Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,129 Year: 5,386/9,624 Month: 411/323 Week: 51/204 Day: 27/24 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 302 (292401)
03-05-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by AdminModulous
03-05-2006 1:53 PM


Re: mark24 and Moderator Bias
Start back on the flood thread, where all the evos -- the usual dogpile of same -- just ignore the obvious point that a worldwide flood does do a nice job of accounting for the particulars I mentioned, and do nothing but raise OTHER points as they always do, thinking that somehow answers mine. And you might also note the personal ridicule they included in their evasive answers. In fact, as I should have known from the start, the whole thread was nothing but an excuse to bash Faith, under the pretense of dealing with the scientific questions of course.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-05-2006 02:09 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-05-2006 02:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by AdminModulous, posted 03-05-2006 1:53 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by AdminModulous, posted 03-05-2006 2:40 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 302 (292409)
03-05-2006 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by AdminModulous
03-05-2006 2:40 PM


Re: mark24 and Moderator Bias
It isn't a coffee house thread. I don't know what you mean. But it was the way they are treating me on that thread that started all this. Sorry I allowed it to get to me but that is the cause of it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-05-2006 02:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by AdminModulous, posted 03-05-2006 2:40 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by AdminModulous, posted 03-05-2006 2:56 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 26 of 302 (298429)
03-26-2006 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by robinrohan
03-26-2006 8:15 PM


Being helpful, just because I wanted to find out what you are talking about, I tracked down the reference you left out:
http://EvC Forum: The TRUE reason for the EvC controversy, and why it can not be resolved. -->EvC Forum: The TRUE reason for the EvC controversy, and why it can not be resolved.
I think you are confusing a previous incident with the present one, aren't you? Please clarify.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-26-2006 08:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by robinrohan, posted 03-26-2006 8:15 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by robinrohan, posted 03-26-2006 8:39 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 302 (299595)
03-30-2006 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by AdminAsgara
03-26-2006 9:01 PM


TIME TO CALL JAR ON HIS NONSENSE, EVC
Robin's issue seems to be this post in a totally different thread from a week ago.
I inadvertently replied to robin instead of a general reply, but it was a regular ol' "lets stay on topic" message. The thread had begun to revolve around what's "wrong" with theistic evolution and jar's beliefs instead of the topic of "What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator"
I won't judge whether asgara simply misdirected her general admin warning about being off topic, though I myself see only very occasional driftings from the topic over the previous couple of pages of posts; and I would also agree that Robin should have brought his complaint here at the time instead of at this later point from a different thread, if only because it makes it hard to track the real issue, but since it was finally made here, it should be recognized that he is completely right, and his getting no response here has finally provoked me to give one.
His post to jar was right on topic and in fact it was the best answer I've seen, in fact perhaps The Definitive Answer to jar's ridiculous endlessly repeated claim that the fact that he and others believe both in God and evolution proves Robin's contention wrong that the two are incompatible.
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.
I may have answered it myself and some other creationists (jar loves to repeat it), and I know Robin has answered it before too, all to the point, and all ignored as usual, and now when Robin has answered it to perfection he gets an Admin warning and again no support from anybody {abe: except a few creationists, who don't count} for his definitive rebuttal, and jar actually goes on in Message 219 and beyond to repeat his ridiculous illogic, again without anybody's pointing out the absurdity of it. He lays it out in all its absurd perfection in #219 and NO EVO CALLS HIM ON IT? All jar does is assert it and claim it is correct, and accuse others of "babble" and "assertion" when he is the one who is making no sense, and NOBODY calls him on it but Robin and a few creationists WHO ARE IGNORED.
AGAIN HIS LOGIC: He believes in evolution and God; some others believe in evolution and God; therefore it is proved that evolution and God are compatible.
Is anybody yet willing to acknowledge the illogic of jar's excuse for an argument and his blatant display of it as if it were the reverse? And his bullying and his accusations of others of his own errors? Hey, evos, acquit yourselves with the reason and reasonableness you all think is so abundant on the evo side of this debate, prove your intelligence and acknowledge the sheer stupidity of jar's claim to have defeated the thread's premise with his logic, and the precision of Robin's exposure of his illogic.
Otherwise this one incident alone shows up the utter moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the evo side of the evc debate.
Oh, and let me predict that jar will answer with his usual bullying tactics (that's all he ever has for an argument), with an "LOL" or two, an accusation of "mere assertion" or "lack of support" {which has become typical evc bullying in general} or the like, and that no evo or evo admin will have the guts or the brains to call him on what he's doing.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-30-2006 02:11 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-30-2006 02:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-26-2006 9:01 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 03-30-2006 2:22 PM Faith has replied
 Message 35 by AdminNWR, posted 03-30-2006 2:45 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 38 by iano, posted 03-30-2006 4:26 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 33 of 302 (299602)
03-30-2006 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Modulous
03-30-2006 2:22 PM


