A reminder of a very simple and basic rule

First topic message reminder :

It's a really simple one folks, but somehow it has been forgotten.

Your thread titles should be the grit of what your thread is about or the title from which your story is based.
Or the title the particular article has used.

If you see a thread title that is misleading please contact a mod and we will amend if needs be.
Don't take it upon yourself to go all silly and make a tit for tat thread because well, two wrongs don't make a right - remember that basic "law" we learned when we were little?

Yes I know, shouldnt have to be said. but it does happen.

There we go. All sorted.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But to argue for it--as you admit you do--on the basis of non-knowledge, is inane.  First you study and know something, then you speak.  That's the common rule of all human knowledge.

Your god is a unicorn.  I've never actually seen a unicorn.  I've never actually see a god.  Sweeping away the bullshite, neither have you.  Ergo: you speak without knowing.  Rearrange the words, and it becomes you don't know what you're talking about!  Simple.

I have studied the word of God and as paul said I am convinced....

but i have seen the effects of God...

so are you saying nothing can exist before we decide it does or even before we prove it can??

The effects of god are called NATURE. Nature is the product of chance and necessity. Nature is as ficticios as 'race'...it exists only in our own mind as a convenient place holder until something better comes along...or not.

And lo, that's what god is. Science has come along and replaced god. The ramblings of Paul--who, in fact, never even met Jesus--belong in a museum.

interestingly enough HF you cannot PROVE the non existance of something

there is no logical argument that can do so nor any philosophical instrument

ALL you can do is argue for an increasing level of unlikelyness

darknessss wrote:well if you really feel the need to drink to excess...thats YOUR problem, not mine...

interestingly you dont deny the suggestion of paranoia though....

I don't drink alcohol.

Original Quill wrote:

darknessss wrote:well if you really feel the need to drink to excess...thats YOUR problem, not mine...

interestingly you dont deny the suggestion of paranoia though....

I don't drink alcohol.

sad git.....

unless of course you have a medical condition...

darknessss wrote:unless of course you have a medical condition...

I had some rip-roaring days, though...in the day.

darknessss wrote:interestingly enough HF you cannot PROVE the non existance of something

there is no logical argument that can do so nor any philosophical instrument

ALL you can do is argue for an increasing level of unlikelyness

and lets face it some of the science possibilities are actually more improbabilities...

To be fair I stopped drinking because I was starting to become reliant on this a while back due to family bereavements Victor and to be honest feel better for it now I do not drink. I was close to becoming addictive I will readily admit and maybe one day will feel comfortable again to have a nice beer.

Anyway have a good evening buddy and a good evening to one and all.

depends where you are on the sacle of discovery HF

I mean its fairly certain that gravity exists....

and why


and its also quite certain that if you stick you finger in a mains socket its going to hammer you

and the reason is well know....and nowt to do with god

however there is what i would call "the hairy fringes of physics" and even those who study there readily admit that what they are indulging in is philosophy at its best....

you may find it odd ...but I too beleive in a "creator" being....but its NOT difficult to reconcile that with science and evolution

the "mistake " i think you make is that your idea of god is too personal....I mean...why would a being capable of creating literally "everything" be interested in YOU?

(I'm not knocking BTW.....just bewildered.....)

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

darknessss wrote:interestingly enough HF you cannot PROVE the non existance of something

there is no logical argument that can do so nor any philosophical instrument

ALL you can do is argue for an increasing level of unlikelyness

and lets face it some of the science possibilities are actually more improbabilities...

Possibilities and probabilities are merely ways of measuring uncertainty. That's why science is always corrigible. But the scientific method is ever the same: substitute opening your eyes for visions and dreams.

Sort things out in your mind, and you won't need visions of bearded old men walking on clouds.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

and lets face it some of the science possibilities are actually more improbabilities...

Possibilities and probabilities are merely ways of measuring uncertainty.  That's why science is always corrigible.  But the scientific method is ever the same: substitute opening your eyes for visions and dreams.

Sort things out in your mind, and you won't need visions of bearded old men walking on clouds.

no all you need are monkey's walking upright , then learning to talk, losing all their hair and then start inventing stuff...

hey planet of the apes was like the bible for you...

"The hairy fringes of physics" are just hypotheses before they are scientifically known.

Gravity is an excellent example. Of the four known forces, only gravity remains completely occult. But think of the possibilities. It is probably a key to a new apprehension of light and time, the discovery of which is the kind of stuff that drives men.

