To: fatez
You make a veiled threat about the mods about personal attacks, yet you just machine gun fired against half of the posters here. Don't spray your diatribe and not expect others to answer; you're beginning to sound like a commissar... He's very touchy since a lot of the pro-science folks here have been banned by the moderators, following a series of flare-ups on the crevo threads.
The crevo threads usually started as a general-interest biology or science thread posted by (the now departed) PatrickHenry. Within the first couple of dozen posts, the thread would be overrun with Biblical literalists, arguing with both scientists and Dawkins acolytes. (There is some overlap of fundamentalist and Biblical literalist evangelicals in the conservative movement, just as there is some overlap of atheists and scientists.) Feelings ran high. The result was usually akin to dropping a large hunk of elemental sodium into a toilet.
One of the threads where this came to a head can be found here.
Usually the threads would end up like this:
![](http://www.shovelbeating.org/~ryan/calvin-and-hobbes/ch870118.gif)
Full Disclosure: Most of the banned posters have migrated to another site called "Darwin Central". There appears to be a lot of mutual lurking between the sites.
NO cheers, unfortunately. I wish things could've been handled more amicably.
100 posted on
01/03/2007 10:01:00 PM PST by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: grey_whiskers; fatez
He's very touchy since a lot of the pro-science folks here have been banned by the moderators, following a series of flare-ups on the crevo threads. Pro-evo would be more correct than pro-science. There seems to be accusation (and misunderstanding) floating around that anyone who disagrees with the interpretation of the fossil record and ToE are anti-science. That's not true. Many, if not most, in the creationist/ID camp regularly state that they're not anti-science, but they're generally not believed when they say it. But who would know better, the person saying they're not anti-science, or the person making the accusations?
103 posted on
01/03/2007 10:14:59 PM PST by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: grey_whiskers
BTW, what groups are *Biblical literalists*? I have yet to meet anyone who demands that one has to take the whole Bible as literal or not at all, besides an evo. I know of no religious people or group that does that.
104 posted on
01/03/2007 10:17:54 PM PST by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: grey_whiskers
Sigh ... I miss Calvin and Hobbes....
109 posted on
01/03/2007 11:19:49 PM PST by
Rurudyne
(Standup Philosopher)
To: grey_whiskers
I do so wish Watterson would bring back the BEst Comic EVER!!!!!!!!
114 posted on
01/04/2007 5:11:59 AM PST by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: grey_whiskers
The crevo threads usually started as a general-interest biology or science thread posted by (the now departed) PatrickHenry.
"Alas, Poor Patrick!
I knew him, grey_whiskers: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at it.
Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft.
Where be your gibes now? your gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar?
Not one now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?
Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come; make her laugh at that."
115 posted on
01/04/2007 5:20:40 AM PST by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson