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!
Moving comments is fine.
But the idea is that they should remain visible, unless they actually contain NSFW material or malware.
Liz, please send out a list of rules to moderators as they are given moderation rights? I don’t think KN knew, and that’s our fault.
Test: My posts are in moderation in Sal’s and Lizzie’s latest threads.
Okay this seems to be the issue:
Akismet has detected a problem. Some comments have not yet been checked for spam by Akismet. They have been temporarily held for moderation. Please check your Akismet configuration and contact your web host if problems persist.
I’m probably not the only one to whom the label ‘Guano’ on a post shouts ‘click me first!’ 😉
That’s a good point. Clearly we need a bit of a procedures overhaul. In a couple of weeks I should have a bit more clear headspace to think about this.
Just checked and the Akismet plugin is up-to-date, with its habitual settings, and only one comment is currently in the spam filter (rightly so – it’s selling Ug boots). I think the spam bucket empties automatically so if you lost any comments via this route, they’re gone forever. If you’re still having problems, let me know and I’m sure we can get Akismet to treat you better!
I’m pretty sure that I am the “automatic spam emptier”. And if it looks like a post that went astray, it does not get deleted, though if it was later reposted then I might trash the first and delete a week later (as a duplicate).
Akismet does seem to have occasional burps, where things get held for moderation until released. Fortunately, this is rare.
OK. I know all this stuff takes up bandwidth but would it be worth hanging fire to allow anomalies to surface before dumping the trash? The Barry Arrington incident has shown us how easy it is to look, well, how we looked.
ETA
And flagging comments incorrectly caught in the spam filter as “not spam” helps provide feedback, I think, to refine the parameters. I note that the Akismet stats indicate it is feeling pretty damn pleased with itself.
I don’t empty trash until it is a week old.
I have been deleting spam more quickly, but only when it is uncontroversial spam (like advertising shoes). I can hold that for a week too, if you like. I was doing that, until the spam began arriving at such a high rate that checking became tedious. The spam rate has recently subsided. So, for the present, I’ll also let spam sit for a week before removal.
Neil Rickert,
I’m all for flexibility so that sounds fine. Moderating is a thankless task and I’m sure Lizzie appreciates the help. I like how this website has evolved.
Yes – thanks to all for the housekeeping.
You wouldn’t like to come and do my actual house, too, would you?
Unfortunately when the site was hacked, I lost the member database. I will restore your posting permissions.
But please note that these are not supposed to come with “moderator privileges”! The way WordPress works by default is that “authors” get permissions to moderate comments in their own threads. But I do ask people not to use these to delete posts (although I guess moving them is probably fine, hmm).
I need to do a bit of work on our procedures and will think, over Christmas.
Actually Gregory you seem to have posting permissions.
Thanks, Elizabeth. Yes, I was alerted recently that the permissions were restored. Mine was a similar situation, and actually quite similar language, to what KN used. And I acknowledged the error right away, just as he did, noting that I didn’t know the rules. Since I’m less skeptical and fuller of faith (a dirty word to some TSZers) than KN, his actions were praised while mine were condemned. That’s simply what the record at TSZ demonstrates.
“I like how this website has evolved.” – Alan
Alan, sheesh (a biological website, with long-time scales, no intention, no guidance, etc. – perhaps a faulty analogy, trying to make a natural scientific concept into common English grammar, granting an evolutionary monopoly over ‘change-over-time’ when there are obviously non-evolutionary types of change too?)! 🙁
“I like how this website has grown.” What would be the implied difference? Advance, progress, direction…non-Darwinian ideas?
Let me comment on this.
When I restored your author privileges, I posted a comment that your situation was the same as that of KN, so fairness should prevail.
In your case, we thought you had deleted comments. We later found that you had moved them to trash (which is probably what the software does when you click the delete button). I take it that the initial response to your actions was under the mistaken assumption that they were permanently deleted.
I hope that we have all learned from the recent experience.
