|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
hugenot smells like a link spammer.
I'm not certain - but I'm definitely suspicious. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I agree, suspicious. But it seems quite possible to me that he's just a twit who thinks he's making a legitimate point, then providing a link to support it. They don't seem to be links to commercial sites, (although I haven't clicked on any yet to see) and there different sites in the links. The links appear to relate to the dreck in the message.
On the other hand, the extraordinary unlikelihood that this nut will have anything of value to say is so low that perhaps no harm could come from waving him off right form the start.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Thanks, guys, we'll see what happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Message 1 is another lower than whale snot spammer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3269 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Redd Neo has now proposed three new topics, despite not listening to the requests of a moderator on the first two. Is there a way to stop him from being able to propose a new topic, while still letting him try to fix the first ones that are still in the "Propose New Topics" forum?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5
|
AdminPhat writes: The goal here is understanding through discussion. Evidence is not required, nor is winning the argument the goal. Please refrain from trying to frame the argument for the mere sake of winning it....if you have any faith and belief in support of it, please make your point. If you are simply against the concept of faith and belief, you have no purpose participating. Am I to understand that: 1) Faith and Belief is not a debate forum? 2) Faith and belief are the only acceptable grounds for posts/assertions in the Faith and Belief forum? 3) Those without faith and belief do not belong--and are not welcome--in this forum?"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I think AdminPhat is giving us a fine display of the behavior of the CCoI come to power.
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
What I did was pull all of Pandas replies from 3 threads...and examined his arguments....not just in Faith & Belief
What i saw was a tendency to lambast others while making no real contribution himself. debates need reasoned argumentation...you cant simply criticize opponents without making any sound counterclaims of your own. Also, in a Faith & Belief forum, arguments need only the support of prior writings on the subject of that particular faith/belief. Evidence is not required. If someone wishes to argue contrarily, they need to lay out their own faith and/or belief rather than simply tearing logical holes in another ones beliefs. Edited by AdminPhat, : add
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Your complaint against him is the same as your usual complaint. When you find someone saying stuff you don't agree with, you get angry. And when you see that they are using various debate strategies that you can't contend with, you get angry.
And when you get angry, you lash out.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
AdminPhat writes:
You moderated based on my posts in other threads!? What I did was pull all of Pandas replies from 3 threads...and examined his arguments....not just in Faith & Belief.WTF?? AdminPhat writes:
And again, you imply that evidence was asked for. Also, in a Faith & Belief forum, arguments need only the support of prior writings on the subject of that particular faith/belief. Evidence is not required.It was not. AdminPhat writes:
And it would have been less misleading of PurpleDawn if she had done that. If someone wishes to argue contrarily, they need to lay out their own faith and/or belief rather than simply tearing logical holes in another ones beliefs.Perhaps you should try reading her posts without your blinkers on. {abe}Anyway, I left the thread. Be happy. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7
|
Hi Jon and Omnivorous,
No links were provided to the posts in question, so I hope I'm not too far off the mark, but I think AdminPhat was expressing a preference that positions be supported with a rationale based upon something tangible. In the religious forums this wouldn't mean evidence of a scientific nature, but a position might be based upon a book or a philosophy or history or perhaps a logical line of reasoning. Perhaps the underlying rationale for a position hasn't been made sufficiently clear with the result that to a moderator someone appears to be objecting or rebutting without reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
See PM.
Edited by Jon, : PM Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Putting everything in context clarifies what Percy cherry picked so as to chastise Portillo for doing what it appears dwise1 did to me in context, i.e. a purposeful attempt to confuse and obfuscate my position, lumping me in with others and falsely stating my position.
What makes it worse is that dwise1 knows that I, being banned from the forum, can't respond. He apparantly thinks he can air his demeaning allegations with impunity, full well knowing that he won't be chastized by Percy as Portillow was. In context, it appears that Portillo's cherry picked response applied to what Trixie said below. At worst, perhaps Portillo applied a poor choice of words. Clearly his comment referenced Trixie's application of biological evolution relative to this thread topic.
Trixie writes: Message 84 That's exactly what dwise1 was saying and what you've just amply demonstrated. Unless otherwise stated, just about every reference to evolution made on this board is talking about biological evolution, the Theory of Evolution, Darwin's work "On the Origin of Species".If you choose to conflate all of your examples with what we're saying, that's up to you, but unless we're all using the same definition, discusson is impossible. Changing definitions mid-conversation is a recipe for confusion. It's also a tactic used with boring regularity by those who wish to deny biological evolution, who don't accept the mechanism of descent with modification. Can you tell me how the Theory of Evolution is affected by, or deals with the evolution of galaxies, of stars? In a thread entitled "Evolution is not Abiogenesis" it's pretty darned obvious that we're talking about biological evolution and a particular idea of the origin of life. This thread is asking if the ToE is affected by the method by which life originated. You seem to be broadening it to take in just about everything that changes. Portillo writes: Message 85 Yes, this thread is about biological evolution. The post mentioned that when talking about evolution, it ONLY means biological evolution. Not just in this thread but any context, which isnt true. dwise1 writes: Message 88 I think that a very large part of the question is that Buz, Chuck, Portillo, and other creationists apply an entirely different definition to "evolution" than we normals do. For us, evolution is biological evolution only, the natural consequences of life doing what life naturally does. But for them, "evolution" is something entirely different, a complete atheistic worldview that demands the inclusion of abiogenesis -- the standard meaning, not your redefinitions. A large part of my position is that, if they are indeed redefining the terminology out from under us, they must at least inform us of just exactly what their definitions are. But then, that would work against their standing operating procedures of trying to generate confusion. Percy writes: Message 88 To the rest of us this looks like a purposeful attempt to confuse and obfuscate. It looks like, having perhaps decided that the battle in this thread can't be won, that you've decided to destroy any focus and clarity the thread might have. It is rare that people act out of base motives, so I have to believe that you have a clear conscience and do not believe you're doing any such thing, but I have to wonder what the heck you're thinking. You really believe that Dwise1 is saying that we evolutionists only accept one definition of evolution, no matter the context? Really? Even if you really and truly believe this in your heart of hearts, wouldn't it be a better strategy to hide this fact so that people don't think you're, uh, comprehensionally challenged, or worse, lying?BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
You could create a Peanut Gallery thread in Coffee House and make corrective comments from there.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
A spammy spammer called zibiga is bumping old threads with his spammy spam.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024