Without undiscovered mysteries, life would be no fun.

darknessss wrote:depends where you are on the sacle of discovery HF

I mean its fairly certain that gravity exists....

and why


and its also quite certain that if you stick you finger in a mains socket its going to hammer you

and the reason is well know....and nowt to do with god

however there is what i would call "the hairy fringes of physics" and even those who study there readily admit that what they are indulging in is philosophy at its best....

you may find it odd ...but I too beleive in a "creator" being....but its NOT difficult to reconcile that with science and evolution

the "mistake " i think you make is that your idea of god is too personal....I mean...why would a being capable of creating literally "everything" be interested in YOU?  

(I'm not knocking BTW.....just bewildered.....)

I agree lots of science is observable , repeatable, testable, I also agree that certain facets of science are little more than hopeful theology...

why not, why shouldn't a creator be interested are we as humans often interested in our pets or ant farms, not suggesting that is the level God sees or holds us as, who wouldn't be interested in what they created..

Original Quill wrote:"The hairy fringes of physics" are just hypotheses before they are scientifically known.

Gravity is an excellent example.  Of the four known forces, only gravity remains completely occult.  But think of the possibilities.  It is probably a key to a new apprehension of light and time, the discovery of which is the kind of stuff that drives men.  

Without undiscovered mysteries, life would be no fun.

yet you would deny the existence of God, what an amazing mystery that is..

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Possibilities and probabilities are merely ways of measuring uncertainty.  That's why science is always corrigible.  But the scientific method is ever the same: substitute opening your eyes for visions and dreams.

Sort things out in your mind, and you won't need visions of bearded old men walking on clouds.

no all you need are monkey's walking upright , then learning to talk, losing all their hair and then start inventing stuff...

hey planet of the apes was like the bible for you...

Well, what don't you like about that? You don't like apes? Or, you don't like planets? I never said what you would find would not be shitty and dirty...or something unpleasant. Your aesthetics are not even relevant.

The main point is that knowledge is empirical. It comports with experience, rather than being a completely fictional apparition. I like the idea of a metaphysics that communicates with the physical in the way that I can know in everyday fashion.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:"The hairy fringes of physics" are just hypotheses before they are scientifically known.

Gravity is an excellent example.  Of the four known forces, only gravity remains completely occult.  But think of the possibilities.  It is probably a key to a new apprehension of light and time, the discovery of which is the kind of stuff that drives men.  

Without undiscovered mysteries, life would be no fun.

yet you would deny the existence of God, what an amazing mystery that is..  

It's all in the way you know something, HF. I don't jump off a cliff because I know it would hurt. Your metaphysics tells you that indeed you might do so safely. There is a disconnect between your physics and your metaphysics.

That disconnect, for me, suggests something is unreal. Or, restated, something is untruthful.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

yet you would deny the existence of God, what an amazing mystery that is..  

It's all in the way you know something, HF.  I don't jump off a cliff because I know it would hurt.  Your metaphysics tells you that indeed you might do so safely.  There is a disconnect between your physics and your metaphysics.

That disconnect, for me, suggests something is unreal.  Or, restated, something is untruthful.

it's all in the choice you make...

the bible does not ask you to jump off a cliff, it does not ask you to give up your life...

because you cannot touch it, measure it, even fully comprehend it, it does not mean it does not exist..

as i said the bible held truths against the common knowledge of the times and beyond the knowledge of its time, that says to me its knowledge comes from something greater..

When i see order and structure and rules in the cosmos and on our planet that says creator, not a chaotic happenings..

hen I see the human body, the brain, it's workings I see creator like a fine machine not the workings of a billion random mutations...

Original Quill wrote:Talk about misleading, eds doesn't even reveal that she has board manipulation powers.  Everyone else advertises their 'Admin' status.

I think that is a false and misleading title.  Ha...from now I'll refer to her as false and misleading eddie!.  We can make it f/m eds, for short.

Oh. We are back to this again.
I rather thought you'd grown out of it but....well...alrighty then.

Quill! That's a very amusing name you e given me Quill!! Very very funny and very intelligent! I love it!!

All better now?
Goody!

I think the amount of 'nagging' Christians are alleged to get is minimal outside academic debates in university halls and on tv. Don't over estimate it. Most Christians are as able to get on with following their beliefs without hassle.

But this is a discussion forum with a large portion of atheists who see ALL mainstream religion as problematic and whose main background in religion us Christianity and whose main experience with religion is Christianity- so it is natural that is the one that is talked of most.

