Showcase Forum Issues and Requests

Randman I have no wish to request access to any of your showcase threads. I have had quite enough of your vicious lunacy to know that you have no real interest real debate. Probably because of your many defeats.

Just as I reminded Randman I'll remind you that this thread is not part of the Showcase forum, and that the Forum Guidelines have to be followed here.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

No problem. Will change the thread title

Percy, what would you think about allowing Randman access to all forums on a probationary status in which I, as moderator, would observe Rand's input closely so as to make suggestions and/or other moderation proceedure if and when I felt necessary, leaving you, Percy, in an oversight role over the matter, providing Rand would agree to this arrangement?Though we all have our faults, I do agree that Rand, on occasion, overly implicates dishonesty in his messages regarding the ideologies of his counterparts which irritates and inflames. This, I could be particularly watchful of.If and when other members had a problem with Rand's behavior that I missed, they could cite it for moderation attention in the moderation thread.

I think Randman's current approach to discussion in the Showcase forum exactly exemplifies why he is there.Randman has a really tough row to hoe if he is to ever achieve civil discussions with evolutionists. Ask yourself how well you could maintain civility in discussion with someone you thought was a liar and a fraud, and who was repeating baldfaced lies to your face. This is the problem Randman faces. He truly believes that evolutionists are dishonest, duplicitous, dissembling liars who lie while fully aware of the lies they are telling. It's no wonder he can't contain himself.Reprieve from Showcase will only come when Randman realizes that evolutionists are honest, forthright people just like himself who truly believe what they are saying.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

No problem, Percy. Hopefully you will keep an eye on him in showcase to re-evaluate at some future time. He could be an asset to the ID creationist debate since we concur with much of what he says regarding science if at some point he can be tolerated in the forums.I assume you understand my referral to ID so often in comment so as to designate between Jar versions and ID versions of creos.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Hi, Percy.I didn't intend to misrepresent your position on the Showcase or the history of Randman's tenancy there--my apologies if I left that impression.As you suggest, my opinion is that his "inability to recognize evidence and logic" is foundational to his charges against others of dishonesty and deceit. While I stand by that opinion and could mount a vigorous defense of it, I recognize that observed behavior is the better benchmark for policy.

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Personally I nuance that a bit. I think he falls in the category that Dawkins described as tormented in his article Ignorance Is No Crime:

quote:

---

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

​

I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid, and not wicked can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding of what their holy book tells them on the other.

​

There is wickedness here, but it is the wickedness of the institution and what it does to a believing victim, not wickedness on the part of the victim himself.

---

I believe he wants to believe science is sound, but is torn when it conficts with his beliefs.This is also why I tend more to use delusion for this latter category, because the cause of the delusion is not necessarily of the person's choosing.:

quote:

---

delusion” -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

---

The last (deepest level?) describing the condition you attribute to him. One concession could be coffeehouse, as long as no discussions of science\faith are involved (ie humor, politics, morality, and general banter accepted as it is from everyone else). You could leave Buz on watch for that as he has volunteered.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Oh, no, you didn't create any misimpressions. Everyone will always have their own opinions, and in this case I just thought it a good idea to make clear my own opinion on the matter, since I'm the one who made the decision to showcase Randman. I certainly grant that the actual underlying causes of Randman's, uh, aggressive approach to debate are open to a variety of interpretations.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

My emphasis.But this is where it all breaks down.So far as I can see, randman is Lying For Jesus^TM. He seems willing to tell any lie, no matter how crazy or implausible, so long as (in the short term, until someone points out that he's lying) it furthers his dogma.And now you wish to convince randman that people who are not him prefer truth to falsehood?Good luck.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, I am very difficult to argue with if you disagree with me. I have this irritating knack of being right.Tell me more about those arctic tropical zebras, I could use a laugh.

It's only tough due to the near universal judgement of every single critic of evolution that has ever visited here that moderation is completely one-sided even though I admit your attitude and comments are more civil than many here, that seem to actually believe their own spin. Like I have stated before, I acknowledge there is true belief. Hare Krishnas, Moonies and many others also truly believe as well....

buzz, I am not asking to be readmitted to the general forum....though I appreciate you sticking up for me.I don't believe it's a fair forum for critics of evolution at present. I think evos are allowed to insult, not substantiate their comments, etc, etc,....and non-evos are discriminated against. I had hoped the forum would encourage creationist moderators to even things out a bit and give the critics' perspective some room to make judgement calls reflecting the complaints that every IDer and creationist has had over here, in terms of moderation, but it seems and I could be wrong, that the purpose for a creationist moderator was to simply reprimand non-evos more than step in and correct an injustice to moderation.Then again, that's my opinion.To the admins, I only posted here today after several posts where I was the subject matter, and where there were, imo, false allegations and smears directed towards me. I hope that if I am considered out of line posting on this thread, that you keep in mind that fact.

So can a evo can an IDer or creationist is a liar as much as he pleases with no sanction?Responding in kind, I suspect, warrants a banning for the non-evo.

The problem really is that while you guys make this statement, too many of you feel perfectly comfortable assuming that the only reason anyone disagrees with you on evolution is because they are either ignorant, lying, dumb, insane, etc, etc,....as even someone quotes on this thread a typical attitude of evos. So what happens is you guys think it is OK to suggest or call your critics ignorant, liars, dumb, insane, etc, etc,....and ascribe all sorts of false motives to them, every single one of them usually, and so run them off with the idiocy of evos actually believing this crap. Then when someone begins to voice thier opinions that are disparaging towards evos, you guys censure or ban the guy because in your eyes, you are telling the truth when you denigrate your critics, but somehow when the other side denigrates evos, you think it's wrong.My own view is that the way evolution is taught creates a sort of brainwashing where the basic assumptions that filter the way data is perceived is uncritically accepted and remains largely untested, and I am not the only one that has come to that conclusion. Some prominent scientists have from time to time come out and concluded when it comes to Darwinism and neoDarwinism, that the emperor has no clothes.