|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I could not be anymore happier that Jar finally got what was coming to him even though the actual message that landed him in the slammer was rather tame and predictable since he is an Atheist-evolutionist who claims to be a Christian. If I were Admin I would ban Jar for life until he sends an email to EvC profusely apologizing for his incessant wicked behavior, including permission to post it publicly. Then he should be forced to shave his head and tossed into Showcase to wait for likes of a Kuresu or CK to come and visit him.
Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Brian: I will bet you a dollar that Creationists are banned and/or suspended and/or censored (in some fashion) at least twice as much as the Evolutionists?
There is no reason why Faith should be banned indefinetly, only persons posting spam or off topic stuff should be banned. Everyone else that Administration feels should suffer loss of posting privileges should be suspended in terms of days or single digit weeks at the most. Anything more indicates anger caused by the inability to refute (in the eyes of objective persons). Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
You're right - Creationists ARE banned far more frequently than non-Creationists. Glad you agree.
However, this is not due to their beliefs. Right, it is due to our evidence and arguments.
It's due to constantly posting highly offensive and inflammatory comments with the sole purpose of spreading anger and driving away actual debate. Since you are a Darwinist this reason has no objective value whatsoever. And it is the epitome of an unsupported assertion to say that persons are being driven away. We could say that the pro-evolution bias of Moderators who are evolutionists is driving these alleged persons away.
It's due to consistently refusing to support arguments with any evidence in the science sections. Nonsense.
It's due to personal insults against individual posters. I could go on. Do you know how many times Dr Adequate has called me a liar and never received one warning? I even insinuate liar and I get a warning.
The fact is, the Creationists just tend to resort to such tactics and thus break the forum guidelines more frequently. That is what evolutionists say when they cannot refute the evidence and are cornered. They know one of their Mods will arrive and save their face citing Forum rule violations. It is the oldest tactic on this board to escape unpleasant evidence by the evolutionists.
The mods even give Creationists more slack than the rest, because otherwise all of the Creos would be banned and the site wouldn't exist. Predictable insult phrased as a "legitimate point." Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Admin explaining Jar's suspension writes: I viewed Jar's post as just yet another regrettable expression lying on the border of a Forum Guidelines violation that makes moderators jobs more difficult, but it didn't seem like suspension material. But Jar's challenging and dismissive reply to AdminBuzsaw in Message 23 seemed to me, when combined with his pattern of similar responses and with his not taking to heart any of my several low-level cautions over the past months, sufficient to justify a suspension, if for no other reason to make clear my determination to maintain civility here. Let it be known that this is an objective, well reasoned explanation for suspension. It tells everyone plainly that when Admin guides this board in a specific direction, and when he drops hints and clues that the direction is not being followed, suspension will result. It is a schematic that applies to everyone, but it just so happened that in this case an evolutionist failed to take note. I could of easily wrote what Jar wrote about Creationists and substituted Evolutionists since I feel the same way. I think Admin is also saying that both sides already believe the other side are filthy rotten liars, but stop saying these things since it leads to the destruction of the Creation-Evolution debate, the reason for being of this board. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I have many times posed the same question to the creationist moderators. Evolutionists firmly rebut their nuttier elements (e.g., Hoot Mon), but creationists seem to allow their nuttier elements free rein. Why aren't more creationists challenging Ray Martinez and IamJoseph and CTD and Vashgun and so forth saying something like, "Hey, dude, you don't speak for all Christians, and I don't agree with the views you're expressing or the way you're expressing them. You're making Christianity look bad." Because Christian-Creationists agree with one another - that's why. The only "Christians" who do not agree are evolutionists, and after listening to these "Christian-evolutionists" their views are noticeably atheistic, which explains why they do not agree with us. We, in turn, explain the atheistic "Christianity" of these evolutionists by pointing out that Judas the Betrayer walked "with" Christ for three and one-half years, but Jesus in John chapter 6 says that He knew Judas was a son of the devil from the beginning. Therefore the Christian-evolutionists, like Judas, are deceived, which explains why they think they are Christians while accepting the same origin for mankind as Richard Dawkins. Typologically, Judas explains how persons could think of them self as Christians walking with Christ, but are in fact walking with Satan. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