This is where I disagree with Gregory. I think Alan’s usage is entirely reasonable. No, he has not made a scientific concept into common English. Rather, science took a common English concept and gave it a technical meaning. I take Alan to be using the original non-technical meaning of “evolved” here.
The ‘common English concept’ of ‘evolution,’ according to its etymological origins, is a theological one. The Cambridge Platonists meant ‘God’s evolution’ of human beings and nature, not materialist ‘self-organisation’ or capital ‘L’ Life creating itself spiritually empty and/or alone in the Universe.
‘Splendour without diminishment.’ (that was quoted live in real-time from a commencement speech).
The philosophical meaning of the term ‘evolution,’ at its roots, is theologically-based and partnered – inevitably and actually – which should never be forgotten, even by ‘skeptics’ who would wish for anti-theistic unreality to change history in favour of ‘scientific atheism’ or ‘agnosticism,’ not too unfamiliar to how the Soviets promoted it.
When I look for usage examples in OED, they seems broader than that. And I am only considering examples from before publication of “The Origin of Species”. I looked at examples of the verb “evolve”, rather than the noun “evolution”, since Alan used a form of the verb.
‘Broader’ than theological?! Do tell, what you call that. Human reason!? Haha. No. 🙁
Theology (in partnership with philosophy) is unquestionably deep where natural science is shallow and horizontal. Check it.
And yes, theology is ‘evolution’s’ proper historical home, regardless of what narrow-minded IDists protest about as RWCEs. We should be on the same side, skeptics at TSZ, about that since history (Cudworth, More, the Cambridge Platonists, etc.) seems to verify it. But ideology and partisanship appears to be getting in Neil’s way.
Distinguishing verb (‘evolve’) from noun (‘evolution’) is expected and often repeated, has grown boring. Go deeper, Neil, if you dare! The depth and height is there if you’ll step, jump, dive, fly, dream, believe, uplift into it.
“A touch of the divine…” and more, is what ‘Evolutionary Creation’ means.
This website, Alan thinks, was ‘designed/evolved by gods?’ It intentionally ‘evolved’ by minds non-randomly in a chosen direction with the divine intelligence of human beings? Will he affirm that reality? “Without Him great pieces often go to waste” – that’s the Heart.
Otoh, sure, there’s a lot of lazy linguistic people (and to Alan’s sway, the French use ‘evolution’, aka ‘evolución’ in Spanish, more than the English, especially USAmericans, other than anti-theists, who seem to use it for anything and as much as possible, confusing it with ‘change’ just as OED does) who revert to ‘pragmatic’ Americanisms that reduce transcendence to immanence and spirituality to materialism.
THE DANGER IS EVOLUTIONISM: EXAGGERATION OF THE TERM ‘EVOLUTION’ BEYOND ITS INEVITABLE THEORETICAL & SCIENTIFIC LIMITS. There are a few myopic people who would deny that EXAGGERATION takes place or even could. Alan’s ‘innocent’ usage in this case is an easy example.
“I like how this website has grown & changed.” What’s wrong with saying that instead, if only to respect those who recognise ideological evolutionism’s contaminations of many peoples’ preferred language? Let it be clear that Alan and I would agree on that. But no, the website has not ‘evolved.’ That’s absurd, unnecessary and inaccurate…other than in an original theological context.
Imagination, Intellect, Heart: It may not be your genre, but listening may help elevate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CbPVoF0KBY
Gregory
I was being playful with the word. I am fully aware of the etymological origin of unrolling a scroll. I doubt that makes it theological. After all Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome used scrolls for all record keeping, not just religious texts.
ETA: Perhaps I should have said “all sorts of record keeping”. Records were also kept using clay and wax tablets, inscribed lead and copper sheets etc.
stcordova:
Hilarious. Salvador employs different rules here at TSZ than he does at UD.
[Moderator note: I found this in moderation. It seems to be a mistake. It was originally posted to Sal’s recent thread, but I moved it here.
It is not quite a duplicate of another comment from around 20 minutes earlier. It seems to be a quote of the earlier, with nothing added other than the quoting.
