Re: Talk.origins unmoderated

On Dec 12, 7:46 am, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
michael wrote, On 11/12/07 11:19 PM:



On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:07:59 -0600, Tom McDonald
<kilt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

michael wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:44:17 -0800 (PST), Tom McDonald
<kilt...@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?
You think they haven't?

If so, it's up to you to provide the evidence.

Can you?

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?
You came charging in with what appeared to be a solid belief that
folks had been banned merely for their ideas. Now you tell us you
really didn't know, but were sure it happened all the same.

Without any evidence whatsoever.

Why should anyone pay any attention to your assertion, when you
yourself don't care enough about it to support it in any way
whatsoever?

Well?

I do recall a thread from today, something about coal.

Someone tried to reply, but was prevented by the moderation
policy.

They had to email the reply to the poster to put
in the group.

You mean Jan Pajak. He's well known for posting screeds. When he
responds to somebody who debunks his screed, it's typically yet another
screed that has nothing to do with what the person said. IMNSHO, It's
debatable as to whether Pajak actually reads what anybody says to him.

At any rate, Pajak himself was not banned, as he is a google groups
poster and all he would have to do is include the word "fnord" somewhere
in his post, as was discussed in detail in group, to cut down on
commercial spam that Google refuses to try and control.

Any assumption that Pajak was specifically banned for anti-evolution
statements is lacking in evidence. If you had any, then I'm sure you
would have let us know instead of merely saying "Someone tried to
reply...". As such, you merely flailing about with no evidence.

I wonder how many others can't post here just like that ...

Anybody from google groups who was too stupid to pay attention to the
fnord threads.

I occasionally forget the fnord rule.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Talk.origins unmoderated
    ... 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 ... It's debatable as to whether Pajak actually reads what anybody says to him. ... At any rate, Pajak himself was not banned, as he is a google groups poster and all he would have to do is include the word "fnord" somewhere in his post, as was discussed in detail in group, to cut down on commercial spam that Google refuses to try and control. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Talk.origins unmoderated
    ... I AM speaking of the others banned here for not being evolutionists. ... 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 ... do you mean that the poster you speak of (and BTW who is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Colorado Nutjob Back In Action!
    ... You have seen no evidence that points to anything at all... ... You demand John explain things about things outside of CSMA - and yet you ... I 'demanded' it in the same way that you and John 'demanded' from me regarding ... identity of the moderator is). ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Is there a Moderator for this site to control Non-Motorcycle Content?
    ... there is a moderator that can remove this stuff from the group ... That would clear the space for soley motorcycle based ... You are posting from Google Groups, which is an archive (formerly called ... In general USENET newsgroups are not moderated ...
    (rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: Humans as apes on Wikipedia
    ... to post from google groups? ... participate in this thread and I suspect it'll only show up because I ... suggested solution is "email the moderator". ... repeated immediate rejections each time I forget to remove t.o myself has ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)