|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
brennakimi writes: i don't really care if i'm right or not. what i care about is that you were debating in admin mode and still are. period. You addressed my admin action and about all of what I've said to you was pertaing to that action. Being a creationist moderator appears to require a lot of detailed explanation for folks like you and Omni when I work to serve the board. Now that you've ran outa gas on being right, if that's all you have left I must've finished my job and back on member status. As Paul Harvy might say it, "Good Day?" BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Paulk, this thread is not the place to extend old debates. Imo, it leads off topic. Nobody has soundly debunked anything on that issue. My point for the purpose of this discussion was to show that the primary methodology of that debate of creationists was not emotion and Biblical authority but archeological discovery and exploration.
All I have to say regarding the recent remarks of others, so much for civility, decency and respect. It's not for me to take any action here, but Brennakimi is borderline on violation of the rules and becoming a disgrace to the board by the hate-speak she's spewing, imo. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Admin writes: 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 we are too busy keeping up with refuting all the stuff our multiple counterparts in our own debates allege. Some ever active resident evolutionists being the vast majority seem to have lots of time on their hands twiddling their thumbs waiting for the next counterpart minority constituency debate to engage in. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Anglagard, I was responding to Percy's comment, offering a bonafide reason why Biblle-creos don't critique one another's input. If my response was an abuse of admin power, you're implicating Admin as well. I don't think either were inappropriate for the thread as they both have to do with moderation matters of conduct, behavior and moderation proceedures.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
http://EvC Forum: Seashells on tops of mountains. -->EvC Forum: Seashells on tops of mountains.
Admin writes: There's no problem with beginning a rebuttal with something like, "According to the Biblical record," as long as it is followed at some point by the evidence supporting the accuracy of the Biblical account. If no evidence is offered then there is nothing to rebut but the Bible, and the science threads are for scientific discussions, not religious ones. The problem which arises here for Bible-creos is that the great flood account is considered by the majority as a story related to religion whereas we see it as a historical event according to what we consider to be a Biblical historical account. The Bible has much history, both verifiable and unverifiable. The more literal of us see Genesis as history. If we are not allowed to refer unverifiable segments of it as such in science threads I think any threads pertaining to the Biblical record should not be in science. For example, According to what I believe to be the Biblical historical record sets forth the implication of a global canopy and I purpose to debate my reasons for this. This is unverifiable, but in the canopy thread we debate reason, logic, physics and some evidence in support of the canopy hypothesis. Nevertheless, certain aspects of my statements in that debate include both non-religious and religious phrases. Bible-creos regard both as inclusive in the historical record. My point is that the bottom line of Bible-creos debate in the geology/flood threads is that the Bible is a historical record. This is one of the big issues Faith addressed from time to time, adamantly debating for the historicity of the Biblical record. If this is not acceptable to you, I propose that we move the threads regarding the flood and the canopy to Faith and Belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PaulK writes: Or to sum up you don't have logic or reason on your side. You don't have evidence. All you have is a faith in Biblical authority and your own emotional reactions. Yes, this would make it impossible for your side to usefully participate in the Geology and the Great Flood forum. Accordingly it seems that your whole post amounts to an admission of defeat. And a vindication of Jar. 1. Paul, the moderation forum is not for debating who's logic, reason and evidence is credible. In order to determine that conclusively one must address the specific evidence, science, logic and reason in question posted within the debate thread itself as to who has substantially refuted who. 2. If the side of the debate which espouses the Biblical record regarding the flood is disallowed from debate on the Biblical flood, who's to be debated in the thread? 3. What do you propose, one sided discussion in the geology/flood science thread, moving the thread to Faith and Belief or some other solution to the problem at hand? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
anglagard writes: IMHO I think you are complaining about not being able to force others to believe as yourself. Your are already treated as special, what now, you want us to provide you a helmet and transportation in the short bus? My message was not a complaint. It was addressing a problem as to whether Bible-creos should be allowed to refer to the Bible as record according to our flood/canopy ideology which includes aspects regarded as religious or whether the thread should be moved to Faith and Belief where we can participate in the debate without compromising our ideology. Bible-creos regard the religious aspects of the Biblical flood as part and parcel of the Biblical record and as historical. If counterparts want to debate that record, why should we be required to compromise our ideologial views regarding the record. The debate should either be moved to a faith based forum where we can function as Bible-creos or that we should be allowed to debate the flood/canopy inclusive of the whole record which we are debating. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Quetzel writes: Feel free to use the Bible in a science thread. Just be prepared to show how the book is externally validated. My statement to which you responded pertained to speech perse and not to actual usage of the Bible as evidence. Creationists have been critiqued for verbally alluding to the Bible as a historical record in some of our messages since there is historical information in it. It's not about claiming infalibility. What historical info can be shown to be true is debatable. Nevertheless we consider it to be what we often refer to as the Biblical record or the Biblical historical record since many of the major historical events from Genesis leading up to the birth of Jesus are referenced in it, including geneologies of messianic forebears. We also reference corroborating evidence relative to lending credibility to the record. I don't refer to the Biblical record as evidence. Rather I sometimes refer to it as a Biblical historical record in debates about events in it because I personally regard it as such. I am not trying to argue that secularists should regard it as such. We all have our opinions about what is credible and what is not. That is what EvC ideological debate is all about. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Quetzel writes: Using faith in the Bible to support the claims of the Bible is simply circular, and hence invalid. That is where the Bible-believers get into trouble on science threads. Using faith in the Bible to support claims of the Bible is not what I do or what I am positing. We all know that any debate about the Genesis flood comes from the Biblical record. All I am asking is that Biblicalist members be allowed to refer to the Bible as a historical record in our speech. That has nothing to do with support or evidence It is simply how we describe the alleged historical flood and/or Exodus event. Debate relative to our position is about debating evidence which is brought forth in the debates. For example, the evidence debated in the Exodus was such things as the scientific research and photography of Dr Lennart Moller and the physical evidences which were cited in the region such as the topography of the beach area, the inscriptions, unusual split rock with dried up waterway, burnt top mountain, etc. How can you construe all this as supporting the Biblical record with the record itself perse, implying that we offer no physical evidence? The OT is every bit as much about alleged history than about faith. The debates are about falsification and/or support as to the credibility of that historical record. Until imperically falsified, the debate goes on. Why should this debate board forbid Biblicalist members from referring this book to what to what we claim it to be, a historical record. That is not to say that anyone should necessarily consider any historical record to be totally accurate. For that matter many believe that a lot of modern history has been revisionist distorted accounts designed to be politically correct. That is debatable, but nevertheless some would still regard it as an inaccurate distorted historical record just as you think Edited by Buzsaw, : clarification BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PaulK writes: So basically you are saying that you want to CALL it history solely because that is your opinion - not as any attempt to suggest that it is true ? Where did you get that silly notion from? It is demeaning without evidence or support.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
The following is typical of the caustic in your face dogged stalking from Jar, who just passed the 15000 posting record. Wherever I go, since he got suspended (not by me) I've been harrassed, needled and goaded by Jar and it's not very pleasant. The example below is where Jar and I interpret the Genesis text differently and rather than showing a reasonable amount of respect in debate as per item 10 of Forum Guidelines, Jar takes every advantage for an opportunity to demean and harrass with insults.
For the past 60 plus years I've been into daily reading of the Bible and Jar does this thing knowing full well that I read the Bible, likely a whole lot more than him. This, as I say is just one example of this sort of thing Jar is doing. He's always been somewhat this way but it seems that since his suspension it's escalated. http://EvC Forum: Why do creationists believe the world was created 6k years ago? -->EvC Forum: Why do creationists believe the world was created 6k years ago? Jar's message title: "Gotta quit misrepresenting the Bible Buz." Jar's typical message personal insult: "Have you ever read the Bible Buz?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
My apologies for the response delay. I've been on the road and visiting relatives across the country.
If it was an isolated thing I'd have no problem. It's consistent personal cheap shot insults that get problematic. I doubt that such conduct would be tolerated by the minority membership. Item 10 of the guidelines reads, "Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics. " The message you cited is quite typical of Jar's disrespectful abrassive MO. The title begins with, "Gotta quit misrepresenting the Bible Buz." It ends with, "Have you ever read the Bible Buz?" This member who consistently denies about every one of the scores of supernatural events in the Bible needles and goads Biblical literatists with this disrespectful personal insult, harrassment and abuse rather than simply debating the position. I'm not advocating any admin action at this time but would appreciate some admonition from admins if this conduct continues to be problematic. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
1. I've cited the problematics & no need to repeat.
2. Honor item 10 of the guidelines and we'll get along fine. This is not the place to debate the topic issues of the cited thread so Im not going there. I'm on the road tomorrow and don't know when the next opportunity for login will be. So Long. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: distruptive and dishonest behavior that represents an obstacle to debate, What is dishonest and what constitutes an obstacle is usually relative as per ideology so for the message to become meaningful or productive, you need to specify specific behavior which you have in mind. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
nator writes: Er, so a lie, or a statement that is in direct opposition to known facts can suddenly become the truth, or not contradict known facts if the person stating them holds a particular ideology? Like, the Earth actually becomes flat if someone's ideology states that it is? ........Or like some secularists who allege that the Bible contains no fulfilled prophecies. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024