General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7

quote:

---

continue, sorry for objecting.

---

Not a problem. That is what this thread is for, you've altered by decision before.Without knowing the intent or circumstances behind your words, I took the words at face value and came up with a different idea of what you were wanting to discuss. Interesting don't you think?

In the thread International opinions: USA on science! starting at msg 69
I recieve a warning from NWR about possibly violating rule 10.
But only after he attempts to debate it with me.First off, I was not attacking the person, but what he believes in, and why. But fine, if it sounds like an attack on the person, then just warn me, and do not start debating it with me.Second, if I had a dollar for everytime I have been attack personally here, and the attackers go without warning, I could buy a new home or something nice.I am not upset really at NWR, I guess he was just trying to uphold the forum rules, but I am sick of being singled out. I demand equality, it's only fair right?

In the "Fossil Evidence" ThreadI believe I was addressing Faith's behavior, not her personality. She has been making a habit of saying "I will think about it later" to avoid addressing inconsistencies in her arguments. She also deliberately pretended to confuse "layer" with geological age by equating them, which is a gross distortion of the geological evidence. I called her on the "I'll think about it later" and rightly so I believe. However I will concede it probably should have been done here and not in the "Fossil" thread. I can put up with a lot but deliberate obtuseness taxes my patience.

The particular thread (Basic and Remedial Fossil Identification)is in one of the social and religious forums. It was placed there because the OP wanted to discuss the YEC view of fossil sorting, and not just the scientific view.Given the forum where the fossil thread is being debated, you should expect that debaters won't all hold to the same standards as are expected in science discussions.

---

is the yec view intellectual laziness and evasion? procrastination in getting to evidence that refutes your point?it's not a scientific standard. it's a standard of debating in good faith.

---

This entire statement here as well as the post in question is a personal attack. You are mindreading my supposed motives. This is all false, pure slander. Very sad you can't see it because it's a very common way of arguing around here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is also a personal attack. What makes you all so sure you understand why I do what I do? What I've said about my motives is the truth. I also often lose interest in talking to people who talk to and about me like this. That happens a lot. There's a motive for you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

well, is that the yec standard?if it is, then it's hardly an attack. if it's not, than it's a justified critique on poor debate habits.

---

If you want to discuss it, write a PNT.

I was pointing out evasive and deliberately obtuse behavior. I pointed out the layer/geological age confusion in one post and you presisted in repeating the same misunderstanding in a subsequent post. You get to make a mistake once. After someone corrects you it is not a mistake to repeat the same misunderstanding. Likewise on the "deal with it later" business. There was nothing to "deal with later" The significance of where pollen is found was explained clearly by at least one other poster and by myself. Yet you pretended that there was something difficult about it. Pointing out intellectual laziness and faulty logic is not a personal attack. It is pointing out something that could be corrected if you wanted to correct it. I might also add that in the same thread you made a big deal about having to do all kinds of research and study for years because scientists were somehow conspiring to withhold data about fossils from lay people such as yourself. Several of us tried to correct you on that point and it eventually got you banned. Then you proceeded to complain that only you got banned and not the rest of us that you tried to drag off topic with your ridiculous charges. This type of behavior is not honest debate. You can choose to consider this as a personal attack or ou can take it as constructive criticism.

Well I had no intention of debating it. I made a comment here in response to Phat's suggestion that I was making personal comments. I thought that Faith's debating methods in the "fossil" thread deserved some comment. I still feel that way. I don't really think that a PNT should be used to discuss debate decorum. I thought that was one of the purposes of this thread. But you are the administrator. I will abide by your call.Edited by deerbreh, : correct typo

http://EvC Forum: Basic and Remedial Fossil Identification -->EvC Forum: Basic and Remedial Fossil IdentificationI would put to question closing of this thread in this particular manner. As the moderator that closed the thread, was one that originally started the thread.To my limited understanding of ethical conduct, it is inapproriate to stop discussion on a topic that a person had originally opened. It becomes indicative of closing all discussion, which i don't think is what Faith is trying to do, but that she is instead wanting time to think things through. Instead I would put forth she might have put a request to another modedrator to close the thread?

This issue has been raised for discussion among admins (the private forum).AdminFaith is new at administration, so I suggest you put this one down to a beginner's inexperience.

---

Not meant to imply anything, to me it was just a curious move. But thank you for addressing the question.

I reopened. There is nothing I can see to discuss about it. I said what I think. If admins agree with me, please close it again. Otherwise, it doesn't matter, I don't want to fight about it.