General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')

Spell check changed my original draft from priori to priory so I mistakenly took that that I had been spelling it wrong. Had I stayed with my original spelling, there would have been a problem. I have made a statement in the thread for the benefit of those with whom I was dialoguing.I will edit the mistakes for correction.ABE: In making corrections I discovered that spell check only flagged it when it was capitalized which was the case in my message title. That's what threw me off. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

Which begs the question as to why my banning from all science forums including Biblical accuracy and intelligent design forums was not publically aired in the proper forum, designated for these announcements??Imo, it was because I was kicking some butt and raising some troublesome questions in the science fora. I see some of these restrictions as a convenient way to silence the effective members who debate for ID and creationism.Creationism and intelligent design, by definition, implicates the metaphysical. For the EvC admins to relegate creationists to naturalistic only conventional science methodology and interpretation of phenomenal data is to restrict creationists and ID to all naturalistic arguments, debating with 3/4 of our minds tied behind our backs in the debates.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by Buzsaw, : Update message title

Been there; done that, requesting at least permission to post in Bible and Accuracy. No soap. Can't do any of it.As to off topic, there's plenty of that going on here. Some get called on it; some don't. I've called some of my counterparts on it myself because they were leading me off topic. Some of my own off topic admin admonishments were due to bogus off topic lead off stuff which I felt compelled to respond to, but not significant enough to do a thread on.Why did I reply to you? Because it was your statement to which my reply applied.

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

I wouldn't know, but I imagine it's great being one of the good ole boys here at EvC getting all of that support for legitimate whines. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have requested that Admin grant me the privilege of posting in Biblically related threads, such as the accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible, etc.Admin has doggedly refused to grant permission for me in any forum in science.Is there any other admins here at EvC who will agree with me that this is being too stringent, in that Biblical related topics have always been my forte? AdminSleve, AdminPurple, Modulous, Adminnemooseous (abe: Admin Asgara): any of you, who might work on my behalf so as to enable me to participate in threads that have little to do with the nuts and bolts of the scientific method?The following are the forums to which I allude:The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy
Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?Intelligent Design
Is evidence of the divine apparent in the design of nature itself?Topics in Creation/Evolution
(thread example)Subjective Evidence of Gods Miscellaneous
Edited by Buzsaw, : Add Admn Asgara to list

Admin, LOL on me posting acceptable evidence pertaining to anything depicting the existence of the supernatural.I cite equally as much (often much more) evidence as many of my counterparts do. The Exodus evidence is a good example. Jar and a few et Al's, simply keep on keeping on demanding evidence, no matter how much I cite. They know, full well, that they have your ear and that you will back them. You, both as Admin and member, in fact, were one of the et al's in that regard.My antagonists got what they wanted from you; to get their effective opposition silenced.Where is there any balance? Balderdash was right. There is none. We need a bolder dash on behalf of creationists than what we have if we ever approach any resemblance of balance in moderation.I am thick skinned and can live with the stats quo, but not without some constructive criticism so as to afford a more balanced environment for debate.

If you recall, AdminPD I was once a moderator, advocating on behalf of various members, some evolutionists, in PAF.I know that, though in PAF you are not the final authority, moderators are allowed and expected to express opinions on behalf of members pertaining to issues that arise.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Admin, do you really think, in your heart of hearts, that any secularistic minded evolutionist such as those who incessantly called for evidence from me in the Exodus threads; who rejected one and all of my examples, will ever acknowledge any claimed and cited evidence of anything depicting the existence of a supernatural realm in the Universe?Can you show us one example, in all of these past 8 years, of that happening?I find it necessary to continually remind you that the research to which I alluded was not Ron Wyatt, but usually that of Swedish research scientist, Lennart Moller who performed the research and published his findings, both on land and sea, corroborating the list of evidences so as to support the hypothesis.If not one bit of scientist Moller's researched evidences is acknowledged by any of you as evidence by definition, what can we expect to achieve by another thread on what constitutes evidence of anything depicting a supernatural entity involved with that evidence?If you think that is possible, I will propose an evidence OP, but if it accomplishes it's intended goal, it will be a first, so far as I am aware.

It is unlikely either of the above will ever admit to evidence such as what was researched by scientist Moller. They are straw-men examples. Nearly all have vested interest in debunking Moller's evidence, including ICR. ICR (Institution of Creation Research) has their minds set and their criteria published on things related to Ararat and the Red Sea. There's too much at stake for them to re-tool so to speak.I ask you, Crashfrog; do you really think any of your kind will ever admit to any supernatural evidence? Be honest, now. Can you cite an example in the past years when any secularist minded members have ever acknowledged evidence related to the supernatural?We all know pretty well, the chances of any admissions, whatsoever, by any of you that any evidence supportive to the supernatural are extremely unlikely. I for-see a thread of futility, more-so than objectivity, but may give it a go when I find time.

A c r e a t i o n i s t god, actively working in and managing the Universe, to the degree that they would ever admit to evidence of that? Uh uh! No-nee!

I've been thinking about some of these things. Some reasons have come to mind which may shed some light on your question.Hint: It has a lot to do with how much these whoevers share regarding which positions. I've decided to submit a PNT regarding evidence when I find time.

I've had way too much on my plate, business wise to engage in a new thread. I plan to OP a proposal for an evidence thread when I get caught up. It may be a while yet.

How pathetic?
How about Buzsaw being banned from Biblical Accuracy threads?Biblical Accuracy is in science, yet reference to the Bible is essentially banned from science threads. Case in point: IAJ suspended for applying the Bible in the Biblical flood debate.If there's any semblance of moderation on behalf of creationists here, it's Adminnemooseous's concern for fairness.

Really?? Like when Admin debated/moderated/mothered me through the Exodus thread because he, the Exodus skeptic rejected my evidences cited, finally banning me from all science, including Biblical accuracy? If you think that's leeway, I'll sell you a bridge.