Posted by Rick on March 14, 1999 at 18:02:20 {MWSZV6.08fSjY}:
Sometimes we have to go the "extra mile" in stating what is wrong with a post, and why we urge you to rewrite posts that were removed and then resubmit the post again.
The type in RED is triggering the removal (and type in BOLD RED is especially inflammatory), and RED typeface is completely irrelevant to discussion. The type in BLUE is the relevant material. (Quoting the previous post is good to the extent where it is absolutely necessary to keep the thread of discussion intact.)
Hi
Gary, I think it's your rambling I recognize here... : One problem Biblical fundamentalists have with some of this new Right. They are ignorant. So how is fundie ignorance the fault of
research is that the complexities of this scientific data is beyond their
area of expertise to check the
facts.
scientists? We have educated ourselves to understand these issues, if not
perfectly, then at least enough to discuss it intelligently and evaluate
the
evidence. Why can't fundies do the same thing?
dumber. Your ignorance is self-induced. It is a form of intellectual
dishonesty and cowardise that is at the core of all sorts
of
fundamentalism.[1]
: So until a Christian science fundamentalist is able to check this What nonsense. You can check and educate yourself. : On the other hand, scientists from Darwin to Einstein have proven
information himself with the proper critical criteria, there is nothing for
us to do but to shelve this
information as "INCONCLUSIVE."
that, you have no business, as you do, claiming scientists are "inept" or
dishonest, or that the issue is
"inconclusive."[2] If you have intentionally
avoided looking at the facts, the fault is 100% your own. That you even
have the guts to attack the well-informed opponents just demonstrate
gross disregard for
truth.
themselves to be totally inept at interpreting scientific data confronting
them.
Only a totally ignorant fundie could make such a
ridiculous statement.[3] : So you can't blame fundies for being a bit skeptical.
These are the two greatest scientists in the last 200 years. Their vision
and intelligence is far superious to what you can even imagine, and they
interpreted the data in an
examplary way.
You have buried your own grave by admitting this fundie ignorance is
self-induced.[4]
Lastly, let me add that a
number of evangelical Christians have indeed
been qualified to look at the evidence, and their attack on young-earth
creationism has been davastating. Read the following book for a number
of essays by various theists: Roland M.
Frye (ed): Is God a creationist?
The Religious Case Against Creation-Science (C. Scribner�s Sons, NY,
1983)
H2O comments:
[1] Attacking fundamentalism is off-topic and considered a "flame" in a serious forum discussion area; attributing "cowardice" to someone is a personal attack. Moderator discretion applies in deciding if the attacks of this sort eclipse the benefits of leaving a post on the board. H2O recommendation: rewrite or omit these words and resubmit post.
[2] Poorly assessing someone's level of education and then making value judgments on that person based on these assessments is cruel, and interjects a form of intellectual elitism into the topic. The topic should stand on its own merits. Readers can decide for themselves if someone is poorly educated and discount what they are saying, without someone pointing this out. If the board is aware someone is of a certain race, then attacking that someone's education is even more inflammatory because it interjects racism onto the board. Moderator discretion applies in deciding if the attacks of this sort eclipse the benefits of leaving a post on the board. H2O recommendation: rewrite or omit these words and resubmit post.
[3] Fundaments comprise a large percentage of the population in many nations. Wholesale attacks of fundamentalism using inflammatory insults or innuendo defeats of the purpose of a discussion. It opens the board to pointless arguing between participants and esalating insults. Moderator discretion applies in deciding if the attacks of this sort eclipse the benefits of leaving a post on the board. H2O recommendation: rewrite or omit these words and resubmit post.
[4] See [3].
H2O makes recommended deletions:
A good post is often hidden in verbal assaults and insults. Jan's post actually brings out some good points and shines as a good example of a good post, once all the insults and personal attacks are polished off the surface.
Can anyone honestly state the following polished post of Jan's is missing any relevant content?
Hi Gary, I think it's your rambling I recognize here... : One problem Biblical fundamentalists have with some of
this new Right. They are ignorant. So how is fundie ignorance the fault of
research is that the complexities of this scientific data is beyond their
area of expertise to check the facts.
scientists? We have educated ourselves
to understand these issues, if not
perfectly, then at least enough to discuss it intelligently and evaluate the
evidence. Why can't fundies do the same thing?
: So until a Christian science fundamentalist is
able to check this What nonsense. You can check and educate yourself. : On the other hand, scientists from
Darwin to Einstein have proven
information himself with the proper critical criteria, there is nothing for
us to do but to shelve this information as "INCONCLUSIVE."
avoided looking at the facts, the fault is 100% your own. That you even
have the guts to attack the well-informed opponents just demonstrate
gross disregard for truth.
themselves to be totally inept at interpreting scientific data confronting
them.
These are the two greatest scientists in the last 200 years. Their vision : So you can't blame fundies for being a bit skeptical.
and intelligence
is far superious to what you can even imagine, and they
interpreted the data in an examplary way.
Lastly, let me add that a number of evangelical
Christians have indeed
been qualified to look at the evidence, and their attack on young-earth
creationism has been davastating. Read the following book for a number
of essays by various theists: Roland M. Frye (ed): Is God a
creationist?
The Religious Case Against Creation-Science (C. Scribner�s Sons, NY,
1983)
Would you even recognize this post could have been written by Jan Haugland? Perhaps in the year 2010 these types of post, stripped of emotional baggage and containing pure relevant information, will appear on H2O. In the interim, we can only wish everyone would edit their posts and clip all unnecessary verbiage especially when it's of an attacking or derrogatory nature.
Rick