Normally, I would just trash this, and let it sit in trash for a week where other moderators could disagree and restore it. But, after the recent todo, I thought it better to make it visible on this one case, to give people a chance to disagree with my usual practice and persuade me to change it.
Neil Rickert]
That’s because we have different rules here, Mung. Who are the censors again?
I agree with Rich, mung. TSZ fiefdom does not extend beyond these threads and pages. I doubt anyone would disagree that UD moderation has been consistently inconsistent. Though I can appreciate they are in a lose/lose situation, whatever they do.
As long as Sal keeps to Lizzie’s rules when posting at TSZ, he will be as welcome as any other poster (including you) to interact on this site.
ETA spelling
Salvador:
So I’ll not blame Salvador for my posts ending up in the sandbox. Salvador has an angel watching over him here at TSZ.
Mung, for the record, what he’s doing is very poor form. You expected something else? But this post, and yours will get bumped, because of the one above them.
Lizzie has a very clear and (in my view at least) reasonable set of rules that all complementers are asked to comply with.
One of them is not that commenters here can be sanctioned for their conduct on other websites. One of them is that off-topic comments move to the Sandbox.
My view is that comments are sacrosanct and Guano for abusive comments and Sandbox for off-topic and general discussion is a good compromise between anarchy and censorship.
I agree with Rich that whilst deleting comments without explanation is bad enough, editing the actual content of someone else’s comment is thoroughly reprehensible. If you have any constructive advice regarding comment policy at TSZ, mung, you are welcome to post your suggestions in this thread.
Can we have a thread about what ID got right? As to be wrong you at least have to put a position out there that can be wrong.
This thread, and the inspiration for it point out a major difference between science and apologetics.
Science is a recursive methodology for acquiring and improving reliable knowledge. Revealed religion is based on claims of knowledge imparted by an infallible source.
If a scientist reconstructs a dinosaur for a museum and uses the wrong head, it’s embarrassing, but it’s an example of a rather common phenomenon. Science is doing a jigsaw puzzle, and places facts and observations in temporary piles based on the probability that they belong together. Subsequent facts can change the likelihood.
If a prophet of god says the earth underwent a global flood in historical times, based on revealed information, and that revelation can be demonstrated to be false, there is a problem with the whole shebang.
The Darwin quote falls into an interesting middle ground. He said, this particular speculation is so central to my theory, that if it fails, the whole theory fails.
And in this case it would. If the Silurian were not preceded by a long period harboring earlier forms of life, evolution would not be tenable. We might observation a process of evolution, as Lenski has, but Darwin’s notion of common descent would have to include an unexpected creation event, involving something like the intervention envisioned by Meyer. If life forms appear suddenly, the best hypothesis would be some sort of intervention.
It is not surprising that IDists try to find places in science where they can squeeze in apologetics. It is their habitual way of thinking. They do not understand science and do not understand the value of basing theories on the best fit to evidence — with continual revision. The whole enterprise of ID relies on flood thinking, the notion that a major paradigm can be broken by an inconvenient fact.
Like an unexpected comet proving that Copernicus was wrong about the configuration of the solar system.
You have no authority over me on this thread or any other thread, so stop waving your dick.
This thread started with your misreading of my comment on an ID thread, a comment directed to an ID advocate. You made this thread about me, so live with it.
Your discussion of my screen name is the epitome of ad hominem. Exactly how does my name affect the content of my posts?
Your posts, on the other hand, seldom have any content other than whining about how you are treated.
Just for example, you have wined for a number of posts about the possibility that someone thinks Darwin never made any errors.
Something you completely fabricated, because no one on this forum has asserted that Darwin made no errors. Live with it. You fucked up. You misread simple English.
As far as capitalization goes, I alternate the use of capitalization to mock people who think it’s important to capitalize G-D. and such. Harry Potter thinking. Magic. Poof. Words cause things to happen.
Except Harry Potter is at least amusing and entertaining.
Let me see if I understand Gregory.