Re: Time to call jar on his nonsense
I suppose I'd have posted it on the original thread but it was closed, and the moderation issue is that asgara simply claimed to have mistakenly misaddressed her admin warning when the real issue was that in so doing she gave jar's illogic admin support and robin's beautiful exposure of his illogic got relegated to an off topic post.
Another admin complaint is that jar's illogic should many times in the past have been called by admins since no evos call him on it. All that ever happens is that creos point out his illogic and are bullied as usual as if they were wrong when they are right. Robin is no creo but in this case his argument was perfection itself. Admins are tacitly supporting the most flagrantly unfair and obtuse arguments by evos. And jar's being an admin himself does tend to make one wonder why he escapes admin rebukes on the many many occasions it seems to me he has deserved it.
I just got mad that there is such rampant unfairness here.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-30-2006 02:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 03-30-2006 2:22 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 03-30-2006 2:43 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 36 by AdminModulous, posted 03-30-2006 3:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 37 by jar, posted 03-30-2006 3:29 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 70 of 302 (300332)
04-02-2006 4:14 PM


Admin intervention against on-topic post
Percy directed my complaint here, which is about his Admin intervention on the thread about how you can't refute the argument about evolution being incompatible with Christianity by pointing to what people believe, so here it is. My answer to him is in Post#152 of that thread.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-02-2006 04:20 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-02-2006 04:21 PM

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 75 of 302 (300431)
04-03-2006 12:03 AM


Admin responsibility to suspendees
Since I am suspended from the believing is not proving thread, I think it is admin responsibility to tell others who are posting to me that I cannot respond to them.

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 04-03-2006 1:36 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 77 of 302 (300473)
04-03-2006 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by AdminBuzsaw
04-03-2006 1:36 AM


Re: Admin responsibility to suspendees
Thanks Buz, but I think really there is no way to notify people as any one-post notification is likely not to be seen. It would have to be in each post of the suspendee's and that would be too much to ask of an admin. Oh well, thanks anyway.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 02:46 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 04-03-2006 1:36 AM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Admin, posted 04-03-2006 8:38 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 81 of 302 (300532)
04-03-2006 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Admin
04-03-2006 8:38 AM


Re: Admin responsibility to suspendees
Just curious. Do you feel it was right of you to suspend me from my own thread, for doing nothing but defending the point the thread was about, and allowing jar, who is an admin, free rein, whose illogic is what the therad was challenging? If you say it's because I called everybody idiots, you know that was just the momentary excuse as you were already complaining about my argument itself, and I would also point out that I deleted that post before you had time to put the suspension into effect. You don't need to answer this.
ABE: Also, kicking someone out of the Coffee House forum seems a little strange. I can't even go and tell PD I like her gourd designs, but why the earrings freak me out.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 10:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Admin, posted 04-03-2006 8:38 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 04-03-2006 10:24 AM Faith has replied
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 04-03-2006 10:44 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 84 of 302 (300677)
04-03-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Buzsaw
04-03-2006 10:44 AM


Re: Admin Actions
I didn't call them idiots because I thought they wronged me, Buz, but because I think their thinking is idiotic after knocking myself out to get across what seems to me to be a clear enough point about an illogical argument. Nevertheless it is good to restrain such expressions, I agree.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 07:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 04-03-2006 10:44 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 85 of 302 (300724)
04-03-2006 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Admin
04-03-2006 10:24 AM


