For general discussion that would be off-topic in other threads!
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
For general discussion that would be off-topic in other threads!
Alan Fox,
I guess I am not finding where to set options for particular roles. I see where to set that for individual members, but not globally.
I go to Dashboard –> Plugins –> role editor
If I click “settings”, I see 4 tabs (General, Additional Modules, Default Roles, About), and none of those seems to allow me to define the capabilities of a role.
Yes, that’s about the time frame. Walto had no problem posting on Jul 11th. It seems that everybody who tried this week (mostly trying to help hotshoe) had problems.
The access is via “users” on the dashboard. Click on it and there’s a drop-down menu with “User Role Editor” at the bottom.
But I think the problem might be linked to the capability to delete posts. It’s unchecked for authors but not for contributors.
Alan Fox,
I didn’t think to look there.
According to the documentation, Delete Posts for contributor only includes deleting unpublished posts. So that’s limited. If we give contributors publication rights, does that change? If not, then we could switch everyone to contributor and give contributors publish rights.
Switching all authors to contributor is relatively easy (I think). It looks as if we can do a page full at a time.
Maybe a little testing is warranted.
Seems a good idea to me. Anyone who wants can then write an OP, just needing an admin to enable the publishing. As I feel a bit responsible for the problem, I’ll sort out the transfers of all current authors to contributors. Then any attempts at sorting the author status permissions shouldn’t disrupt the traffic.
I think we have some spam.
Kantian Naturalist,
I’m not sure, but I think that was a test post by Alan.
The one in French, maybe? But the one called “The Lost Secret of Click Here” isn’t spam?
Kantian Naturalist,
I’ve now trashed. On review, it might be a break-in.
There were a considerable number of spam registrations that were among bona fide contributors . I’ve changed their role to subscriber so any activity from them will require moderating. I’m pretty sure I haven’t changed role for any active user but anyone who has been role-changed in error, just post a comment in moderation issues and an admin will change your role back as needed.
I think there was a brief period when new registrations were assigned “author” role by default (now reinstated as “subscriber”), as while I was working on this the count of authors went into the two hundreds. I suspect this was the cause of the apparently several spam OPs (I deleted one).
Alan Fox,
So a kind of opportunistic breakin for a short window of time. That would explain it, and probably isn’t a serious concern.
*Looks around for Bruce and Robert*
Whew! I’m relieved that Scotland voted No, or the next thing you know Canada would have been asking for independence from the US.
keiths,
Catalans are disappointed!
More likely, US will split in half and the blue half of the US and Canada will get together (even Alberta seems to becoming “bluer” in the US sense, so I think it will stick with the rest of Canada).
Although who knows what demographics will bring to the political color(*) of US states.
Or what lurks in the hearts of men, for that matter.
———
(*) I predict will be “colour” for current residents of NY.
BruceS
QED
A technical question: I just put up a short post (pointing to a post I made about Dembski’s arguments, at Panda’s Thumb).
I meant to give it some relevant Categories. But I forgot to. Then, immediately, I found that I could not change Uncategorized to the appropriate categories. There just seemed no way to edit that.
Is there one?
Joe,
Due to unfortunate incidents in which posters abused their privileges by deleting OPs and/or comments, we no longer have the ability to edit our OPs, including the Category assignments.
However, I’m sure the moderators will do it for you if you tell them which categories you’d like your post assigned to.
Joe Felsenstein,
Hi Joe
Put your post into Intelligent Design and Evolution categories. Appreciate your putting an OP here. Hope it generates some interest. I’m away for a few days now but will try and keep an eye on things.
Testing….1 2 3.
Alan Fox,
OK, please put it in Intelligent Design and Evolution. As noted by keiths, I don’t have the power to do that myself.
Thanks
Thanks for doing that!
Crap. I also forgot to categorize my new OP.
Moderators, could you assign it to ‘Mind and brain’?
Thanks.
Has UD unbanned the damned?
It seems so. They appear to have declared a general amnesty for all previously banned.
I haven’t been able to log in.
ETA:
Now I can.
I guess we can put TSZ on ice now!
Joe G:
Alan Fox:
Hello, all. I’m going to take a short break from TSZ. I have the book coming out in a few days (!!), conferences to apply for, and going on the job market. Plus, my interests have shifted slightly — though I’m still invested in philosophy of mind and philosophy of science, I want to return to Continental philosophy. Several excellent books on Adorno have come out over the past year and I miss working on those issues. I’ll check in once in a while and comment if I have something to contribute. In the meantime, keep up the good fight!
You need to study it at close hand. Carnap and the logical positivists gave up too easily! Come over if you get chance. Stay well!
All the best in your job hunt and book tour, KN.
If either happens to take you to Toronto, let us know and RB and I would be happy to buy you a coffee.
Well, maybe not RB.
Re Keith’s response to my:
Describing someone you are hoping to join you in a discussion “an ungrateful little twerp” is counter-productive and makes you seem insincere, in my view. I commented on the same lines at UD.
and my
I agree with Andre that this remark of Keith’s is uncalled for. I’m sure he’ll reflect on it and withdraw it.