Not showing proper respect for the genocidal warrior deity of the Old Testament demonstrates I am an atheist?
Non-sequitur.
Can you see the shark from up there, or are you focused on landing, Gregory?
Complete and total bullshit. Gregory, you owe everyone present a genuine apology for stinking up this thread with such crap.
I second petrushka’s motion. How about you get to the friggin’ point, Greg?
Note: I have marked some posts for ‘Moderation’. Tried to move them to Sandbox cont’d or Guano (1 case), but the move option froze. Trying to properly follow TSZ rules…
The question in the thread is a simple one that has *nothing* to do with IDism or atheist anti-religion.
What are/were those errors/mistakes…that Darwin made?
Comments on topic will not be moved. This post will also be moved when I figure out how to move to Sandbox cont’d.
I have guano’d one of those, and sandboxed the others (including this).
Perhaps this will wind up in guano, but I have to say I think Gregory is trolling. I think he posts questions not for the purpose of having an adult discussion, but to attract comments he can bitch about.
My evidence is he never (or seldom) responds to factual posts or to posts that further the discussion. He seems to wait like a trap door spider for any deviation from purity of essence.
Can I offer up my own plea on tone? You can tell me to mind my own business, and I know PaV and others’ manner do them no particular favours, but civil discourse seems to be closer to Lizzie’s intent than cross-forum sniping. Back to baking, don’t mind me!
I can live with a civil tone, but there is such a thing as veiled tone. It can get pretty annoying to be insulted by soft words.
Sure – it wasn’t directed at you, just happened to follow your post. I’m no paragon myself; some people do get right under your skin!
That was a genuinely asshole move on Gregory’s part to stir up trouble and derail his own thread in order to sanctimoniously scold Petrushka, then to whine about moderation when he wanted to get rid of the responses he himself stirred up.
I’m not sorry that responses ended up in Sandbox (or Guano) but I am sorry that Gregory wasn’t just told to suck it up after he started the trouble.
Let’s take another look at the crap Gregory is getting away with, courtesy of the helpful moderators here:
Followed shortly by:
Hypocrisy, thy name is Gregory! If you want your thread to have nothing to do with atheism, then why the hell were YOU the first to bring up atheism?
Don’t start none, won’t be none. Personal advice for you, Gregory.
I’d say that it told us a lot more about Gregory than it did about Petrushka. I’m not at all sure it was wise for Gregory to reveal what he did about himself. But it’s done, now.
It’s hilarious, too, because creationists get so much wrong.
Darwin’s credibility does not matter. The theory of evolution rests on the evidence, not on what Darwin happened to write.
I’m trying to understand what Gregory is doing here. It looks a bit like some sort of informal or preliminary research. He asks a question, then backs away without commenting.
I will refrain from calling it bad faith, but it’s annoying. I believe the intended mode here is discussion rather than data gathering. It has led to several episodes of hostile exchanges.
I repeat, Greg: Your question has been answered several times in this comment-thread. What do you find unsatisfactory about the answers it’s received thus far, that you persist in repeating your question?
I can repeat my question as many times as necessary, until you, you know, answer said question instead of ignoring/dismissing/evading it.
Respect: Please address me by my name as given, cubist. Otherwise, your post will be moved and this one with it. Nik-ing is a form of disrespect, which is not part of TSZ’s mission. There are many answers to the simple question in this thread; a few have been given and many more are possible.
Gregory, asking for your motives or your point is a legitimate topic in this thread. You consistently refuse all requests to do so and instead arrogantly attack those who have given honest answers. Why are you surprised that so many have identified you as nothing but a willfully ignorant troll?
Respect must be earned Gregory. When you continually act like a horse’s ass you should expect to be treated as one.
Folks, the posts are getting testy again. I believe it’s pretty clear at this point how Gregory wants his thread to go. If you don’t like this thread’s format or, more to the point, find Gregory’s behavior annoying, just ignore the thread; bating him is not going to improve the quality of discourse or change his behavior. Besides, if you don’t respond, the thread will likely just die of attrition anyway.