Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
Alan you don’t have a mind and you sure as hell cannot reference the alleged modern theory of evolution. It is clear that you are nothing but a scientifically illiterate ass.
Darwin said how to falsify his claims but he never said how to TEST them. He never said how to test the claim that NS produced vision systems. He just babbled on about the different types of eyes that vary in degree of complexity.
So stuff it, Alan.
Is someone melting down?
My nose is running. It could be I’m melting.
In one way I agree with you. The whole idea of “minds” misleads people to dualism; and that way lies…
I doubt beating you around the head with a first edition of On the Origin of Species would produce an acknowledgement of reality, Joe.
So fucking what, Joe? Darwin (jointly with Wallace) first proposed the idea of natural selection. He was not obliged to formulate tests. Anyone can go look for rabbit fossils in the Cambrian layer or other anomalies that would falsify the theory.
Have you thought of taking up a hobby?
I’m afraid he has.
I read the book, Alan, what I said is correct and you cannot demonstrate otherwise. Your bluff is duly noted.
LoL! Scientific theories require testing, Alan. As a matter of fact testable hypotheses come FIRST.
NS cannot account for any rabbits. You don’t even have a testable mechanism for getting beyond prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes- endosymbiosis doesn’t help you.
But anyway it seems that you finally agree that Darwin’s is not a scientific theory as scientific theories require a way to test their claims.
Moderators- Thank you for continuing to prove that you are hypocrites.
Nice job
scientific theory
And that means Alan loses and I win that claim. Darwin’s was not a scientific theory
Maybe he’s snowed in or just laid off till New Year.
Seems reasonable.
So have you moved the goalposts now from “there is no theory of evolution” via “there is no scientific theory of evolution” to “there is no supporting evidence for the theory of evolution”?
No Alan, it has always been about a scientific theory. From my post that you won’t allow:
No goalposts were moved, Alan. Nice try.
LoL! Temper, temper. I would love to see you try such a thing.
You have to have a paying job first to get laid off. Self-employed toaster repairman doesn’t cut it.
Toaster repair? Do these look like toasters to you? Thanks to those “toasters” I was given a personal, private tour of the Statue of Liberty in July 2004- a month before it reopened to the public- it was closed after 9-11-2001. I installed the explosive trace equipment, including the Entry Scan- at the base of the big lady.
I got to travel the world doing that. And yes when I was south of the equator I tried to see if the ole claim of the water spins the other way when draining was true. It isn’t.
Frankie,
Wow he’s a super-patriotic CABLE GUY.
Presumably you did not stand on your head at the time? A newb mistake.
Yeah cuz cable guys travel around the world and their tasks get them personal private tours of the SoL before it reopened to the public.
So Richie has taken over clown duties from blipey. Good to know
Alan, Thank you for finally admitting that there isn’t a scientific theory of evolution. Could you please release my post about that seeing that you agree?
How about any of you other mods?
Is there a limit as to how many posts can be held in moderation?
Is 21 the magic number of was that just a coincidence?
I nominate myself as someone worthy of being given moderator privileges here at TSZ. Given the continued absence of Elizabeth and JohnnyB, I submit that a moderating voice would benefit the site.
Mung,
So modest! No.
I failed to mention how modest I am!
Moderator trainee
It’s ok to say you’ve had your ass handed to you, but it’s not ok to say you’ve had your balls handed to you.
These are important distinctions, and as a “moderator trainee” I will give the utmost attention to that distinction.
Mung,
On your good days, you’d be fine.
Alan Fox needs to be removed as a moderator. He is breaking Lizzie’s rules by putting posts in guano that don’t violate her rules.
You need to be more specific. Recently I’ve moved comments to guano that either break a rule, that reply to a guano’d comment (for continuity) or that are complaints about moderation. If you think one of my decisions is wrong, just indicate which comment and what the problem is.
Rich, to Mung:
Days, plural?
OK Alan, please explain the rule that was broken by the following posts:
The point is blind watchmaker evolution is a non-starter, not science and the atheists who push it are hindering science.
