Replies

This thread has taken a pathetic turn. Despite the clamor to raise the civility of discourse, the real goal here is an underhanded attempt to remove science from the forum.

Sorry, but I won't sign on to any new age mysticism, nor will I prostitute my science, nor will I engage the wishes of the disruptors.

Despite the clamor to raise the civility of discourse, the real goal here is an underhanded attempt to remove science from the forum.

Indeed. "Give me everything I want, and I'll leave you alone."

That's not negotiation, nor is it a truce - it is blackmail, plain and simple.

Sorry, but I won't sign on to any new age mysticism, nor will I prostitute my science, nor will I engage the wishes of the disruptors.

I think it's acceptable to agree to a policy of no personal abuse or ad hominems. I'm not going to pretend to be blameless, but I think they're usually written in haste and repented at leisure, and they damage the writer as much as the recipient. Unilateral disarmament in this respect is fine.

I would agree that posts that claim either than 'naturalism leads to (insert pet evil here)' or 'Christianity leads to (insert pet evil here)' might be ended by mutual agreement. I started contributing a few of the second a couple of months ago, largely to emphasize the point of the indefensibility of the first. I have no interest in continuing them. If I wanted to engage in flame wars about Christianity, I'd be on the religion forum.

As far as other restrictions go; I don't care. If someone posts the same lame link 50 times, it's trivial to point to a refutation 50 times.

I will say one other thing, as a product of at least 10 years experience on internet forums. Most don't work. Some are unmoderated and turn into incessant flame wars. Some are so tightly moderated that one side usually claims free discussion is impossible. The one unmoderated forum that I think did work, for a while (and I haven't been back there in years, so it may not work any more, for all I know) was the rec.football.college newsgroup. Given the intensity with which people support college teams, you'd think this was strange; but there was a consensus on that forum against 'rah-rah' kinds of posts (there was a particular name for them, but I forget what it was). You could discuss recruiting at your own college, or at someone else's; you could criticize someone else's head coach, or defend your own; but at the point excessive partisanship became obvious, even your fellow fans would point out you were going so far.