Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 05-27-2003, 10:16 AM

"willful, calculated, and flagrant rules violations after repeated warnings."

Yet Socrates, who's been doing such things for months is still on TW. Looks like the new rules on TW are only there to give the admins excuses to get rid of certain posters.

faithful slave pedro · 05-27-2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Yet Socrates, who's been doing such things for months is still on TW.

Yes but Sarf ... I mean Socrates probably didn't receive "repeated warnings."

roxrkool · 05-27-2003, 10:49 AM

Hmmm... I guess Joe was banned. I missed that part. Guess he was too dangerous to have around...

Dr.GH · 05-27-2003, 12:22 PM

My guess is that Joe seems to be a Christian and a scientist. That blows the YEC equating biology/geology/paleontology/archaeology with atheism. That is the greater threat than merely being able to present scientific data. Thus, I am not banned, but Joe is gone in a matter of days.

Kevbo · 05-27-2003, 12:45 PM

I think it's funny how DeeDee interjects a sarcastic "oh, but if Socrates said this, you'd all be complaining" into every moderation, and then only gives Socrates little pooh-poohs that sound like "well, to appear to be fair, Soc, let's not use the word "bigot," okay? Still friends, though?"

I say, "report" every post by anyone who's not a creationist, no matter what the content, and she'll have to stop that complaining.

RufusAtticus · 05-27-2003, 12:54 PM

I noticed that too Kevbo. I was tempted at one point when Dee Dee was complaining about Socrates being the only one getting reported, to volunteer to flame Socrates back and then report both posts. Of course I realized that she would then trot out the old excuse of "Socrates supported his flame, you did not; therefore, you are banned."

pangloss · 05-27-2003, 01:16 PM

Hi Joe, long time no read.

I did not like 'Socratism' from the start. Made way too many overconfident assertions that he could not/would not support. I have asked a couple of times, and I think two others have also asked him to support his claim that molecular phylogenetics methods becopme "exponentially" less certain the farther back in time you go.

He seems to be one of those morons that "believes" what he "thinks", no matter how erroneous.

Joe Meert · 05-27-2003, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pangloss
Hi Joe, long time no read.

I did not like 'Socratism' from the start. Made way too many overconfident assertions that he could not/would not support. I have asked a couple of times, and I think two others have also asked him to support his claim that molecular phylogenetics methods becopme "exponentially" less certain the farther back in time you go.

He seems to be one of those morons that "believes" what he "thinks", no matter how erroneous.

JM: Wow, I see now why I was banned. I purposely started the new thread because I thought it was the THREAD that was meant solely for creationists. I did not realize it was all of Cosmogony 101. Geez, that's the first time I've ever been banned for an honest mistake. LOL

Cheers

Joe Meert

NialScorva · 05-27-2003, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Meert
JM: Wow, I see now why I was banned. I purposely started the new thread because I thought it was the THREAD that was meant solely for creationists. I did not realize it was all of Cosmogony 101. Geez, that's the first time I've ever been banned for an honest mistake. LOL

Cheers

Joe Meert

Well, at least they talked to you and made it very clear what the infraction was and how you could work with them to improve your behavior in a way to encourage productive conversation with minimal need for drastic measures.

To do otherwise would have been mighty unchristian, right?

Lobstrosity · 05-27-2003, 04:28 PM

The funniest thing is that the uniformitarianism thread that started this whole chain of events that lead to JM's "banning" has now been moved back into the Biology Dept. It seems Dee Dee was a bit hasty in moving it over to Cosmogony.

05-27-2003, 01:16 PM	#247
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	greetings one and all Hi Joe, long time no read. I did not like 'Socratism' from the start. Made way too many overconfident assertions that he could not/would not support. I have asked a couple of times, and I think two others have also asked him to support his claim that molecular phylogenetics methods becopme "exponentially" less certain the farther back in time you go. He seems to be one of those morons that "believes" what he "thinks", no matter how erroneous.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-27-2003, 10:16 AM	#241
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	"willful, calculated, and flagrant rules violations after repeated warnings." Yet Socrates, who's been doing such things for months is still on TW. Looks like the new rules on TW are only there to give the admins excuses to get rid of certain posters.

05-27-2003, 10:32 AM	#242
faithful slave pedro Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: US Posts: 89	Originally posted by RufusAtticus Yet Socrates, who's been doing such things for months is still on TW. Yes but Sarf ... I mean Socrates probably didn't receive "repeated warnings."

05-27-2003, 10:49 AM	#243
roxrkool Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 75	Hmmm... I guess Joe was banned. I missed that part. Guess he was too dangerous to have around...

05-27-2003, 12:22 PM	#244
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	My guess is that Joe seems to be a Christian and a scientist. That blows the YEC equating biology/geology/paleontology/archaeology with atheism. That is the greater threat than merely being able to present scientific data. Thus, I am not banned, but Joe is gone in a matter of days.

05-27-2003, 12:45 PM	#245
Kevbo Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NY Posts: 212	I think it's funny how DeeDee interjects a sarcastic "oh, but if Socrates said this, you'd all be complaining" into every moderation, and then only gives Socrates little pooh-poohs that sound like "well, to appear to be fair, Soc, let's not use the word "bigot," okay? Still friends, though?" I say, "report" every post by anyone who's not a creationist, no matter what the content, and she'll have to stop that complaining.

05-27-2003, 12:54 PM	#246
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	I noticed that too Kevbo. I was tempted at one point when Dee Dee was complaining about Socrates being the only one getting reported, to volunteer to flame Socrates back and then report both posts. Of course I realized that she would then trot out the old excuse of "Socrates supported his flame, you did not; therefore, you are banned."

05-27-2003, 04:28 PM	#250
Lobstrosity Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 719	The funniest thing is that the uniformitarianism thread that started this whole chain of events that lead to JM's "banning" has now been moved back into the Biology Dept. It seems Dee Dee was a bit hasty in moving it over to Cosmogony.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.