Wow.. Four responses in a row.
ALTER2EGO -to- BELL:
FIRSTLY, Something tells me that is an order. Interestingly, I do not recall seeing anything in forum rules forbidding colorizing and bolding. And since you find it tiresome, why do you persist in reading my posts, considering that other moderators--who do not find bolding and colorizing tiresome--could just as easily moderate my posts?
1) It was s suggestion, because it is very distracting and annoying.
2) We are all adults and not pre-schoolers who need to have bright bold letters in bright colours to read. So it comes across as being condescending.
3) While there are no rules about constant huge bolds and colours like we are small children learning sight words for the first time, there are rules and suggestions about how you participate on this site.
SECONDLY, your opinion that I am trolling--after I already debunked one of Dywyddyr's three sources at Post 102, and was getting ready to debunk the other two--is based solely upon your membership to the Religion of Atheism. Based upon the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Torcaso v. Watkins, Atheism is Religion:
http://forum.bible-discussion.com/showthread.php?20073-The-Religion-of-Atheism&highlight=alter2ego
How can you debunk any source you openly declared to have never read?
Not to mention that your own link and quote debunked you and what you were trying to claim.
Finally, no, Torcaso v. Watkins never ruled that atheism is a religion. Far from it. What it found and reaffirmed was that a Government requirement or demand that one believes in God is unconstitutional. The reason for that is simple. You should read your First Amendment to understand why.
No thank you.
I no longer debate at debatepolitics.com for the same reason that I am abandoning Sciforums.com, namely, the moderators intervened for the benefit of the atheists aka rescued them when they saw that the atheists were losing the argument. They, like Bell, got the bright idea that micro-managing is a good idea.
I do not micro-manage. What I do is make suggestions when I see a thread start to fall into a pit of trolling and flaming and where one or more parties are making wild claims that are completely unfounded. Such as when I noticed you supposedly debunk something, but you had no idea what you were debunking because you claimed you hadn't read it. I also saw you demanding people support their argument (which you are still to do) and then tell them that you were not going to read it. That is trolling. It shows that you are not interested in discussing or debating anything. You should read up on the trolling section in this site's rules for further clarification.
BTW: Atheism is Religion is one of the topics I was planning to debate here, until you showed up and decided to rescue your atheist pals, ordering me around, while waving the ban stick. Whenever a moderator shows and starts to SELECTIVELY micro-manage my posts, I simply abandon the website.
But you aren't debating. You are lecturing. There is a difference.
I am not rescuing them. They do not need to be rescued. And frankly, there is nothing to rescue them from. Unless you think my suggesting you not troll, that you support your argument and that you not demand people support their argument and then refuse to read it is some kind of rescue mission? This is a basic expectation on most forums. That you support your argument, that you actually read what people post especially if you demand they post it, before you label it as being "debunked". These should not be hard tasks. It is also in the rules of this site.
I have abandoned literally dozens of website because of the behavior you are demonstrating: You are taking sides and micro-managing. Moderators are supposed to be neutral. Moderators are only supposed to intervene when people are personally attacking each other or when they are not responding directly to what opponents post. The only thing that micro-managing accomplishes is that it runs off good debaters. You managed to run me off.
Congratulations!
Surely there should come a point where you should start to realise that it isn't everyone from the dozens of websites who are the problem and perhaps it is how you participate in discussions that may be the problem.
If you think the suggestion that you adhere to this site's rules by not trolling is my not remaining neutral, then really, it is somewhat laughable. If you are going to demand people support their side of an argument, you can't then dismiss it from the outset after declaring you were not even going to read it, misrepresent a quote from wiki as a reason for your refusing to read it, when your quote clearly notes that the traditions were mostly oral, which completely destroys your own argument.
Because I suggested you not troll and that you support your side of the argument?
The other participants in this thread participated in it in good faith. They all supported their argument, which you clearly and openly refused to read, you refused to address those who were genuinely interested in discussing this with you and instead dismissed their efforts, the time they took to research their position and support their argument. It is clear that while they were participating in this discussion with you in good faith, you had no intention of doing the same.
Now, that's cute, you transferring your ineptitude to me. The reality is that you are the one demonstrating that you have reading-comprehension issues. Here's why. I rebutted Dywyddyr's Wikipedia source, at Post 102, where it states in plain English that none of Pythagoras' writings have survived and there are forgeries under his name. Therefore all claims made about Pythagoras at Wikipedia are not based upon documentary evidence.
Dyw did not mention his "writings" in his post. You went to wiki and declared that none of what he posted could be true (without having read them) because none of his writings have survived, while ignoring the fact that what we know is because of the "oral nature of his teachings".. So not only did you openly declare that you aren't reading what people are posting, you also misrepresented your own quotes or you did not understand what you actually quoted.
Ergo this:
Did you see that portion bolded in blue from Wikipedia? It acknowledges that there is no proof Pythagoras wrote anything about a spherical earth because NONE of his writings exist. To put it simply, your reliance on Wikipedia is cancelled out by Wikipedia itself. I will deal with Ohio State University and American Physical Society later.
Is wrong. Because the "nature of his teachings" were oral. Not written. How do we know this? From what you quoted:
Ancient Pythagoreans usually quoted their master's doctrines with the phrase autos ephe ("he himself said") — emphasizing the essentially oral nature of his teaching.
So your proposition and your dismissals are completely incorrect because you misread and misrepresented fact.
ALTER2EGO -to- BELL:
Oh, I understand, all right. I understand that you have a delusion of grandeur merely because you are a moderator at an ordinary website. You have managed to convince yourself that being a moderator at just another website has suddenly granted the power that you clearly will never find off-line in the real world? Get over yourself.
Do you know how many websites I have abandoned because of people like you? I do not remain on websites where moderators think it is a bright idea to micro-manage.
As I noted above, if it's that many websites, perhaps the issue is you and not everyone else.
I am done with this website. Therefore, I have removed my avatar.
Err okay.. I didn't even notice you had an avatar. It is obviously important to you.
Have a good day and I hope that you find a site that will allow you to lecture instead of discuss.