If you think any of us bothers Christians frequently you ate dead wrong.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Talk about misleading, eds doesn't even reveal that she has board manipulation powers.  Everyone else advertises their 'Admin' status.

I think that is a false and misleading title.  Ha...from now I'll refer to her as false and misleading eddie!.  We can make it f/m eds, for short.

Oh.  We are back to this again.  
I rather thought you'd grown out of it but....well...alrighty then.

Quill! That's a very amusing name you e given me Quill!! Very very funny and very intelligent! I love it!!  

All better now?
Goody!

 

YOU really are "off with the fairies", and living in some parallel universe of your own making, eddie  !!!

THAT'S one advantage of having complete nutters of the likes of you, sassy, L'il Andy, smelly', Drinky, stephenmarra and co., hanging out among these forums; wallowing in your imagined superiority, wisdom and self-importance..

MAKES people like little ol' moi seem quite sane and normal, in comparison !    

Okey doke!

eddie wrote:Okey doke!

We have had our run ins, but at least I come straight out and say the particular thing that has pissed me off. I seem to remember Quill and Bee playing this game before, with a different mod as target. You're handling it a lot better lol

I wonder who's pulling wolfies strings again


Hey wolfie...go lick your masters ring piece in true subserviant canine fashion....

Wolf I think you look for enemies everywhere. Lighten up and let go of whatever wrongs it is you perceive as having being done to you. Chances are they are just misunderstandings

Quoting HF from above:

'The bible held truths against the common knowledge of the times and beyond the knowledge of its time, that says to me its knowledge comes from something greater..
When i see order and structure and rules in the cosmos and on our planet that says creator, not a chaotic happenings..
Then I see the human body, the brain, it's workings I see creator like a fine machine not the workings of a billion random mutations...'
----------------------------
HF, many of the accounts in the Bible, especially the OT are based on myths and fantasy, because, as you said, 'beyond the knowledge of its time.' They didn't understand the workings of the physical planet, therefore they said God was responsible.

The human body and to some extent is just the same as most wildlife. Our inner organs are the same, our blood skin and bones are the same. The only difference is our brains have enlarged and we are cognizant of ourselves as individual beings. We, like all wildlife, green and animal, have evolved from a very primitive beginning to what we are today. If God created us then oh my, he has a lot to answer for.

stardesk wrote:Quoting HF from above:

'The bible held truths against the common knowledge of the times and beyond the knowledge of its time, that says to me its knowledge comes from something greater..
When i see order and structure and rules in the cosmos and on our planet that says creator, not a chaotic happenings..
Then I see the human body, the brain, it's workings I see creator like a fine machine not the workings of a billion random mutations...'
----------------------------
HF, many of the accounts in the Bible, especially the OT are based on myths and fantasy, because, as you said, 'beyond the knowledge of its time.' They didn't understand the workings of the physical planet, therefore they said God was responsible.

The human body and to some extent is just the same as most wildlife. Our inner organs are the same, our blood skin and bones are the same. The only difference is our brains have enlarged and we are cognizant of ourselves as individual beings. We, like all wildlife, green and animal, have evolved from a very primitive beginning to what we are today. If God created us then oh my, he has a lot to answer for.

of course animals have similar bodies they have the same creator...

lets face it who ever thought a lego fire station evolved from two lego bricks....

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

stardesk wrote:Quoting HF from above:

'The bible held truths against the common knowledge of the times and beyond the knowledge of its time, that says to me its knowledge comes from something greater..
When i see order and structure and rules in the cosmos and on our planet that says creator, not a chaotic happenings..
Then I see the human body, the brain, it's workings I see creator like a fine machine not the workings of a billion random mutations...'
----------------------------
HF, many of the accounts in the Bible, especially the OT are based on myths and fantasy, because, as you said, 'beyond the knowledge of its time.' They didn't understand the workings of the physical planet, therefore they said God was responsible.

The human body and to some extent is just the same as most wildlife. Our inner organs are the same, our blood skin and bones are the same. The only difference is our brains have enlarged and we are cognizant of ourselves as individual beings. We, like all wildlife, green and animal, have evolved from a very primitive beginning to what we are today. If God created us then oh my, he has a lot to answer for.

of course animals have similar bodies they have the same creator...

lets face it who ever thought a lego fire station evolved from two lego bricks....

Not familiar with lego HF, so I can't answer that metaphor.  But the point I believe Stardesk is making--and if I am wrong he can correct me--is that evolution is at least coherent and complete in itself: incrementalism and accidental changes led to the beings around us today.  There is really no place for god in the system; and no question asks for a god.  But that has not always been the case.

