Too much moderation on these boards?

yes, yes, of course. as i am often here. it would involve some acting skills, first. i would imagine that sticking to a strictly literal interpretation (something i'm very good at), and only biblical topics, would help.(although, honestly, that site gave me the heebeejeebees after reading a moderated thread or two...)

---

I'm afraid I can't agree at all. Imo, secularist mainline science's whole concept of cosmology and space expansionism ultimately hinges on it's perception of the creation of the universe.1. It's teaching on the age of the universe implicates creation/origin. For the most part it assumes that the universe is about 15 billion years old.2. It teaches that space expanded from a singularity of mega-high density.3. "Of how it could have been created?" No, Of how it had to be created, because those who disagree are considered "unscientific."

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Is this a science site? Sure, there are topics in which the empirical data is examined and argued. But these are a relatively insignificant proportion of the total. It seems to me that most threads are those where personal philosophy is the fuel which keeps things moving.Whilst in pure science threads a two-tier system might serve a purpose it cannot extend any further than that without presupposing that that a philosophy about science is a fact rather than a philosophy. If the two tier extends further then the bias which supposedly buttresses the faith position is actually one which seeks to weaken it. For it opens every position to the smear of that position being protected by big brother (as jar and schraf have recently done).I would request that henceforth any two tier approach be removed from admins dealing with me in any thread. If that means my partaking of pure science threads is limited by inabilty then so be it. Elsewhere, I would prefer to have people show me by their argument that my position is handicapped rather than invoke Big Brothers edict that it is so from the outset.

Buz, I mentioned this in response to GDR and suggested to him the option of opening a thread to discuss it or anything else.This is obviously NOT the thread to discuss this.

quote:

---

Is this a science site?

---

Yes, it is.Let's go talk about science, Ian.Pick a thread, and I'll be there with bells on, just let me know.What's that? You don't want to discuss science?Oh, well, I guess I'll have to make due with other conversation.

the word "or" is inclusive. look at it again:

quote:

---

making gross generalizations about an entire ethnic group, religion, country, or people, and claiming they are all murderous, evil, (and from another debate) following demons is basically the definition of bigotry.

---

maybe you're reading too much into this. it does sound like a bit of sarcastic understatement, yes, but the implication it is pregnant with is not "so we all deserve to die in terrorist attacks, and everything they say is right and holy."

---

Was searching for a discussion on 2LoT, found this.
EvC Forum: Second Law of ThermodynamicsNote Admin's message 16, If that's not a prime example of even handedness I don't know what is, I would be astounded if a creo site afforded the same equality to the evolutionist argument...Edited by Creavolution, : spelling

Faith, that's a mighty big chip you got on your shoulder...
It could be said that Hitler might have been annoyed with churchill, does that imply he was right?
It could be said that some football hooligans might be annoyed with their opposition, does that imply they are right?
It could be said that The IRA mioght be annoyed with the UVF or bice versa... it does not imply that either side are justified or correct.dig your self out of your firmly entrenched position for a moment, take part in the debate, argue your points. Calling people crazy, or questioning their common sense does not contribute to the discussion.You do your message a great disservice.Edited by Creavolution, : removed hypocracy (and emmotive language)

the post in question:

quote:

---

Yeah, you're right, the piling on is bad since everyone wants to take a swing at the home run ball, but we have to remember that turnover means there's always a new audience. Still, you make a good point.

​

Hey, all evolutionists, I'd like to request that you all refrain from further replies unless PianoPrincess asks for clarification.

​

I think any further replies should come from IDists.

---

his post was a reply to mine, which said:

quote:

---

i think this was a bad idea

​

i mean. promoting a two line topic? and one that's basic t.o faq material and very very tired fallacy that's been beaten to death here? that's just asking for the pile-on. which, as we can see, is happening.

---

that topic was a bad choice for promotion -- and i'm surpised it got through. i've seen much, much better topics fail to meet standards, or get rejected. but percy tries to do the best he can with what he's given, and keep things as fair as realistically possible.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo, added percy's post

---

Indeed, and admin's call for a halt to evo responses, to ensure fair representation of the ID/creo side is a prime example of the even handedness, and even bias in FAVOUR of creationists to ensure both sides of the argument get an airing...

There was some discussion on that. IIRC, and it's been a while so forgive any vagueness, the topic was promoted because it was from a child, it was a valid question, and it was also one that should be pretty easy to answer succinctly. We realized that there might be piling on but hoped we could keep it within reason. There was no question that the Admins knew it would be a high maintenance topic.

yes, quite so. i have, myself, often argued for a kind of creationist affirmitive action around here, if not outright pro-creo bias, just to keep the debate going. there have been points when there were so few creationists here that it got kind of boring.

---

You mean the non-science stuff which occurs on this science site. Making it not-just-a-science site. And if the non-science stuff formed the majority of all discussion what would that do to the notion that it is a science site? Hole it below the water line perhaps?Have a look through All Topics if you want empirical backup for my position.Edited by iano, : typo

yes. i seem to recall now that she was quite young. another good reason to stop the pile-on.there are no real hard-and-fast rules for how to moderate effective. i would imagine you have to take each situation as it arises. generally, percy and the rest of the moderation staff seem be very fair, or at least fair to the best of their abilities regarding the individual considerations each thread requires.the question is, is equality or even mild pro-creo bias good enough for the creationists?

---

there are both science AND religion fora here.

---