Doubting Didymus

Jimmy. We all know socrates is sarfati already. The issue has shifted to whether the protection of his pseudonym is warranted in the face of his use of that pseudonym to favourably review his own works while creating the false illusion of a third party perspective.

Christ is probably too busy answering fanmail anyway.

RufusAtticus

If anyone wants to suggest policies for TheologyWeb you probably want to propose them over there and not here. Now if anyone wants to suggest policies for IIDB, you can put them in the conference room.

I've also renamed the title of this thread to more accurately reflect the discussion.

yxboom

VP: I have to sincerely disagree. A person going under a screen name to promote his work is not illegal nor immoral. Its what doctors are paid to do on a daily basis. Did you know that Will Shatner doesn't use Priceline.com to buy his plane tickets? That is not deemed utterly decietful. You may use analogies to make moot points but they remain the same. If you decided to come online and talk in the third person telling me of how great your literature is, I will have to simply say...I don't care. I see no reason to get all worked up or in a huff about it. You clearly do so I had made a sincere request to any here to explain to me why I should. How many takers..........NONE.

I am going to address your complaint with respect that you offer me the courtesy I requested that I be contacted via PM at Theologyweb. Might I ask why has no one taken up my offer? I have checked my PMs 3 times today to see if anyone would take it. Is it you all know me so well that you know how I will respond, obviously not so I ask sincerely...why?

It remains you prefer to discuss this on your own terms which only tells me the complaint is not genuine or legitimate. My offer was not out of the ordinary nor was it unkind and demanding. Whether you wish to admit it or not I am extending you a courtesy I have yet to hear any of you say you have been previously given, all I ask is for reciprocity in that courtesy.

Whether you feel a pseudonym is deceptive is still irrelevant to my offer that anyone may feel free to contact me for any legitimate complaints via PM. Before any accusations fly of I am ignoring the questions posed let me again stress my offer was for legitimate complaints to be addressed by contacting me and not using another boards space and bandwidth to resolve matters on my board, but far more importantly, the offending parties are not present here and already that has born its fruits in the numerous misrepresentations that have been made in the previous pages of misguided falsehoods and allegations. I prefer to handle things with all parties present and if this is too much of a request than I will digress and will not offer any more in ways of an explanation as I owe none of you that much even as a courtesy as your concerns will be made clear that they by your own failed admission are invalid and this is a thread just to whine and not an effort to resolve matters.

Jim: By no means am I going to disclose the identity of any poster who has requested anonymity as he has broken no laws and has not done anything to negate his right that we offer to all posters regardless if everyone knows who he is or they don't. I am not going to break a trust I placed on myself to people's privacy when they signed up to placate and appease those who may be disgruntled with him/her. As a moderator Jim, I would think you would share that respect or at least respect my position on it if you don't share the same.

rest: I had originally stated that I have no intention of derailing the thread or usurping this thread as I feel I have extended more than any other in my position would have. If you feel I am an idiot or other choice adjectives although I can say I have no intimate knowledge of any of you, so be it. I do not have any intention of restraining you of that right. If I completely miss your point than feel free to take up my offer. As it stands none of you have and in my position of how I see things I am left with the one conclusion none of you feel your claims are legitimate and that is why all have so far failed to take up my offer. It still remains, so I ask again, are your concerns legitimate, as far as I am to tell, well I thought I was pretty clear saying now multiple times that if you have a legitimate complaint by all means contact me. This goes unmet by all the respondents up to this point and I stated earlier as to my reasons why. Furthermore, I anticipate further discussion via this medium using another's board will only make matters unresolved and worst and will have achieved nothing of value. Call this a cop out if you wish or whatever you so desire. I genuinely feel I have extended a courtesy far beyond what any other admin would to posters who are disgruntled about their situation. If you can not give me the same courtesy than suffice it to say I find none of the concerns valid all though you all may think so, and find no reason to think otherwise as no one has cared to extend any courtesy to contact me but rather resort to the very style of thread that you all are complaining about.

Peace out.

yxboom

I will be removing myself from the discussion as I see no further value in my presence here other than to incite further problems which appears to have begun. I have made my cattle call above 3 times to have matters of our policy resoved via contacting me by Private Message on theologyweb as it would be in poor taste to also use II's PM system for such matters. If any care to contact me I am available and thank you moderators for allowing me to represent my site on your forum.

RufusAtticus

Don't you leave now, or I'll haunt you.

It's not a question of taste; it's a question of access.

