Appeal to all posters.

[Deamiter]

Recently there has been an influx of new users -- particularly young earth creationists -- who deserve the same courtesy that regulars are always granted. They have never heard of PRATT lists and I can't think of ANYBODY who would be willing to wade through the tons of muck that's been archived here.

Might I appeal to all posters -- but regulars in particular -- that perhaps we could go back to NOT citing PRATT lists for a while? If all you have to say is ridiculing the opponent, you are only entrenching them! It's been quite a while since we've seen some new faces around here, and you've had plenty of time to recover from the last round of legitimate debate. Can we go back to answering questions rather than linking to lists?

Recently I've seen more baiting and flaiming than in the whole last month! Would it be so difficult to treat others with respect? If the answer is no -- there are many other C&E boards out there where the rules about flaming are much more lenient!

 

[Tomk80]

I think you are right, I'll try to watch my posts.

 

[Mistermystery]

While that's all fine and dandy dreamy, when the new influx of posters came I tried to get into the habit of rebuting them, but some of them just don't seem to listen. And don't we have a rule as well that says that stonewallers don't need to apply?

Don't get me wrong, I'm prolly also one of the people who should tone it down more, but on the other hand I don't want to invest time in them if they go trolling around the thread again, ignoring everything I say, and just take off like that. You do understand that that is frustrating also, I hope...

 

[Phred]

Now, I understand what you're asking. If I was a bank teller I'd have to answer the same questions, over and over and over again. "Where are the deposit slips?" While I might get crabby... each customer is asking for the first time.

But if there were signs on the way into the bank saying, "Deposit slips to your left on the wall." Maybe even some standing signs with arrows pointing to the slips themselves...

How long is the same question to be tolerated before something has to change? Maybe put up some more signs???

 

[h2whoa]

Well if we had a PRATT list sticky it might help people be more civil to new users who come in using PRATTs.

But I agree courtesy is to be expected, just has to work both ways.

h2

 

[JohnR7]

And don't we have a rule as well that says that stonewallers don't need to apply?

What is a "stonewaller"? Anyone that does not agree with you?

 

[Mistermystery]

What is a "stonewaller"? Anyone that does not agree with you?

I define it as someone who doesn't listen to the other poster repeatably (Like changing the subject over and over, not responding to the other side, quotemineing, repeating the same thing over and over and over while being shown incorrect etc). Or obvious trolling.

 

[Gordon Freeman]

What is a "stonewaller"? Anyone that does not agree with you?

basically just ssmeone who refuses to listen and coninues to repeat the same tired old thing. An example would be somenone who says "natural selection does not happen" and then continues to say it despite being shown evidence that it does happen, without ever really attempting to address the data and explain why it is not natural selection.

 

[Deamiter]

I've seen people with inpenitrable walls up -- I certainly understand how frusterating it can be to answer the same questions over and over ESPECIALLY when asked by the same poster! Part of the problem, though, is that while one or two members try to answer the question, others jump in and ridicule the post. Just as stonewallers need not apply, people who jump on a PRATT should be hitting the "back" button and not "reply."

 

[h2whoa]

I've seen people with inpenitrable walls up -- I certainly understand how frusterating it can be to answer the same questions over and over ESPECIALLY when asked by the same poster! Part of the problem, though, is that while one or two members try to answer the question, others jump in and ridicule the post. Just as stonewallers need not apply, people who jump on a PRATT should be hitting the "back" button and not "reply."

How about the PRATT-list sticky idea that we could cordially refer new posters to?

h2

 

[Gordon Freeman]

the problem I see with not invoking the PRATT list, is what does one do when someone says "the amount of the dust on the moon is not enough for a 4 billion year old earth"
I suppose if people were less vocal that it is a PRATT list, and just made the poiunt "this is an old argument that was falsified many years ago and here is the evidence (link) "


would that be ok?

 

[Deamiter]

I suppose if people were less vocal that it is a PRATT list, and just made the poiunt "this is an old argument that was falsified many years ago and here is the evidence (link) "

That would certainly be better! I've usually noticed somebody who's willing to address the claim more specifically... but the origional poster starts responding to all the tripe and any debate gets lost in the noise. I understand it's frusterating to address the same topics, and it's tempting to vent in the same thread you're debating in. I just wonder what would happen if ONLY evidence was posted in response to a question... ad homs would at least be easier to address if they only came from one side...

 

[Gordon Freeman]

but the origional poster starts responding to all the tripe and any debate gets lost in the noise.

I agree. I sometimes put a bit of a throwaway line at the end of a post, and more often than not, that gets addressed rather than the evidence, and I end up regretting adding that line. I shall endeavour to improve

 

[Mistermystery]

I will try to do better in my posts. Anyone who fels I've not treated them with enough respect, please pm me about it. Allthough, I second a sticky that has a couple of pratt items on them, or something to that extend. Maybe a line of " research your claims first" would be good to ... I dunno.

 

[Tomk80]

I will try to do better in my posts. Anyone who fels I've not treated them with enough respect, please pm me about it. Allthough, I second a sticky that has a couple of pratt items on them, or something to that extend. Maybe a line of " research your claims first" would be good to ... I dunno.

I don't know, I don't think it would be much use, since people won't accept those PRATT's as actually being refuted anyway.

 

[Mistermystery]

I don't know, I don't think it would be much use, since people won't accept those PRATT's as actually being refuted anyway.

So we're back where we started? Only we should be more civil? Great then.

 

[Tomk80]

So we're back where we started? Only we should be more civil? Great then.

I'd say that that is where we are. More civil it is.

 

[Tomk80]

I was wondering, seeing the posting behaviour of a certain group of people...
Could you make a censoring on people who have trouble with managing their 'caps lock'. I mean, IT DOES MAKE FOR IRRITATING READING, LIKE YOUR TALKING WITH SOMEONE WHO IS SHOUTING ALL THE TIME AND THAT DOESN'T EXACTLY IMPROVE DISCUSSION GRAMMAR ALSO HELPS SOMETIMES BY THE WAY.

Is it possible to censor a sentence which has more than three consecutive words in caps for example, just like censoring curse words. Just a thought.