Re: Talk.origins unmoderated

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:44:17 -0800 (PST), Tom McDonald
<kiltmac@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 11, 9:10 pm, michael <yost...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:05:42 -0500, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:50:22 -0500, michael <yost...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in <92jul3hqf3d27dbtei8lvtnj5raqei6...@xxxxxxx> :

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:47:14 -0500, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:42:13 -0500, michael <yost...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Your moderation policies are slanted against non evolutionists.

You ban them simply for not being part of your full time evlutionist
trolling click.

Lift the moderation, as the moderator is nazi like in his
overzealousness.

Free speech.

End the click here ...

I count nine posts from you today, four in the last hour. What is
your problem?

You are not addressing my post count, but the fact I AM posting here.

I AM speaking of the others banned here for not being evolutionists.

Who has been banned for not being an evolutionist?

I call upon the moderator to produce the list of those banned
and why ...

So you don't have any real evidence of such banning based on disbelief
in evolution, but you call for DIG (who has not posted in this thread)
to show *his* evidence?

Why not try this: go back for a year or two, and make a list of all
those who have been banned, along with DIG's posts both before he
banned them, and at the time he banned them. (Sometimes he does not
actually make a post to tell someone they are banned; he just gives
them the rope, and the warnings, and then pulls the lever when the
idiot--evolutionist or no--continues being an idiot.)

You think all the banishments have been announced?



Then look to see how often a person has been un-banned after agreeing
to stop the behavior that got them banned.

Go ahead. I'll wait. (The process I suggested is part of the
scientific method, so it ought to be a snap for you to do.)

But I'd suggest you consider not posting replies that don't show your
effort to support your assertion. It makes you look weak, as though
you don't really have a point. Clue. Concept. Whatever.

Unless the moderator reveals who has been banned and
the reason, how do you know who has and hasn't been
banned?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Talk.origins unmoderated
    ... overzealousness. ... I call upon the moderator to produce the list of those banned ... So you don't have any real evidence of such banning based on disbelief ... along with DIG's posts both before he ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Answering "who are you?"
    ... > this forum except that the focus must be Islam. ... the moderator on duty at the moment. ... that you are ignored and your posts unanswered. ... I add 'posting privately" below my signature when I'm responding ...
    (soc.religion.islam)
  • Re: tmo; is pedophilia off topic in sct?
    ... >> how many posts have you censored, ... >I wish to post in a mildly moderated SCT, I don't wish to be a moderator ... >> lurk in sct but do not respond and we have had very many good laughs. ... >Now, pluto, what do you have against mildly moderated NG? ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: Bush nominates homophobe for surgeon general
    ... your posts so that you can run away from facing your own words. ... Moderator to allow 'X-No-Archive' (which his moderation software ... to your own credibility by refusing to face the original context. ... they do not account for it. ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: Copy of PJRs Farewell Address to SMM
    ... My experience of other people's expectations is different from ... I've happily approved many of your posts in which you've ... feminists and he was doing so for a valid and logical reason. ... Thank you for proving you never should have been a moderator of this ...
    (soc.men)