General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0

Permanent restriction of a Creationist by Darwinists is about viewpoint and the inability to refute and the perceived harm the Creationist argument(s) might have on the undecided.This is invulnerable logic.

No matter how much you attempt to mis-portray the issue to be over rule infractions, objective persons know the real reason is rage caused by the inability to refute.

I only make these posts to point this out and to say I feel complimented that I am censored.Censorship exists to silence views that harm the status quo view.

I exempt persons like Mick and Crashfrog who have said they oppose my restrictions.

Admin, that's pretty much bull crap and you know it. Very few, basically evos without any intent imo to debate the topic at hand, were requested to be removed.....

Ringo, my comments to which you refer were not in defense of Randman's MO perse, but meant as applicable to creationists in general, the more fundamentally Biblical being convinced of higher realms of intelligence capable of what we call miraculous.

Moreover, you guys are not actually allowing fair discussion in allowing your critics to present the facts to support their argument that they feel is necessary. Instead, you try to control what facts can actually be presented in an argument. Evos can, say, bring up natural selection on a non-natural selection thread as a point of evidence or part of a larger concept.
I bring up evidence such as Haeckel or other errors of evos as evidence on a thread or a point as to why or how evos would have missed something or the evo mentality, and that's seen as a rules violation. It's not. It's using a set of facts to discuss the topic. The problem is you guys want to define what sets of facts can and cannot be used.If I bring up the fact evos discriminate seemingly against IDers, or use the courts to forbid the presentation of ID in schools, somehow I am smearing evos and so in a rules violation.The interpretation of the rules is such that they are basically a debating tool of evos here, which is why so few evos are willing to debate on Showcase, I suspect.

DA, unless you want time out you need to cool it and cease/desist calling Randman or any other member a liar unless you can, without loosing your cool, document empirically on the spot that what has been alleged is clearly an intentional lie...

DA you refused to debate when you had the chance.

Randman: There is no sting or truth in being called a liar by a person who believes that apes morphed into men or that the appearance of design indicates a blind and mindless process instead of invisible Designer.