We hammered out an agreement, but the creationist side felt I had betrayed them - though I was never the representative for that side. My "function" was to mediate which requires treating both sides the same.
Both sides leaned on us to enforce the agreement. In the end, many on the creationist side wound up banned or left in a fit of indignation. A number on the evolutionist side ended up banned as well. And the agreement went to crickets.
So no thanks, Liberal Classic. Been there, done that. Let the moderators and individual posters take care of the behavior problems.
We hammered out an agreement, but the creationist side felt I had betrayed them...
This fact should tell us something. Why should these people feel that you are a traitor when the purpose of the Agreement of the Willing was to reduce attacks and innuendo? Shouldn't this tell us something about the character of those people? I believe it does.
I've said in this thread that the topic is toxic, but topics aren't living things. Actually, it is the people who are poisonous, not the subject of discussion.
Let the moderators and individual posters take care of the behavior problems.
I find this answer to be unsatisfactory. We must take responsibility for the ideas expressed on this forum. Are we not our brothers' keeper? Having my previous post yanked gives me the opportunity to look up the quote attributed to Edmund Burke. "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
There is a common rhetorical trick called the broad brush, with which I am sure you are familiar. It is a sweepingly unfair statement that tars many people. It is a way of breaking the spirit of the rules without breaking the letter of the rules. Saying that "evolutions worship Darwin" is just a clever way of saying that I am an idolater. Saying that I am "more religious than those I despise the most" suggests two things: one, that I am an idolater and two, that I despise people.
These comments are intended to be attacks, but they are phrased circumspectly. They are, in fact, lies about spoken about us to other people. The statements these people make go far beyond simple gossip. They are in fact bearing false witness about me and others.
Imagine my consternation when people such as yourself, people who cultivate a reputation for reason, fairness, and a commitment to the truth, do not simply ignore these comments. Instead encouragement is given the posters who made them and thanks are given to them for their words -- words that bear false witness against me! Do we not have a moral obligation to stand up against falsehood?
This is why I said the things I did. I am sorry if I made them too "personal" and I ask forgiveness of you. However, I trying to remind the readership and you that not exposing error and wrongdoing is itself wrongdoing. There is such a thing as a lie by ommission. I am not trying to attack you. Saying that someone ought to be ashamed of themselves is not a personal attack. I am trying to be your conscience. Shame is our conscience's way of telling us we may have done something wrong.