In days past, the order-amid-chaos observed by man posed a question that called for an answer: what accounts for all of this?  Accordingly, god became the answer.  It is my personal belief that religion came from the mind(s) of a child or children, who created a metaphor based upon his or her father.  After all, the father image is the most prevalent expression of your god: older, bearded and all powerful.  As the theory goes, this figure--god--served a purpose of answering the question: what caused all of this?  It was essentially a theory of causation.

But as time went on, more credible theories of causation came along.  Their validation was in their success, whereas praying to god had always been iffy, at best.  Success is a peculiar form of validation, but the reason why men subscribe to it is because it is practical.  Take an artifice like the automobile...we invent it, and then use it every day.  We come to depend upon it.  We reach a point where we no longer question the metaphysics that account for it: the automobile is real, substantial and dependable as long as I keep it up.  Now god does not offer that kind of success.

At some point we inquire of ourselves, why do we trust the automobile?  The answer: Because the automobile gives us cause-and-effect security.  We can depend upon it.  It gives us success every time.  Conversely, we notice that god does not give us the same reliability, the same success.  So we come to trust the metaphysics of the automobile--science, and the methods that result in the fields of mechanics, electricity and chemistry, etc.--more than we trust the metaphysics of god.

So you see, it's the reliability factor.  I can trust the automobile to get me to work or I can stay in bed and pray to god he will bathe me, dress me, and spirit me to my office.  One works; the other doesn't.  We come to rely on the one that works.  It is the practicality of success, and the usefulness that brings, that leads to the triumph of science over religion.

Is it me, or does the title of this thread not match the substance of it?  I have not yet been made a mod, or I would change it myself without asking permission.

I would title it: THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

of course animals have similar bodies they have the same creator...

lets face it who ever thought a lego fire station evolved from two lego bricks....

Not familiar with lego HF, so I can't answer that metaphor.  But the point I believe Stardesk is making--and if I am wrong he can correct me--is that evolution is at least coherent and complete in itself: incrementalism and accidental changes led to the beings around us today.  There is really no place for god in the system; and no question asks for a god.  But that has not always been the case.

In days past, the order-amid-chaos observed by man posed a question that called for an answer: what accounts for all of this?  Accordingly, god became the answer.  It is my personal belief that religion came from the mind(s) of a child or children, who created a metaphor based upon his or her father.  After all, the father image is the most prevalent expression of your god: older, bearded and all powerful.  As the theory goes, this figure--god--served a purpose of answering the question: what caused all of this?  It was essentially a theory of causation.

But as time went on, more credible theories of causation came along.  Their validation was in their success, whereas praying to god had always been iffy, at best.  Success is a peculiar form of validation, but the reason why men subscribe to it is because it is practical.  Take an artifice like the automobile...we invent it, and then use it every day.  We come to depend upon it.  We reach a point where we no longer question the metaphysics that account for it: the automobile is real, substantial and dependable as long as I keep it up.  Now god does not offer that kind of success.

At some point we inquire of ourselves, why do we trust the automobile?  The answer: Because the automobile gives us cause-and-effect security.  We can depend upon it.  It gives us success every time.  Conversely, we notice that god does not give us the same reliability, the same success.  So we come to trust the metaphysics of the automobile--science, and the methods that result in the fields of mechanics, electricity and chemistry, etc.--more than we trust the metaphysics of god.

So you see, it's the reliability factor.  I can trust the automobile to get me to work or I can stay in bed and pray to god he will bathe me, dress me, and spirit me to my office.  One works; the other doesn't.  We come to rely on the one that works.  It is the practicality of success, and the usefulness that brings, that leads to the triumph of science over religion.

what tosh for a start it only tries to explain man as a species it cannot work from the beginning of life...it also relies on good mutations hen we see negative and neutral mutations, so it does not work, e change within a species but not to another species which is adaption.
they thought the fossil record would prove the theory, when lacking punctuated equilibrium is thrown in ..

basically what we see is it's on evolution to keep fitting in...lol

HF wrote:what tosh for a start it only tries to explain man as a species it cannot work from the beginning of life...it also relies on good mutations hen we see negative and neutral mutations, so it does not work, e change within a species but not to another species which is adaption.
they thought the fossil record would prove the theory, when lacking punctuated equilibrium is thrown in ..

basically what we see is it's on evolution to keep fitting in...lol

Lad, go easy on the sauce. I think I can make you our, tho:

You are saying that evolution is merely a component of god's system. But ask yourself, as we try to understand the true ontology, what need have we of god anymore? We have settled on a different premise...the world is the product of chance and necessity, not intelligent design.

