News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

It seem best that a more solid set of rules should be implemented. It has been suggested that we adopt the proven ruleset used at the Evolution Fairytale Discussion Forum, rather than "reinvent the wheel".

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_rules.htm

The purpose of this thread is to allow discussion and suggestions. I have a few ideas of my own which I hope to post sometime soon.

Those rules sound pretty good to me. I would only object to the following:
1. The moderators decisions cannot be questioned.
2. No warning of impending suspension is given.
3. No explanation of post removal or suspension is required.

Hello CTD,

The 'Evolution/Creation Forum rules and Guideline Discussions' are most fair, indeed. Thank you for all the time that you and the others give to this website, to keep 'everybody content'.

I will briefly post the "Mandatory Board Ettiquette" from my previous Messasge Board, and it worked quite well.

1) No discrimination regarless of age, race, religion, political opinion, cultural background, country, language and /or profession.

2) No flaming (personal attacks) or posts discussing personal attacks are allowed.

3) Treat others with respect and kindness.

4) No profanity or use of inappropriate usernames will be tolerated.

5) No advertisements or spamming.

6)Posting your own or someone else's personal information is prohibited (address, phone number, place of employment.)

7) Postings made about the moderating will be deleted.

This Forum is for "Creationist/Evolutionist", BOTH! That takes us to re-read #3.

Linear, it seems that "your three objections" are all answered (covered) in reading #7.

Let's all try our best to "abide" by the RULES and not complain. The Moderators have their own personal lives to live, as well.

Debating can get out of hand, if one party is not willing to abide by rule #3.

'Yesterday is ashes, tomorrow wood. Only today does the fire burn brightly.'

I read the 'Evolution/Fairy Tale forum' in the website you mentioned, CTD. I don't see any difference in these, except for a more 'condensed form'. Forgive me if I have misconstrued anything.

PLEASE, let us all show our appreciation to the 'Herb Allure Business and the Administator' by, simply showing respect and kindness for each other. We may not agree at times, but just remember only 'One Person' was ever perfect. (Let's agree to disagree on this one).

I, for one, look forward to seeing whatelse CTD has in mind to make this a more comfortable place to read and make posts for the Creationists and the Evolutionists.

Thank you and Blessings, Abishag <><

I suggest we would do well to make a rule requiring participants to display some minimal capacity to remember the past, and perhaps to reason logically. I believe there is a minimum level of competence and honesty required for members to contribute to the discussion.

Posting here is not a right, and feigning stupidity and incompetence is a practice we can be fairly certain we've seen enough of. Such members who are not competent to post semi-intelligently would still be able to read posts - they simply would lose the capacity to clutter up threads.

Displaying too short an attention span, whether the deficiency be real or one of convenience, is either an indicator of intent to deceive or utter incompetence.

How many requests do we need to present evidence to people who have a consistent record of refusing to acknowledge it when it is presented? Such posts are misleading, and it is not a very practical thing to copy and paste every thread in the forum into our posts on a weekly or even monthly basis.

Just look at this

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=47735#Post47735

How many threads could one copy and post in response to this?

Notice how selective the memory problem is? The fact that other threads exist hasn't been forgotten. Even the topic of one of them is still remembered. And we all know this post is but one of dozens, which employ the fallacy of convenient large-scale forgetfulness.

But whether this be deliberate or somehow otherwise, it is counter-productive. It is not beneficial to the community, or to any individual. From our perspective, the loving thing to do is to correct such. From the perspective of their prophets (which they must accept or be hypocrites), the unfit do not deserve to survive.

The rule shouldn't require perfect memory of all events, but to forget things on grand scales, things that have been discussed for months at a time is not consistent with a person who is both competent and honest.

I advocate the banning of all bogus tactics. If evolutionism can be supported honestly, by half-competent human beings, let us find out. We will never find out if we permit the incompetent and/or dishonest to run amok and ruin the forum.

I am not feigning anything and your remarks are frankly offensive. I have replied to your recent post within the thread.

Of course you get to be the final arbiter of what is competent and what is not competent?

Apparently, none. At least that seems to be your capacity.

The belief in evolution does not require subscription to Social Darwinism.

What is the minimum size for a "grand scale"?

Please list all bogus tactics so that everyone can see how even-handed you are in determining and enforcing the rules. Plus, I'd really like to know what they are so that I can avoid censure.

Do you know what a 'final arbiter' is? If not, you are not competent to make the assertion. If so, you are either dishonest or incompetent, for it is extremely obvious that I cannot be the final arbiter.

Oh? Would you have us believe you don't recall any of the discussions either?

I think the futility trying to carry on a discussion with persons who are utterly incapable of remembering anything is self-evident. Those who are only capable of remembering things selectively are even worse candidates.

You wish to hide behind quantification issues? I was hoping you'd present some actual arguments in favour of allowing participation by parties who are clearly incompetent and/or dishonest.



That's rather the goal of the thread. Why don't you list a few yourself?

Here's one list of bogus tactics. I don't think it's exhaustive, but it's a pretty good start. Those who are new to evolutionology should study it carefully; perhaps memorize the bold portions.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1962&st=0