That's why I don't want you to go because without people able to represent TW, this thread will be nothing but a fruitless bitch session. I asked DDW to do it, but she scoffed at the offer.

yxboom

I think I have made my position known though. What more can I offer? I am only involved by proxy in that I don't know most of these guys at all here nor do I imagine they know much about me except I own TheologyWeb which many may not even know that much either. I do not see any good coming about my continued presence. If a sincere enquiry is made I may choose to remind those of my offer but I don't anticipate getting involved in the discussion as I see no good in doing so.

Do you not offer Private Messages? I just signed up so I haven't checked any of these things out. Regardless I feel it would be in poor taste to utilize this board's resources to handle my board's policies and complaints.

But as I stated before if no one is going to allow those who have offended them to be present this is all going to be fruitless. I feel any resolution will be best acheived by one to one discussion which I have offered. I may be wrong but I don't think anyone here personally has disdain for me except by proxy in that I run the board they are complaining about and the offer remains still as it shows so far no one is willing to address this issue by contacting me via PM. It has only succeeded in telling me that this is only to gripe, whine and complain. I am not going to broad brush everyone who has participated that this is their intention however it appears to me this thread is only for this purpose.

Again I do want to extend my gratitude towards the moderators to allow me to post my responses and thank you very much Rufus.

Fedmahn Kassad

FK: Would that be like the irrelevant analogy you just made? A more accurate analogy is that a doctor writes a book, promoting a specific view. Then, using a pseudonym, he goes online and promotes his work and tells us all how wonderful it is. I am very surprised that you do not consider this to be dishonest. Most of the rest of the world does.

FK: Your strawman is noted. Nobody is complaining about the use of a pseudonym. Most of us use them. What we don’t like is someone using this pseudonym to promote their own work. This is fundamentally dishonest. It is something that frankly I can’t ever recall an “atheistic, moral-free, infidel” evolutionist ever being caught doing. But I have seen several professional Creationists do it. I am very surprised that you condone such dishonest behavior.

Tell us, do you also condone Socrates’ association of Joe Meert with Hitler, as shown below?

And

Link: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...848#post114848

See post 143.

Frankly, that’s one of the most disgusting insinuations I have ever seen over there. Let us know if you condone it. Frankly, I would be ashamed to claim Sarfati as one of my own.

FK

ranterjmc

Hi folks it's my first post round these parts.

I have had a fun weekend following this and similar threads and looking at Theology web and seeing once again why I was so right to dump Christianity.

It is laughable to me how quickly Dee Dee squashes posts she doesn't like (always with an ad that they want financial support - some hope) but people like Sarfati and Turkel can get away with any amount of name-calling - sure proof that they have lost the argument. (I had a bit of a run-in with Sarfati on the AiG feedback page. He resorted to the same tactic there by looking at my web page and suggesting that my objections and loss of faith might have been due to my marrying a non-Christian).

Learning about evolution and the sheer staggering dishonesty of the Creationist side was what started me looking at the whole of the Christian faith in more detail. I had to say to myself "Why do these people have to lie and distort to aid the cause of a supposedly omnipotent God who is also supposed to disapprove of lying?". With that it all started to unravel very fast as I saw the lies everywhere else.

As far as I can see if TWeb were confident of their position they would let posts stand and cross-reference to posts on this board and elsewhere. In the same way Turkel would cross-reference the articles he's attacking on his website and AiG would quote Talk.Origins. But neither do because they don't quote properly from the sites they purport to refute.

Perhaps if people want to leave TWeb to wallow in their cesspit of name-calling and strawman-bashing, I could mention a Christian-run site with far better run MBs - they welcome infidels and reprimand Christians who overstep. They also have a strong ssnse of humour - Ship of Fools. They don't take Creationism very seriously either.

Anyhow thanks for a good read and a good laugh and I hope to join you more in days to come.

Kevin

yxboom,

I'm curious about something. You mentioned Joe Meert's case of being banned because he didn't read the posting rules closely. But what rule did he violate? Joe Meert, as has now been mentioned in this thread, is a Christian. The Cosmology forum is a forum for Christians. Did anyone e-mail him or private message him to ascertain his religious views, or was it assumed that anyone who supports evolution cannot be a Christian? Perhaps to assist him in keeping away from bans in future, would you tell us whether Meert can post in the Cosmology forum, or whether there's an unwritten Theology Web Creed, supplementing the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, which specifically disallows anyone who accepts evolution from being a Christian?

Jayjay

yxboom is probably gone and won't answer, so I'll bump in... the Cosmogony rules at TW state the following:
Hence, "Christianity" is not mentioned, but non-theists and deists are explicitly excluded (as well as those who are agnostic about origins I suppose). I don't care about Joe Meert's spiritual beliefs, but I always thought his opinions on the origins issue fell to the "non-theistic evolution" side of the fence.

Joe, perhaps you can clarify your position?