Wow, again, so now opinions are to be ended in GD based on psychic visions by a mod of the OP later wanting that? I had no idea moderation went so far, indeed. You have not answered why that because I had not posted in many hours, just how everything was being destroyed by me? because I might raise some doubt everything is random will work in TOE maybe?
I swear before coming here I had no idea they had tried to separate out the origin of life from TOE, and didn’t the thread ask for my opinion right out of my head? So you are saying I had to read up on all the latest to have an opinion, this is not what the OP had asked at all.
Then the posts continued about creating life, why was that now OK as long as I stayed away?
While I came to a different conclusion about your participation than my colleague, I think this sums up your misunderstanding. The thread did not ask for your “view” or “opinion” about evolution, it was about knowledge of evolution. It’s right there in the title and the first post. And before you ask, yes, it’s possible to have debates about evolution without bringing in abiogenesis.
Kent Hovind is a… noted, I guess would be the word, creationist. Nobody called you a posterior.
stut, You say John Cleese has canons, I have no idea what this is all about, I have heard of chuckie cheese but not John and I don’t own a canon. So what is a hovind posterior, am I being called a fat ass in Hebrew or something, my spell checker says no such word as hovind so it is something foreign. It says to use bovine instead, guess cows are related to it then? Wow, what an odd day this is.
edit–thanks, its some guys name, how would I know, I am not a creationist.
Help, need mod in here they are talking about a movie and Darwin isn’t in it. Even I am having psychic visions too the OP will be offended----calling all cars-----
Seriously, thanks to the OP for bringing this up as it sure needed to be, since it is a new rule and the psychic visions, who would have thought that was involved???
What in the name of Thor son of Jord does that bolded section mean?
I have been a member of this board since 2003. I have a truly embarrassing number of posts. I have started approximately eleventy jillion and fourteen threads, and that’s just counting the ones where I threaten people with attacks by flying monkeys. I have interracted with you, tom, many times. Perhaps you are confused because I rarely complain about moderator actions, not even yours, though frankly you deserve one for your utterly pointless warning to Silverstreak in the other thread.
I would reply further but frankly I am annoyed at the stifling of viewpoints in that thread. Most of what I would say belongs in the Pit.
And now, so I can get back to being my usual silly ass:
I’m starting to think there is no intention to be obtuse, or intention of anything for that matter. I’m thinking this poster just might be very young. I hope so anyway.
Before you psycho me all evening, it was a joke, the chuckie cheese comparison, well partly, I really never heard of John whatsit and I suspect 95 percent of posters do not know the names that are being thrown out at me in this thread. So to me such comparisons make as much sense as if chuckie cheese said them.
I would still like to know how I disrupted a thread I had not posted to in hours, many hours. Didn’t everyone have plenty of time to discuss me and all the others as well, and I wasn’t even going to post again that night, either. I believe in taking time to read multiple views.
By the way, I do think animals can change over time based on genetics and such, I am not nearly as crazy/stupid as you all make out.
It means that you appear to have not been in Great Debates very much when discussions of genetic drift were hijacked into diatribes that evolution was a phony atheist plot or when discussions of end-of-life medical practices degenerated into terminally circular brawls over whether there is life after death. No offense was intended, but if you are not excruciatingly aware of that trend to certain GD topics, the you have definitely not participated in many of those “debates.”
I have regularly been called upon to ban certain posters for precipitating those trainwrecks, even though they have violated no explicit rules. Therefore, I have begun a stricter enforcement against hijacks and SW was well on his way to creating one.
(BTW, I issued no Warning; I simply told SW to take his off-topic posts to a new thread.)
I know mods combine threads that got started more or less at the same time, but has there ever been a case of thread splitting (as opposed to its rhyme?) I’m not proposing that be done, since it would probably be a lot of work, just curious.
I remember doing it once, and I remember tomndebb did it once with some posts by (and responding to) lekatt. It’s not common, but we can do it and it’s happened. Speaking of lekatt I am sure there have been times he was told to stay out of a particular thread or keep his comments on one subject inside one thread.
What’s up with your sense of humor, lately? You used to be one of the posters that made me laugh all the time. Lately, falling off. But, alas, you are not a monkey to dance for my amusement.
To your OP, it tripped me out, too. I mean, damn…knowing that one can get the boot for being ignorant on a topic makes me realize it is wise of me not to post much in GD.
When Marley expressed his objections to SW’s posts, several posters expressed some disagreement with Marley and he relented.
The thread was interesting enough and informative enough that I have read all of it without comment. I do like ignorance fought – including my own. The rebuttals to SW were doing that even though I don’t hold the same views as SW.
