General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7

Since you mentioned me at the start of this - I feel some clarification is required from me - . I've put on record that I feel that showcase was just a zoo for people to point and laugh at nutcases - I still feel that way.The reasons that I'm against asking Dawkin's here are technical rather than anything to do with JAD's "theory". The simple fact of the matter is that people in the showcase forum are unable to interact in any meaningful way with normal rational people - it's been proven again and again in the general forums here.They are suspended, they return, they are suspended, they return they are banned, they are asked back. On and on. Anyone with a long history here (and in fact anyone who's posted at Talkorigins or similar such sites) know the personalities and what we are dealing with.In such a context, your suggestion is a complete trap - WHATEVER Dawkin's says (in our fictional "pigs might fly" EVCforum of fantasy), JAD will not shift one inch, not at all. Dawkins would then quickly become bored with dealing with such a person (and ray in the background screaming "inability to refute! Atheist bias!!") and leave.This would then allow JAD to run all over the internet saying he "beat" Dawkins in a debate. I'd be ashamed to be part of a site that tried to facilitate such a sorry spectacle and would allow more credence to the creationist lie that what occurs in such debates is as valid as the actual work of science.Edited by CK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

there is something wrong with you.

---

Well if you want to open that door - I've come to the conclusion that you suffer from serious mental problems. That's OK for me to say right?

quote:

---

You're making a big fuss about a mild admonishment. I see no point in wasting more of our time and Admin's bandwidth on this.

---

Well many of us disagree - Jazzen feels he's done nothing wrong and many of us agree with him. In such a situation, it's clear that another admin needs to step into the breach. Edited by CK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

To let things limp along to the 300 limit and let it all quietly slip away would (though few might ever know it) speak volumes

---

That people struggle to converse with someone so abusive? Even christians like Rantman and Ray?

quote:

---

he IS the only hand-on-heart published scientist around here (on the matter in question)

---

Has he published on the subject? I checked out his CV once and while he published stuff upto the late 1980s - I don't remember seeing anything related to the topic under discussion in the showcase? I'm happy to be corrected.

Hum - I wouldn't rely on being published as being that much of a guide - it's a bit more complex than that. First of all even the peer-reviewed journals have a pecking order (which your academic insituation will take in account when they assess your publication record and so will places when you apply for a job). So first of all you have to understand which journals are which. The second important element is the amounts of cititations your papers get - if nobody cites you - well generally there is a reason for that.(Not commenting on JAD in particular but the process in general).As for fear - you have to remember that JAD has been knocking around and been banned from virtually every significant evolution-type forum going and here a number of times. I can think of a number of people still here who have taken him on a number of times - I suspect boredom is a more significant factor. It's not an area I have a particular interest in, but he does not seem to saying any different from the last time he was here and the time before that.Edited by CK, : No reason given.Edited by AdminJar, : this is not a debate thread

http://EvC Forum: Will I see Hitler in heaven? -->EvC Forum: Will I see Hitler in heaven?Disgusting - surely such racist crap require an immediate and total ban.Edited by CK, : No reason given.

Faith is currently suspended and accidently seems to have posted in admin mode.

So what you are saying is that people who are unable to play well with others and get banned, when they are given their OWN forum - if they cry and whine enough we give in and put them back in the general population?

I see that here adminFaith is discussing the promotion of a topic on the effects of Rain during the flood.The problem (well concern really) is here:

quote:

---

but I should probably point out to you that you're going to encounter objections to your understanding of the Flood, one being that there were no very high mountains like Everest at the time, and another being that all the water didn't come from the rain but from something called "the fountains of the deep." So you might want to review some other threads on the ark first, and maybe rewrite your calculations in the OP.

---

The problem is that this topic is heading for Geology and the great flood rather than Faith and belief. It therefore seem inapporiate to advise a poster to alter the calculation to remove the inclusion of Mount Everest - an mountain we know existed at that time.When the topic is opened, the creationist side can argue the toss about the existence of Mount Everest 5,000 years ago BUT surely the default position must be, that which is current supported by Science, (So in this case - yes Everest existed 5,000 years ago - because we know it existed 60 million years ago), not the position that the creationists would like to argue within the thread?I hope that makes some sort of sense Edited by CK, : changed title

You need to be approved - just ask for access and mention which thread it is, you'd like to be in. Edited by CK, : No reason given.

But hold on - isn't access to the showcase at your consent and then also at the consent of randman? So basically at any point, you can get tossed out on your ass - what sort of way is that to run a debate?

is anyone going to release sidelined's atheism and free speech topic - i want to post a reply! Edited by CK, : weird i cannot see the smiley face i put at the end - must be my browser...

http://EvC Forum: Confirming what we already knew -->EvC Forum: Confirming what we already knewIt's a backdoor debate forum now is it?

Many thanks for clarfying the position for me.