The theory no longer needs the old man in the sky.

Original Quill wrote:

HF wrote:what tosh for a start it only tries to explain man as a species it cannot work from the beginning of life...it also relies on good mutations hen we see negative and neutral mutations, so it does not work, e change within a species but not to another species which is adaption.
they thought the fossil record would prove the theory, when lacking punctuated equilibrium is thrown in ..

basically what we see is it's on evolution to keep fitting in...lol

Lad, go easy on the sauce.  I think I can make you our, tho:

You are saying that evolution is merely a component of god's system.  But ask yourself, as we try to understand the true ontology, what need have we of god anymore?  We have settled on a different premise...the world is the product of chance and necessity, not intelligent design.

The theory no longer needs the old man in the sky.

lol.. you say we don't need God, do you think that would just dispel him....

man has settled on a new religion called science, the biggest problem with that is man is trusting man, the most infallible thing on the planet is telling others what to think...

risingsun wrote:

eddie wrote:Okey doke!

We have had our run ins, but at least I come straight out and say the particular thing that has pissed me off.   I seem to remember Quill and Bee playing this game before, with a different mod as target.  You're handling it a lot better lol

Well yes, that's the best way to be - say it straight, get it out and get over it!

I hardly listen to buzzy bee tbh. He does a lot of italics and emoticons and insults.

Original Quill wrote:Is it me, or does the title of this thread not match the substance of it?  I have not yet been made a mod, or I would change it myself without asking permission.

I would title it: THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING.

And if you did that I might cry for about three or four days and have a little screaming fit, and ask you to resign because you broke the biggest rule like....EVER!

Or maybe not.

He's just being a pantythingy.

risingsun wrote:

eddie wrote:Okey doke!

We have had our run ins, but at least I come straight out and say the particular thing that has pissed me off.   I seem to remember Quill and Bee playing this game before, with a different mod as target.  You're handling it a lot better lol

To be fair you did start a thread also attacking Eddie calling into question Eddie as a moderator also.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t9552-ben-you-have-a-moderator-who-because-of-her-allegiance-to-another-site-refuses-to-do-her-job

I have called on Irn to do the same, which is unfair, even though he is hardly here, his moderation is okay.
I have had ding dongs with Eddie too, but within a day or too it has all blown over.

That says to me more than anything that Eddie is doing her job that people get so worked up over it and are reacting before seeing sense
She is allowed to be a poster which people tend to forget

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Lad, go easy on the sauce.  I think I can make you our, tho:

You are saying that evolution is merely a component of god's system.  But ask yourself, as we try to understand the true ontology, what need have we of god anymore?  We have settled on a different premise...the world is the product of chance and necessity, not intelligent design.

The theory no longer needs the old man in the sky.

lol.. you say we don't need God, do you think that would just dispel him....

man has settled on a new religion called science, the biggest problem with that is man is trusting man, the most infallible thing on the planet is telling others what to think...

Yet we do it all the time.  It's in our nature.  But that is not the salient point.

God is man-made as well, make no mistake.  What do you think Paul was doing?  He was inventing a deity, or a recasting of the old Hebrew deity with a new purpose or mission.  Marc, Luke, Matthew and John were sandpapering the theory.  The Council of Nicea was literally legislating the new religion. So, trusting in god is trusting in man all over again.

As I say, some child, or children generally, probably invented a god in the image of their own father.  For thousands of years he was the answer to questions of ontology.  The stories were told, mother to son and daughter,  Until, during the Renaissance period, man began to look to himself and what he could learn around him for the answers.  Then a new metaphysics was born.  People began to write down the methods by which they learned things, and a new code was born to compete with the Bible.  It was called the scientific method.

It outshines religion in a very important aspect: it is practical and reliable...in a word, it is successful.

Belatucadros wrote:

risingsun wrote:

We have had our run ins, but at least I come straight out and say the particular thing that has pissed me off.   I seem to remember Quill and Bee playing this game before, with a different mod as target.  You're handling it a lot better lol

To be fair you did start a thread also attacking Eddie calling into question Eddie as a moderator also.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t9552-ben-you-have-a-moderator-who-because-of-her-allegiance-to-another-site-refuses-to-do-her-job

I have called on Irn to do the same, which is unfair, even though he is hardly here, his moderation is okay.
I have had ding dongs with Eddie too, but within a day or too it has all blown over.

That says to me more than anything that Eddie is doing her job that people get so worked up over it and are reacting before seeing sense
She is allowed to be a poster which people tend to forget

No didge...she is using the board controls to alter what others have written.  That is dishonest.

Moreover, she is doing so in order to advance her agenda, conservatism.  Conservatives like to avoid reason and face-to-face discussion to make their points, opting instead to cheat, distort rules or, in a word, lie.  That's why I wrote Why Elephants Lie.

I make a point of it because I have seen good boards ruined by the practice.  Take a look at a board known as Best U K Forums, or BUKF.  In around 2008 it was a lively and kicking board that was enjoyed by all.  Then the owner made a pact with a New York lawyer--I'll call him by his first name, Nicky--to come on board and stimulate arguments from a conservative perspective.  Only like all conservatives, rationality wasn't for him.  Rather, he chose to start 'recreating' the messages of others using his mod board.  The sounds of silence you hear over there today are the result of Nicky's efforts.

It is not as petty as you make out.  The life of a board may depend upon it.

Original Quill wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


To be fair you did start a thread also attacking Eddie calling into question Eddie as a moderator also.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t9552-ben-you-have-a-moderator-who-because-of-her-allegiance-to-another-site-refuses-to-do-her-job

I have called on Irn to do the same, which is unfair, even though he is hardly here, his moderation is okay.
I have had ding dongs with Eddie too, but within a day or too it has all blown over.

That says to me more than anything that Eddie is doing her job that people get so worked up over it and are reacting before seeing sense
She is allowed to be a poster which people tend to forget

No didge...she is using the board controls to alter what others have written.  That is dishonest.

Moreover, she is doing so in order to advance her agenda, conservatism.  Conservatives like to avoid reason and face-to-face discussion to make their points, opting instead to cheat, distort rules or, in a word, lie.  That's why I wrote Why Elephants Lie.

I make a point of it because I have seen good boards ruined by the practice.  Take a look at a board known as Best U K Forums, or BUKF.  In around 2008 it was a lively and kicking board that was enjoyed by all.  Then the owner made a pact with a New York lawyer--I'll call him by his first name, Nicky--to come on board and stimulate arguments from a conservative perspective.  Only like all conservatives, rationality wasn't for him.  Rather, he chose to start 'recreating' the messages of others using his mod board.  The sounds of silence you hear over there today are the result of Nicky's efforts.

It is not as petty as you make out.  The life of a board may depend upon it.

No its completely petty Quill on every level.
The rule of the law here is Ben.
Ben appoints others to carry his laws.
If you do not like the rules of the laws, which Eddie has only carried out then this should be a personal issue you take up with Ben in private on the laws made.
We had to deal with countless threads having incorrect and misleading titles to a thread. I see the point you were trying to make, but by doing what you did, you applied the same illogical reasoning that Big Andy did daily. People got fed up with it and then you did the same, for good intentions I might add, but there should not be allowances even when the intention is good. As then you open up a loop hole to a laws which will lead to further misuse by other posters.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

lol.. you say we don't need God, do you think that would just dispel him....

man has settled on a new religion called science, the biggest problem with that is man is trusting man, the most infallible thing on the planet is telling others what to think...

Yet we do it all the time.  It's in our nature.  But that is not the salient point.

God is man-made as well, make no mistake.  What do you think Paul was doing?  He was inventing a deity, or a recasting of the old Hebrew deity with a new purpose or mission.  Marc, Luke, Matthew and John were sandpapering the theory.  The Council of Nicea was literally legislating the new religion.  So, trusting in god is trusting in man all over again.

As I say, some child, or children generally, probably invented a god in the image of their own father.  For thousands of years he was the answer to questions of ontology.  The stories were told, mother to son and daughter,  Until, during the Renaissance period, man began to look to himself and what he could learn around him for the answers.  Then a new metaphysics was born.  People began to write down the methods by which they learned things, and a new code was born to compete with the Bible.  It was called the scientific method.



It outshines religion in a very important aspect: it is practical and reliable...in a word, it is successful.

lol the bible was written by man but inspired by God, as i say that is why you see the information that goes beyond human knowledge...

I believe an all powerful God will have in his word what he wants...

science is not practical or reliable as by it's nature it can change at any moment due to new information, so a science fact is a misnomer, when you add in it that 99.9% of those who believe in evolution do so purely on faith, all e have really is a new age religion, man has become God, as I keep saying but man is fallible..

