06-09-2006 11:09 AM AdminNWR has not replied
 Message 289 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2006 11:37 AM AdminNWR 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