Re: Admin responsibility to suspendees
...for doing nothing but defending the point the thread was about, and allowing jar, who is an admin, free rein, whose illogic is what the thread was challenging?
I was actually focused on something else - you posted this in Message 151:
Faith in Message 151 writes:
A brand new conundrum has been established by EvC. When a tree falls in the sight of all assembled, it still didn't happen and the very few who say it happened are called wrong. Weird. Happens over and over. Emperor's new clothes. Nice to have proved to myself that this is what is happening at least.
Percy, I don't want to make a big moderator deal out of this, but post #151 which you link as supposedly my post is in fact your own post, not mine, and the one you quote of me isn't even the one that #151 was responding to, which was my #132 which says nothing about an evc conundrum but is answering nwr:
http://EvC Forum: Believing it is not proving it -->EvC Forum: Believing it is not proving it
Faith writes:
nwr writes:
The assertion "one cannot be a Christian and an evolutionist" can be directly refuted by exhibiting an example of someone who is both a Christian and an evolutionist. That's where jar listed himself as that counter example
This was never said on this thread, and if it was ever said elsewhere it was simply a casual way of saying that Christianity and evolution are incompatible. It ought to be obvious in the context of EvC with all you who claim to believe in both that that simply could not possibly have meant anything else. And it has been corrected ad nauseum.
This is where your admin actions against me started and I see nothing here about a complaint about the evc site but merely a restatement of the argument I'd been trying to make throughout the thread.
You seem to be complaining partly that I answered nwr's post that was directed to Robin instead of leaving it to Robin to answer, which you treated as my disruption of the thread, an odd complaint that I've never seen anyone make before here, as anybody answers anybody's post to anybody.
Again, my answer to nwr was my reiteration of something I'd been arguing all along, it was no disruption, it was not off topic, to explain again that saying one "can't be a Christian and an evolutionist" is NOT saying that one can't have that belief but that it is illogical to have it. It had been said over and over and Robin had said it himself and continued to say it, but the opposition for some reason just could not hear it and kept repeating the same old straw man misrepresentation. Then you chimed in as Admin insisting that Robin HAD said it, when all he'd done was use nwr's phrasing in order to correct once again his straw man misreading of it.
Whether this argument is any clearer now or not, the point is that it was on topic and not out of line in any way and it was disturbing that you would intervene as an Admin on my argument on the topic itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 04-03-2006 10:24 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Admin, posted 04-04-2006 9:39 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 86 of 302 (300729)
04-03-2006 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Admin
04-03-2006 10:24 AM


Re: Admin responsibility to suspendees
One more comment here. It was post #162 that was the one in which I made the conundrum comment and it was a way of saying that the point against jar had been made over and over and over but acknowledged by no one. I said that after telling jar that his argument had been refuted. Now, jar regularly announces without getting any admin notice that others' arguments have been refuted by himself, although they have not (and in fact I was answering just such an assertion from him), but if I make that announcement about how he has been refuted, which I devoutly believe he has, and then embellish it with a comment about how the refutation goes unrecognized, somehow I've committed some great crime.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 08:19 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 08:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 04-03-2006 10:24 AM Admin has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 88 of 302 (301546)
04-06-2006 12:09 PM


Request lifting of suspension from Coffee House
The thread you suspended me from is moving slowly and I don't want to rush it, have no interest in posting there either, but would like to be able to post on other Coffee House threads if you would be so kind. Thanks. Faith
P.S. It's been three days. See Message 82
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-06-2006 12:10 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by AdminJar, posted 04-06-2006 12:11 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 90 of 302 (301550)
04-06-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by AdminJar
04-06-2006 12:11 PM


Re: Request lifting of suspension from Coffee House
Thank you for your prompt attention to this, jar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by AdminJar, posted 04-06-2006 12:11 PM AdminJar has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 91 of 302 (302934)
04-10-2006 1:07 PM


my suspension
Along with the banning from science fora I am also banned from social and religious issues, and wonder if this is intentional.

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Admin, posted 04-10-2006 1:30 PM Faith 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