Belatucadros wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No didge...she is using the board controls to alter what others have written.  That is dishonest.

Moreover, she is doing so in order to advance her agenda, conservatism.  Conservatives like to avoid reason and face-to-face discussion to make their points, opting instead to cheat, distort rules or, in a word, lie.  That's why I wrote Why Elephants Lie.

I make a point of it because I have seen good boards ruined by the practice.  Take a look at a board known as Best U K Forums, or BUKF.  In around 2008 it was a lively and kicking board that was enjoyed by all.  Then the owner made a pact with a New York lawyer--I'll call him by his first name, Nicky--to come on board and stimulate arguments from a conservative perspective.  Only like all conservatives, rationality wasn't for him.  Rather, he chose to start 'recreating' the messages of others using his mod board.  The sounds of silence you hear over there today are the result of Nicky's efforts.

It is not as petty as you make out.  The life of a board may depend upon it.

No its completely petty Quill on every level.
The rule of the law here is Ben.
Ben appoints others to carry his laws.
If you do not like the rules of the laws, which Eddie has only carried out then this should be a personal issue you take up with Ben in private on the laws made.
We had to deal with countless threads having incorrect and misleading titles to a thread. I see the point you were trying to make, but by doing what you did, you applied the same illogical reasoning that Big Andy did daily. People got fed up with it and then you did the same, for good intentions I might add, but there should not be allowances even when the intention is good. As then you open up a loop hole to a laws which will lead to further misuse by other posters.

You are avoiding, or deliberately ignoring the point: Ben doesn't legislate human nature.

People will leave once they determine that Admin is dishonest. I would...and have. The reason is simple: discussions depend upon your being able to express your own idea. Censorship is one thing...but when you cannot even depend that what you say will maintain in place throughout the thread, what is the point? If, say, you have a game board, and the admin constantly changes your accumulated score, eventually you abandon the place. Same thing.

Both censorship and post-altering are dishonest practices. They ruin the attraction of trading ideas. Again, the dishonesty is one thing, but removing the attraction is real. One might make you angry, but the other makes you lose interest. Abandonment is the worse curse...ask any unsuccessful business.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yet we do it all the time.  It's in our nature.  But that is not the salient point.

God is man-made as well, make no mistake.  What do you think Paul was doing?  He was inventing a deity, or a recasting of the old Hebrew deity with a new purpose or mission.  Marc, Luke, Matthew and John were sandpapering the theory.  The Council of Nicea was literally legislating the new religion.  So, trusting in god is trusting in man all over again.

As I say, some child, or children generally, probably invented a god in the image of their own father.  For thousands of years he was the answer to questions of ontology.  The stories were told, mother to son and daughter,  Until, during the Renaissance period, man began to look to himself and what he could learn around him for the answers.  Then a new metaphysics was born.  People began to write down the methods by which they learned things, and a new code was born to compete with the Bible.  It was called the scientific method.

It outshines religion in a very important aspect: it is practical and reliable...in a word, it is successful.

lol the bible was written by man but inspired by God, as i say that is why you see the information that goes beyond human knowledge...

I believe an all powerful God will have in his word what he wants...

I have no reason to believe that.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:science is not practical or reliable as by it's nature it can change at any moment due to new information, so a science fact is a misnomer, when you add in it that 99.9% of those who believe in evolution do so purely on faith, all e have really is a new age religion, man has become God, as I keep saying but man is fallible..

I am the first to admit that all the findings of science are corrigible.  But findings are one thing; fantasy is quite another.  Scientific findings are based upon the empirical evidence and the rigors of reason.  The Bible is based upon the entertaining imaginings, or fantasies of children.

Fantasy is fiction.  I am sure that the fiction that was proffered by religion was offered in good faith at one time, but now that we have refined our thinking and have developed more successful methods, it's time to relegate fiction back to the realm of fantasy.

We've moved on, HF.  It happens.  You are holding on to the imaginings of children of thousands of years ago.  Man progresses, as does his awareness about how the world works.  The other is interesting only to a museum.

Original Quill wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


No its completely petty Quill on every level.
The rule of the law here is Ben.
Ben appoints others to carry his laws.
If you do not like the rules of the laws, which Eddie has only carried out then this should be a personal issue you take up with Ben in private on the laws made.
We had to deal with countless threads having incorrect and misleading titles to a thread. I see the point you were trying to make, but by doing what you did, you applied the same illogical reasoning that Big Andy did daily. People got fed up with it and then you did the same, for good intentions I might add, but there should not be allowances even when the intention is good. As then you open up a loop hole to a laws which will lead to further misuse by other posters.