NJ, open up the thread and let someone else close it, and please make admin actions in your admin name. Here is what really happened: EvC Forum got lucky when NJ happened to close the thread. Since the thread was closed right at the magic number no one has a case to complain because 300 was reached. But EvC Forum and the hardline pro-Atheist faction hated my thread. They have no answers for the points I made. These points were exposing the self-evident pro-Atheist nature of evolution and isolating TEists to be fools. This is why I said EvC Forum got lucky when NJ closed the thread. I believe Lithodid-Man was told off the board not to reply to my rebuttal of his Materialism post. Most posters at EvC do not realize that I and a few other Creationists are tolerated, but hated. Kurseu was making some good points at the end of the thread and I did not have time to respond to them. Crashfrog evaded the tough points like the plague, and Jar did his usual "everything is an unsupported assertion" routine. The point is that evolution is NOT really open for scrutiny or falsification. My thread was derailed endlessly (between posts 101 and 225); the evo mods did not care because the subject was perceived to harm evolution irreparably. At least Kuresu was not afraid to confront the ugly facts. Shame on Crashfrog and Jar for their incessant hand waving and evasions, psychologically indicative of the inability to refute. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
what
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given. Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
http://EvC Forum: Evolution and the BIG LIE -->EvC Forum: Evolution and the BIG LIE
What exactly is "delusional"? I actually replied to the OP and did not derail. If you say the pro-creationist element of my responses are "delusional" then you are deciding what the creationist view is, and that my view is not the creationist view. Apparently you are ajudicating a personal vendetta under color of Moderation since there is nothing delusional in my post. This is a classic example of a evolutionist Moderator protecting an injured evolutionist who is being taken to the cleaners. My posts anger you because they make perfect sense; in response you slander them and threaten to ban me for holding the creationist view. Objective persons know you are just an angry evolutionist unable to obtain any intellectual satisfaction on your enemy. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Certainly he's been around long enough to know the rules. Mod was in the thread so he can't do anything. But maybe you can suspend him and get me an apology? Just kidding. I can take it. But I do think its odd who gets whacked for saying what. I never know what's legitimate commentary around here. Crashfrog cannot ever get truly whacked since he is the darling of this forum. Evolutionists run this place and that gives them the right to be biased. The point is that the evolutionist, if you notice, cannot take his own medicine. Anyone who is angry enough to assert that apes morphed into men over millions of years is certainly capable of excessive bias. I suspect this is the real reason why Creationists and Designists boycott this forum. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I would like permission to talk to RAZD about his stipulated definition of evolution. I need permission because AdminNosy has told me not to post in that topic.
I only want to understand RAZDs proposition. I think I do, and I think I can show him some errors in his stipulated proposition, which, if you read the OP, is attempting to portray Creationists as lying about evolution, when in fact we do not need to lie about evolution.
RAZD in OP writes: http://EvC Forum: Evolution and the BIG LIE -->EvC Forum: Evolution and the BIG LIE The big lie is what creationists say about evolution, that evolution is a problem for creationist beliefs, that there is something else to evolution than the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation or that this is NOT evolution (but will they define what is?). RAZD has stipulated a definition of evolutionary process, which is perfectly legitimate, as he has pointed out repeatedly. RAZD does not seem to understand that if microevolution, as defined by him or Darwin or any other evolutionist or creationist, has indeed occurred on this planet, then Creationism is falsified. But his topic is about his stipulated definition and the pasted text in the blue box, and that is the parameters that I will observe. RAZDs stipulated definition: "The scientific definitions from universities are consistent with the definition that evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" Ray
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024