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

You keep trying to engage with IAJ, so I want to finally say a few words about this.The creation/evolution controversy has a long record of attracting loons. IamJoseph is just one of many here. Dawn Bertot, Robert Byers, Bolder-dash and John 10:10 are others who have posted recently.Before Dover the presence of the certifiables was balanced by others who could articulate a position and argue it rationally, but after Dover their numbers gradually dwindled until today there are almost none here. ID disgraced itself at Dover and is no longer effectively promoting itself, and creationism has decided to keep a very low profile, refraining from any overt actions that might bring it into court but working hard to influence school boards and individual teachers. The result of the cessation of overt efforts to convince the public of their views is that the creationists who come here are either woefully unprepared, or they're seriously disconnected from reality, or they speak English so poorly they understand little that is said (by themselves or anyone else), or all of these and more.There seems something about holding beliefs contrary to reality that forces disassociation. Just look at TrueCreation, an early and highly active YEC participant in EvC Forum's early days who performed his own intense and highly detailed research. He now says he is no longer YEC, but he can't answer a direct question and has become highly circumspect in all his replies, almost like he's waging an internal battle to keep himself from thinking about certain things.What originally drew me in to the creationism/evolution controversy was creationism's inability to articulate a rational position while insisting it deserved inclusion in public school science programs. It was the legal battles that first garnered my attention. In the old days many creationists who came to sites like this could muster very strong arguments for their position that required careful attention, but today we get a lot of creationists who seem crazy right from their first post.I've taken the long way around to say something simple: some of the creationists here who seem crazy really *are* crazy, at least in this discussion board context. Probably in real life they're not really crazy, but religious devotion and sincerity combined with a complete ignorance of science seems to produce the appearance of complete irrationality. Long experience has taught me, and many others here, that's there no point in arguing with a crazy person, and besides, onlookers often can't tell the difference.There's one key sign, not always exhibited but still helpful, that tells you when it's time to disengage. When you find yourself explaining the interpretation of simple English, head for the hills.I fully understand the impulses pressing you to engage with IAJ and straighten out his confusion, which seems simple and straightforward and easy to resolve. It appears to you that the presentation of a few simple facts and the walking through of a few logical inductions should straighten everything out. But it doesn't work that way with creationists. When they exhibit a few simple and fundamental errors it isn't because they've just accidentally picked up a few incorrect facts that can be easily corrected, but because they have a whole pathology that prevents them from ever connecting evidence to any ideas contrary to their central beliefs.--Percy

The truth is, Dr. A gets away with a lot more because he's funnier and more entertaining.

Your recent posting history is that you complain about your past treatment and that you escalate the abuse in your messages until you get banned for yet another long period of time.

Why sure Balders, I'd be glad to throw in! I think you're quite right, creationists do seem to be a touchy bunch. The phrase "thin skinned" would certainly be a fair description of a good many of them. After all, for over a year you yourself have been whining like a child who's lost his candy. It scarcely makes the creationist contingent look resilient!Really though, I don't think that this is the biggest reason for creationist flounce-outs. I think that after a while, the strain of constantly being wrong about everything gets to the poor dears. After all, no-one likes being wrong, not even creationists, who've had so much practise at it. It must be wearing to argue a point so blisteringly stupid in a subject where you're so woefully out of your depth. I don't envy you your task.

Your assessment of the moderating here is way off. This site is one of the most even handed that I have encountered.