You are avoiding, or deliberately ignoring the point: Ben doesn't legislate human nature.

People will leave once they determine that Admin is dishonest.  I would...and have.  The reason is simple: discussions depend upon your being able to express your own idea.  Censorship is one thing...but when you cannot even depend that what you say will maintain in place throughout the thread, what is the point?  If, say, you have a game board, and the admin constantly changes your accumulated score, eventually you abandon the place.  Same thing.

Both censorship and post-altering are dishonest practices.  They ruin the attraction of trading ideas.  Again, the dishonesty is one thing, but removing the attraction is real.  One might make you angry, but the other makes you lose interest.  Abandonment is the worse curse...ask any unsuccessful business.

Ben has not disagree with Eddie.
Your issue now should be with Ben full stop, if ben does not disagree with the ruling.
You are being utterly petty beyond belief and nobody bar one is backing you here.
I really do not care to be honest, I am just pointing out that you do not break the rules, you did break the rules which are very clear.
So there was no dishonesty here, you are the only one not admitting fault.
Now that is what I call being dishonest, not admitting fault
Move one its done, democratically if you like, put it up to vote, but I guarantee you will have results that will embarrass you

Original Quill wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

risingsun wrote:

We have had our run ins, but at least I come straight out and say the particular thing that has pissed me off.   I seem to remember Quill and Bee playing this game before, with a different mod as target.  You're handling it a lot better lol

To be fair you did start a thread also attacking Eddie calling into question Eddie as a moderator also.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t9552-ben-you-have-a-moderator-who-because-of-her-allegiance-to-another-site-refuses-to-do-her-job

I have called on Irn to do the same, which is unfair, even though he is hardly here, his moderation is okay.
I have had ding dongs with Eddie too, but within a day or too it has all blown over.

That says to me more than anything that Eddie is doing her job that people get so worked up over it and are reacting before seeing sense
She is allowed to be a poster which people tend to forget

No didge...she is using the board controls to alter what others have written.  That is dishonest.

Moreover, she is doing so in order to advance her agenda, conservatism.  Conservatives like to avoid reason and face-to-face discussion to make their points, opting instead to cheat, distort rules or, in a word, lie.  That's why I wrote Why Elephants Lie.

I make a point of it because I have seen good boards ruined by the practice.  Take a look at a board known as Best U K Forums, or BUKF.  In around 2008 it was a lively and kicking board that was enjoyed by all.  Then the owner made a pact with a New York lawyer--I'll call him by his first name, Nicky--to come on board and stimulate arguments from a conservative perspective.  Only like all conservatives, rationality wasn't for him.  Rather, he chose to start 'recreating' the messages of others using his mod board.  The sounds of silence you hear over there today are the result of Nicky's efforts.

It is not as petty as you make out.  The life of a board may depend upon it.

Oooh you're like Detective Luetentant Columbo in..........no way whatsoever.


You'd be hard-pushed to find anyone who thinks Im a Conservative!!

next step will be to set wolfie on you

I don't think Bigandy sulked this much when his threads were corrected lol

I refer you to my original post and to rules set it by Ben.

Now I'm not going to waffle on about it as I'm late for a Conservative party knees-up where I can brag about my takeover on a forum.

eddie wrote:I refer you to my original post and to rules set it by Ben.

Now I'm not going to waffle on about it as I'm late for a Conservative party knees-up where I can brag about my takeover on a forum.

Take no notice Edds you are too good for the likes of this bunch
They is just jealous of your beard

I got your back

Nems wrote:

eddie wrote:I refer you to my original post and to rules set it by Ben.

Now I'm not going to waffle on about it as I'm late for a Conservative party knees-up where I can brag about my takeover on a forum.

Take no notice Edds you are too good for the likes of this bunch
They is just jealous of your beard

I got your back

My beard has always caused jealousy and outrage.
You were the one who helped me cultivate it in the early days

How will I ever thank you

was going to ask about that beard Eddie....

is it the result of one to many face lifts

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:.....................

and lets face it some of the science possibilities are actually more improbabilities...

YET ANOTHER irrational bullshit post from heavenly'  !!!

OFF your med's again this week, hf  ?!?

    <<<   heavenly'  once again tries to dismiss scientific facts...