keyser_soze

Well, if you hadn't asked, I would have thought a reverse psychology gimmick. First, challenge by faith, then by machismo, then by ability...to remain. To remain is to convert.

Jimmy Higgins

Its funny. Dee Dee publically stated she had a problem with someone saying that she had an itchy trigger finger on the Meert issue.

What is really funny is that they'll come here and lurk while we use the same names as we do there, not hiding anything. Whats even better is that she thinks we have this hidden agenda. What's even better is that she can't tell Socrates is an a-hole.

pz

I think so, too.

One reason you may see a lot of griping about TheologyWeb here, but relatively little about us there, is that perhaps TheologyWeb has given people a lot to complain about. My general impression of TheologyWeb, at least of the so-called "Science" department, is that it is the victim of extremely biased moderation. It is also afflicted with a couple of pathologically ignorant personalities who are protected by that bias. If you've skimmed through this thread, you've probably gotten the sense that that is pretty much how everyone feels about the place.

It's really too bad. You might want to pass back the message that something ought to be done about it.

Warcraft3

It seems to me as if everyone feels like they are under attack or something here. While I have seen Socrates make comments that were unnecessarily inflammatory, I have also seen that from some of you guys as well. So I think that both sides are to blame here.

These issues cause some people to have strong emotional reactions, which then are expressed as insults or snide remarks. While I think that passion for ones position is a positive thing, I think being emotional about ones position is a negative thing. I say that everyone on both sides just needs to relax a bit and not take things personally (even comments which are personal).


Russ

pz

I think I agree, mostly.

However, in my brief perusal of theologyweb, I have not seen Socrates make some inflammatory comments -- it is pretty much his sole modus operandi. His posts are essentially all bilious, fact-free, and lacking in even the most basic knowledge of biology and evolution. The moderation there is to blame when his parade of insults is allowed to stand, since it fosters the culture of disrespect they've got going there. And when you combine that with the fact that snide remarks from evolutionists are selectively singled out for rebuke, it encourages resentment.

You are right that it would help if both sides could relax. Unfortunately, that somehow translates into giving a free ride to Socrates and his ilk, while berating everyone else. It's a very ugly formula they've got going there.

pangloss

Hi Russ,
I think you are missing a key issue - the inflammatory comments that you might see from us complainers are, and I cannot think of any exceptions, in response to such comments from primarily Sarfati, but also from Socratism, 5 solas, etc. The difference is, of course, they get away with it, we get 'threatened', 'moderated', suspended, etc.

And THAT is what we complain about. Perhaps responding in kind is "stooping to their level" or 'childish' or whatever. But what do you call it when certain people are allowed - even encouraged - to post rude, insulting, inflammatory, self-aggrandixing bullshit and pointing it out is greeted with scorn? When responding in kind is treated with suspensions and "moderation"?
I, for one, gave up turning the other cheek a long time ago. it got too expensive to try to take the high road while some dimwith creationist was running around ignoring all your arguments and calling you 'evil' and the like. Forget it. Easier said than done.

Jimmy Higgins

I can tell you that for the vast majority of the time, I have been extremely clean with Socrates. Yet he does nothing but belittle my posts, mainly because he knows I'm right.

Duvenoy

Hi steadele! Delighted to see ya here! I've enjoyed your posts at Tweb.

I hope you find us as interesting.

doov

Warcraft3

Well I can think of a few exceptions, but my purpose is not to take sides here. I am just saying I see what you guys are saying, but I also see the other side as well. I really think the mods do try to be fair. I personally do not think they have a bias when moderating, but I also know that in reality we all have our own bias. Im sure it is difficult to be a moderator and not let your personal feelings affect your decisions.

Turning the other cheek and taking the high road are both difficult at times, to be sure. I know I sometimes use sarcasm when I am debating people, but its all really in good fun. I even think that some of the rhetoric is kind of funny, but there is no need for personal attacks and the like. So if you decide to take the high road once again, you will have someone else there who is trying to walk that same road.

Indeed. But things that are worthy of doing are rarely easy.



Russ

Warcraft3

Jimmy:

I have seen times when the rhetoric between you and Socrates was actually quite funny and I actually enjoyed the witty comments. But at times both of you have been rather nasty. I do not want to get into a "well he did it first" discussion, because I think it is irrelavent.

You two should agree to either keep all rhetoric out of the discussion, or agree to not personally offend each other. I. personally, have had only a few problems with posters on TWEB.

Some are Christians and some are skeptics. But Socrates is not one of them and actually neither are you.



Russ