|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
Of course you get to be the final arbiter of what is competent and what is not competent? Do you know what a 'final arbiter' is? If not, you are not competent to make the assertion. If so, you are either dishonest or incompetent, for it is extremely obvious that I cannot be the final arbiter.
How many threads could one copy and post in response to this?
Apparently, none. At least that seems to be your capacity. Oh? Would you have us believe you don't recall any of the discussions either? I think the futility trying to carry on a discussion with persons who are utterly incapable of remembering anything is self-evident. Those who are only capable of remembering things selectively are even worse candidates. The rule shouldn't require perfect memory of all events, but to forget things on grand scales, things that have been discussed for months at a time is not consistent with a person who is both competent and honest. What is the minimum size for a "grand scale"? You wish to hide behind quantification issues? I was hoping you'd present some actual arguments in favour of allowing participation by parties who are clearly incompetent and/or dishonest. I advocate the banning of all bogus tactics. If evolutionism can be supported honestly, by half-competent human beings, let us find out. We will never find out if we permit the incompetent and/or dishonest to run amok and ruin the forum. Please list all bogus tactics so that everyone can see how even-handed you are in determining and enforcing the rules. Plus, I'd really like to know what they are so that I can avoid censure. That's rather the goal of the thread. Why don't you list a few yourself?
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