Keiths posted at UD
I was expressing a hope that you might reflect. Obviously I was wrong to hope. I’ve remarked several times that your style of interacting with others is counterproductive, if your intent is to convince others of your argument. People tend to walk away from you rather than stay and interact.
I said “seems insincere” because calling someone you invite for a discussion “an ungrateful twerp” is likely to suggest to that someone that the invite is not sincere. I don’t suggest you are in fact insincere. I am sure you are sincerely committed to the views you express and I doubt they differ from mine significantly as far as either of us have expressed them and understood each other.
You seem (as you’ve mentioned it before) that I bear you some sort of personal grudge. You wrote here:
You’re right about my rather you didn’t because I doubt anyone is interested. But if you want to please do. Maybe it will clear the air. Perhaps a dedicated thread with a suitable warning for those who are not interested in discussions about grudges.
Not my blog but might have given Joe a second chance if he had expressed any remorse at all, giving guarantees of future conduct (which I admit is highly unlikely) and I might have considered limiting him to a dedicated thread, as Wesley Elsberry does with him and Gary Gaulin.
That’s a value judgement that I don’t altogether share. I’m pleased to see you defend TSZ aims and policies at UD, though.
In summary, I don’t know you at all personally, only as a fellow commenter around the internet. I value your contributions; you have certainly been prolific on this site. My regret is that you seem impervious to the idea that a good resolution of a discussion is if at least somebody learns something new and that sometimes your abrasive style of commenting reduces the chances of that happening. It’s not that I don’t like you; it’s that I like the idea of TSZ being a venue that is open to commenters of varying views more.
Now, I’m happy to try and work on my moderating skills and I’ll make no further reference to your commenting tone. In fact, I must try and address my internet addiction as it is impinging on time that I can’t afford. As the philosphical/intellectual aspect of the ID movement is effectively defunct, now, and the political machinations of the US religious right is not something I have any influence on, you can have the field mostly free from me.
I notice that there is a comment in moderation.
I haven’t released it, because it looks to me as if the author may have done that himself. (If you delete your comment, it goes into the moderation queue).
From JoeG on his blog:
Link: HERE.
Neil Rickert,
Well, I guess it was only a matter of time before Joe’s real intent to scupper ID by being the most obnoxious poe ever was finally worked out. I seriously think Joe was a real assert to the cause of reason and enlightenment at UD. That blog will be a poorer place without Joe’s subtle game of parodying genuine ID supporters. 😉
I put in a good word for Joe and the rest of The Banned:
It’s hilarious that Barry is incompetent even at his specialty — banning people.
KeithS asks
I’m sure I’ve mentioned several times that my formal education culminated in biochemistry at the University of Birmingham. It was the late sixties so less time was spent on studies than other activities. Not having the opportunity to pursue
underpostgraduate studies and not attracted by pharmaceuticals (though I did consider the brewing industry until I considered that research into yeast might not be that stimulating) I took a complete break from formal science..After a variety of junior management jobs, I tried a few business ventures (restaurant, building materials supplies, construction, property development – some disasters, none wildly successful) and have been self-employed for the last thirty years or so. My wife has her own successful catering career so I am semi-retired these days.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:g4HJ34Lg4TMJ:www.biosemiosis.org/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Footprints of anyone we know?
“Please become an advance member. Your support will be used toward the goal of compiling reliable knowledge from the physical sciences, and distributing it to the public.”
Upright Biped has gone straight to ‘buy my book’ before writing it. ID evolves!
His book will no doubt be called “The Extended Metaphor”.
Anyone up for consensus based immorality?
https://depravitystandard.org/register.html
This looks like a fun topic:
If I were involved on either side of the current dispute, I’d google Ben Edelman.
Being right is good, but it isn’t all there is to life.
petrushka,
That’s true, and it’s a lesson I wish you’d take to heart.
There is no reason to fight tooth and nail to avoid admitting a mistake.
Okay. I give. Tell me where to send the $12.00.
Don’t worry about it. It was just a mistake. No need to turn it into a Montserratian constitutional crisis.
I’m thinking about posting on this. Joe G has lied about Wagner. He says he has the book, but he doesn’t seem to have read it.
From this layman’s point of view, Wagner has taken an assumption made by most evolutionary biologists and made some generalizations about evolvability. His claims are certainly testable, although I don’t know to what extent they are already proven.
It really is a silver bullet argument. If Wagner is right, there is simply nothing left of the ID argument. In particular, there is nothing left of gpuccio’s argument.
ENV did a write-up. It was not a review. they did not refute anything. Merely asserted it was rubbish. I’m thinking if there were any factual errors, they would have pounced on them.
Horses are better than unicorns.
Well, at least they’re not going to gore us, are they?
Just make sure that they don’t evolve fingers. Then we could have trouble.
Glen Davidson