marg wrote:So are you saying in the "Evidence for Jesus" thread, JAK should not have argued the position that the Bible is unreliable as evidence for Jesus?
No. That was the one exception.
And are you also saying that the Celestial is not a place for critical thinking applied to irrational (religious) beliefs?
No. I'm saying what I already said.
As you know I'm fine with specifying that certain irrational assumptions can be made with no critical thinking applied. But that is not a mistake of JAK's to not make that assumption. The mistake comes from the board's lack of policy, if that is a policy you wish to have.
If a literal "policy" has been lacking, the "wish list" has now been made clear.
You don't want rules in theory, but then in practice you do.
What else do I want that I don't know about yet?
I understand that many religious individuals do want to assume beliefs in discussion. They are not interested in an examination of how or why they believe as they do or any sort of religious critique. But you do promote this board as open to all no matter what their viewpoint. And you have no rules in the Celestial on this, so why should JAK assume it? Once again it’s not his mistake.
If we're going to split hairs, then it was a breach of etiquette, not a mistake. Satisfied?
If this was something that you wanted from JAK, perhaps it would have been more considerate to pm him and ask/suggest rather to present on this board ..that he's made a "mistake" and to put him into the same category or level as Kevin who is into lacing his posts with ad homs and harassment.
It might've been strictly more considerate, but by failing to put it on the board itself, others wouldn't get the message and I'd perhaps have to reinvent the wheel sometime down the road.
Dr. Shades wrote:Do you think when I respond to a post of his which is ad hominal and I say either directly "fallacious ad hominem" or I point out his post is ad hominal that I am complaining about "him"?
As long as we're splitting hairs again, then allow me to reword: "Every time you complained about his actions." Satisfied?
Well how often, is this really a significant problem?
It's a significant problem every time it occurs.
I’ve not noticed it.
I, however, have. And that's good enough for you.
Perhaps there are some rare occasions Shades, but they are rare. Kevin does not use those words frequently if at all in an ad hominal way in the Celestial. There are other valid issues with Kevin but what you are suggesting is not one of them in the Celestial.
Then what on earth were you complaining about all this time?
Ad hominal posts which are off topic, unwarranted do not need direct words.
So are you complaining about the times he posts
ad hominem-esque posts in which he
does use direct words, or the times in which he
doesn't?Dr. Shades wrote:This is where you are showing your bias in favor of him.
You are wrong. You are free to observe the same request I gave him.
Why would you suggest that he carry on ad hom unwarranted posts?
Because they'd be Celestialized that way.
They are off-topic, detract from "tone" of thread, waste people's time, go nowhere, can derail threads.
I disagree. The one has nothing to do with the other.
Why on earth would you support that by suggesting he carry on, if in theory you want the Celestial to be above all that..respectful, scholarly?
"SCHOLARLY" ISN'T REQUESTED OR REQUIRED. It may be "ideal," but it's not something either myself or any of the moderators are going to lose any sleep over. As long as there is the veneer of respectability, that's good enough for me.
Dr. Shades wrote:It's really convenient isn't it to level accusations without backup. I have no idea what you are talking about..re I “don’t let anything from him slide”. Did you see the post from him calling me a “gimp”? Did I get mad at him? Did I try to retaliate in any way shape or form. I really don’t know what you are talking about.
I am talking about all the complaints you've made about him. Er, excuse me, all the complaints you made about his
actions. marg wrote:Shades I have gone out of my way to contact you infrequently in pm.
You call that
infrequent??Only in recent times after the thread was moved did I pm with some frequency but it wasn’t to complain about Kevin.
Oh, then excuse me. It was to complain about Kevin's
actions. Oops.
It started out, to find out why the thread got moved. And your response to me was that people complained about the thread and maybe it should have been moved. I persevered in trying to get a satisfactory explanation from you but to no avail.
The explanation I gave was indeed satisfactory.
As far as complaints about Kevin, perhaps you are mixing me up with Jersey Girl.
So you
have complained about Kevin, or haven't you? Or, pardon me, about his actions?
While that thread “evidence for Jesus” was progressing, apparently she was looking for mods, and yourself to look into the thread to keep it I believe on topic, free from ad homs. That had nothing to do with me. Every discussion I've had involving Kevin I have not pm'd you or any mod to complain about him.
Then who/what were you complaining about when you PMed me?
My focus was on poor and/or biased moderation, interference by reprimanding us (JAK & I) on the board in a post by a mod, . . .
I did not reprimand you. I made polite requests of you.
. . . which in my opinion was uncalled for, . . .
Oh, believe you me, it was
very called for.
. . . moving the threads when it does nothing to curtail the problem but only plays into the hands of any individual who should actually want to increase attacks.
So who was the one who wanted to increase attacks? You said it wasn't dartagnan, so who was it?
And I wanted clarity from you on what a participant should expect from the moderation in the Celestial.
And now you have it.
Now I notice as far a “mistakes” go you have not suggested I or JAK were writing attack posts. With these vague accusations, and moving threads without any clarity, that has been inferred that we were doing that.
You are wrong. The only thing I inferred is precisely what I requested the two of you not do, nothing more and nothing less.
It is unrealistic, to accuse JAK of making a mistakes when all he was doing was applying critical thinking to religious topics.
Forgive me. I should've said "breach of etiquette" instead of "mistake." My bad.
It is your lack of clarity in policy which is the mistake if you want to find something or someone to blame for a mistake.
In that case, I blame myself for this entire mess.
As far as myself not easing up on Kevin, actually it’s been me not easing up on you.
Ahh, thank goodness we've finally worked that out.
It might seem to you that my focus was Kevin, but it’s been on you and the moderation activities going on.
So why were you complaining about
ad hominems if you were focusing on us? Did any of us post
ad hominems?
Keep in mind you moved another thread because of Kevin not that long ago, and I complained about it then, being moved. So that is not Kevin’s fault.
If I moved a thread because of Kevin, then it was
ipso facto Kevin's fault. Otherwise I wouldn't have moved it because of Kevin.
So your policies on moderation are the issue, not Kevin. Kevin is simply playing the game that the board allows him to. Now that I know what the game is via board policy, I can choose to participate or not.
Indeed you can. As can everyone else. I wouldn't have it any other way.
With regards to Kevin, your advice to him that he should curtail using direct words is superficial at best, because he does not frequently if ever use direct ad hominal words like “stupid” or “idiot” in the Celestial.
I've seen them.
Your bias in favor of Kevin is evident.. You say maybe he came close to the line. No Shades Kevin passed the line with excessive use of ad homs in Celestial, and I don’t want you to interpret he’s the problem Because there will be others who will do the same. Micky is an example.
So who are you focusing on now? Me and/or the other moderators, or people who post
ad hominems, who may or may not be Kevin?
Your post is an attack of all three of us, as you advise everyone else to avoid “mistakes” we made, which you have not even established as mistakes, nor that they are “ours”.
It was not an attack; it was a series of respectful requests. And I concede that they were not mistakes; they were breaches of etiquette. And yes, they are yours.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley