I do think these threads have merit.
I think that the points you raise about the (for lack of a better word) snobbery amongst certain scientific circles against certain aspects of the conservative movement have merit. I am sure that there is some reticence from some of your scientific peers that they say is for that reason.
I also think that the religious people have a point, that some use science as just another tool to try to drive religion from the public realm.
Moreover, I think that the discussions between different mindsets within conservatism are important to be had, on this topic and other topics.
So personally, I would like to see these threads remain. I may get my way, or I may lose that battle.
But there is another aspect to all of this, which is the way that debates within the conservative circle are handled. Do we treat each other with respect, even if we totally disagree? Or not?
ovrtaxt is right. The crap does get overwhelming. It drives people away, and creates more work for the staff than they should have to deal with.
So the options are, do away with these discussions, or fix the problem.
On the 'do away with these discussions' side, we have Jim and several other members of the staff who think they are superfluous to what the site is about (and before someone jumps in and says that there is other non-critical stuff here- yes, there is, but it doesn't cause the animosity or the work that these threads do). And on the 'keep these discussions up' side, we have others, such as me, and such as both sides in these personality battles who claim that they want these discussions to stay up.
So we will make that effort.
So I have tried to help smooth things out. I posted articles, giving warning to not get into flame wars. I got told by gore3000 that he could tell I was biased by which articles I posted (even though they pretty much were chosen not by me, but by Google). When the complaints started again, I looked, saw what was going on, found some blame on both sides and popped in. One side took the advice in stride. One side didn't.
If your goal is to try to run the scientific conservatives out of Free Republic, you may as well hit 'log off' right now and go somewhere else and bitch about how things are here. Save us a step or two. And if your goal is to try to run off those who look at life more through faith, the same applies.
And if you honestly look back over these threads that I have posted over the last few days, and the way I have handled things on these threads and you find it to be unacceptable, you may as well leave now. Save yourself some heartache and don't drag things out.
There is much spin in the above which needs to be rectified. You told longshadow 'bad boy' for inciting a flamewar and you threatened me for asking you to stop it. I don't call that fair treatement. In a site (and a thread!) which is trying to stop abusive behavior for you to tell me that I should allow abuse to 'roll off my back' and attacking me for not doing so shows extreme bias and extreme unfairness in someone that claims to be an impartial observer.
In addition, your bias towards evolution itself is shown in your very words on this post:
I think that the points you raise about the (for lack of a better word) snobbery amongst certain scientific circles against certain aspects of the conservative movement have merit. I am sure that there is some reticence from some of your scientific peers that they say is for that reason.
I also think that the religious people have a point, that some use science as just another tool to try to drive religion from the public realm.
You add to the above with the following later on:
If your goal is to try to run the scientific conservatives out of Free Republic, you may as well hit 'log off' right now and go somewhere else and bitch about how things are here. Save us a step or two. And if your goal is to try to run off those who look at life more through faith, the same applies.
Now on the above you are clearly saying that evolution is science and those opposed to evolution are against science. I call that bias. Further:
Moreover, I think that the discussions between different mindsets within conservatism are important to be had, on this topic and other topics.
to say as you do above that atheists, evolutionists, materialists which are allied with the NEA, the liberals, the Communists and were allied with the Nazis in destroying Christianity and civilized society are conservatives shows extreme bias on your part since that is one of the important points being made against evolution by the opponents of it.
As to solving the problem on these threads:
So the options are, do away with these discussions, or fix the problem.
The solution was given to you by Half Full in post# 376:
It is easy....the initiator of insults on any particular thread gets banned for two weeks, then a month, and third offense permanent. Would clear up personal attacks in record time.
Which is what I was trying to have you do when it became obvious that a flame war was being initiated and called you in to fix it. Instead of punishing the initiator you threatened me (and continue to do so). So yes, you are biased, and that Vade and Patrick were able to 'predict' your unfair threats against me before you made them shows that you are not only biased but of the same mindset with one side.
So therefore, your post only adds to the evidence of your bias and your mishandling of these threads. As I said before and you continue to give evidence supporting my position - you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.