Change in Moderation?

Is there a way to register a protest?DNAUnion has seen fit to target me for a perceived infraction to his worldview. Fine, I have no problem with people expressing their opinions. I have decided that it is pointless to get in a pissing match with him as he fails to recognize his mistake in the matter and just appears to be petty, pedantic and petulant.However on http://EvC Forum: Abiogenesis -->EvC Forum: Abiogenesis
he posts two quotes from my posts that appear to be contradictions. One is taken early on in the discussion and the second is later -- after his basic error has been pointed out several times. As such they are not contradictions, but a progression in the course of a discussion.This is blatant misrepresentation on the level of some creatortionista websites and is intellectually dishonest and hardly becoming of anyone on these boards (I have decided that there is no point in even reading anymore of his posts given this history in this manner).I am new here and do not know what protocols there are in such matters, so I am asking for guidance. On other boards there are filters that allow one to block the view of posts from certain people, something I very rarely do but would consider in this case if I knew the mechanism (those boards are not monitored so that is the only way to deal with trolls, which is the type of behavior exhibited by DNAUnion on the given thread).Thank you
AL.

Thanks for the info. One of my ?problems? is not knowing the characteristics of the players here, and realize that there are many that are more interested in playing games than in having a discussion. Posting truckloads of information on why viruses are not alive is irrelevant to a discussion that does not claim that viruses are alive, regardless oh how fascinating the information is. One could just as well post entire volumes of medical texts or books on how to play chess.Thank you for looking into the matter and trying to sort it out. "DU" does tend to cover the ground with lots of quotes and comments that make it hard to get back to the original points. A weak stance it may be, but that also does not mean invalid.To me the attempt to bridge the knowledge from non-living minerals to living cell involves (among other things) looking at all aspects of how the cell operates to see where that comes from, including those things that affect how it operates and the differing environments where it can occur. Personally I don't believe that the first living matter used DNA, but that is an opinion. I do know that whatever it was would now be classified as an extremophile because of the different environment that existed at that time, and that may very well mean the modern life is not a good model for that first living matter. We also know that DNA could not be the source for the first strand of DNA, and that to look for that you have to look beyond DNA. I have. I will.Thanks for letting me vent.
AL.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

thanks.it is a bit of a tarbaby syndrome eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

just some observations re:
http://EvC Forum: Yes, teach all THREE ideas...if honesty is the policy. -->EvC Forum: Yes, teach all THREE ideas...if honesty is the policy.the title bears no relation to the content that I can see (what 3?)and perhaps {geology...} would be a closer match as it (purports) to discuss geological ages (or sub-ages mixed with ages to make the numbers work out)