Re: Re: Talk.origins unmoderated

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:39:48 -0500, michael <yost536@xxxxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:27:45 -0600, Tom McDonald
<kiltmac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

michael wrote:
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?
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.

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


Are you talking about the gmail white-list/fnord dealie DIG
instituted to cut down on commercial spam?

I AM talking about decision and things he has done
in overzealousness. How do you actually know what
he has done.

Because he always tells us.


If so, do you mean that the poster you speak of (and BTW who is
this poster you speak of? Why the shyness around actual
evidence?) had to have someone else (who was white-listed or
wasn't posting with a gmail account or from GG) post their
article for them? In which case, of course, it did get posted.

Well?

Moron, why should someone have to email a
reply to someone, to post?

Please provide evidence this happened.

That is retarded.

Oh! Rather like you then.

--
Bob.

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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 ... I AM sure google is pissed your little newsgroup ...
    (talk.origins)
  • 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: 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 this poster you speak of? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Talk.origins unmoderated
    ... I count nine posts from you today, ... 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 ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Incorrect use of undated sources
    ... The behavior of this poster is not so examplary, ... about the Chinese historians sources for their descriptions so ... for something is evidence for nothing at all. ... Mahjong and Matiao related? ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)