That one followed the OP
This one is factual and a direct response to a poster:
Richie thinks they do as all he does is post links without any explanation on how they supports his claims
I would love to read what you think is wrong with the following:
It’s too funny that adapa doesn’t know who Carl Woese is
And finally another factual post:
I think it’s cute that evos here still think there is a scientific theory of evolution. That’s not just dumb it’s desperate.
All are within the rules and if you think otherwise you need to start pulling more comments off and putting them in guano. As a matter of fact if I am in moderation then the following should join me:
adapa; acartia; Richie; dazz; omagain- at the very least
That comment quoted a guano’d comment, moved for continuity.
It attacks a fellow commenter.
Ditto.
Personal attack “evos here think… dumb.”
You are in pre-moderation simply because I can’t trust you to post civil comments. You also seem fond of the professional foul, deliberately trying to provoke an intemperate response from your interlocutors. You are TSZ’s Marco Materazzi! 🙂
And just a reminder that I’m less inclined to guano comments with substantive content or that are from new or infrequent commenters who may not be familiar with the rules or comments that have passed their sell-by-date.
Alan Fox,
Really Alan? I am sure you couldn’t possibly find quotes from atheists talking about how dumb IDist and creationists are here at TSZ. No, I AM SURE YOU COULD NEVER FIND THOSE HERE!
The pinball wizard surely will never be able to find those! Never happens! A blind watchmaker has nothing on your clouded vision, mate.
I interpret the “here” in “Evos here” as “here, in this thread”. If a comment was posted that mentioned “IDiots here are dumb”, that would be rule-breaking.
Phoodoo, let’s not forget Frankie (Joe Gallien) is/was banned for posting porn.
Alan conflates facts with attacks.
The same can be said for those I listed.
The same can be said for those I listed.
As I said you need to be removed as a moderator. Your bias gets in way.
Calling me daft for speaking the truth proves you don’t deserve to be a moderator.
And now Richie is lying about the posting of porn. Lizzie’s posting of the naked statue of David is more pornographic than that.
And let us not forget that the link in question never would have been posted if the moderators actually did their job properly.
@ Frankie
Further unresponsive content-free one-liners aren’t likely to convince me that you can be trusted to keep to the rules.
If that’s true, host it on your bog as a banner. Once you’ve done that we’ll work on getting you out of moderation.
LoL! That is all Richie posts. That is all adapa posts. That is all acartia posts. And just cuz you think they are content-free doesn’t make them so. Make your case as your content-free one liners are meaningless.
God grief, Alan, you don’t have a freaking clue.
Maybe limit Joe to 5 comments a day? That might force him to try a bit harder / knee jerk less.
There are two posts in another thread that come very close to violating the rule against outing. One describes the geographic location of another participant and the other links to an image of that same participant. Please re-read the rules and keep within them.
Alan and Neil — I’m tempted to elide the personal information from those comments. Thoughts?
Richie, what you just said doesn’t follow. Just because the facts say it wasn’t porn doesn’t give you the right to throw a tantrum. Buy a dictionary
Patrick,
One’s mine, Guano it, no problem. Or delete it. I was enjoying his meltdown a bit too much.
It doesn’t bother me. But it does say that those violators should be put in moderation as they clearly cannot be trusted to follow the rules
You posted a graphic image of female genitalia. I can see why you’d rather discuss the definition of “porn” rather than accepting responsibility for your tasteless violation of the rules.
So let me get this straight. It’s the fault of the admins here that you chose to post a graphic image of genitalia in direct violation of the very clear rules (and in violation of anything resembling class or good taste)?
It’s a pain in the ass to have your comments in moderation because they all require explicit, manual approval. Unfortunately, given your refusal to accept responsibility for your own actions, I don’t see any justification for changing Alan’s decision.
No, Patrick, a link was posted and seeing that the accusation is one of posting porn then yes, I get to counter that with reality. I can see that you would rather falsely accuse someone than face the facts. And who says responsibility wasn’t taken for it? I know that was then reason for the banning- duh.
Tasteless violations of the rules? Please, spare me, adapa et al. do that on a daily basis