Subject: Talk.Origins - Credible? ..a reply : Paleo : Active Low-Carber Forums

View Full Version : Subject: Talk.Origins - Credible? ..a reply

Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Jabriol

Sat, Jul-19-03, 19:14

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C34E0B.724E5990 Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable

From: Jason Gastrich (jcsaves3@aol.com) Subject: Talk.Origins
- Credible?=20

=20 20
View this article only=20 Newsgroups: talk.origins Date:
2003-07-18 16:55:12 PST=20

A lot of evolutionists love Talk.Origins. They quote them like
law and = use their web pages to argue against creation, AIG,
ICR, etc. Is this wise, though?

Talk.Origins is not a peer reviewed organization. Therefore,
their = arguments are essentially like those put forth by any
layman. Can anyone prove = that they are a credible,
scientific source that is peer-reviewed and not just = some
evolutionists writing about things they believe?

Sincerely, Jason Gastrich
---------------------------------------------
Jabriol replies:

Is any news group credible? My recent experience is that the
answer is no.

T.O moderation has a Content censorship policy in effect, If
you = present material that may throw a negative light on
the theory and = crosspost to any three newsgroups to get
additional support or comments = in regards, Your message
may not appear on the newsgroup. You may also = be banned.
In other words you are not free to offer any contrary =
information to the theory of evolution, that other readers
may find = objectionable. There for in that light, The
Newgroup is not a credible, = since not strong opposition or
material may be use to counter the = theory of evolution,
unless the material will make you look like an = utter fool
for amusement purpose. There is no actual remedy to force a
NG moderator to abide fairly by its = charter, or follow the
rules of debate where a moderator is neutral on = content
material. Talk.Origins is a one-way debate. Under these =
circumstances any material presented is biased, not because
of it peer = review material or lack of, but because you are
not allow to strongly = reveal information that may
effectively counter the material presented = in the FAQ's.
Here is an example, If you state, that "rape" is a vestigial
behavior, = as an appendix is a vestigial organ, and
therefore is completely = natural, because the act of Rape
is sexual in nature, and 50,000 = conceptions occur due to
rape. Your post most likely will not appear in = the NG. You
will also not find in their FAQ's Material that will back up
the = allegation by external verifiable source. You will
find that many members of the NG, will find your statement =
repulsive, because at this point, many accept the theory
based on faith = and not on facts. In short, my
conversations in News.Group has validated my concerns with =
Talk.Origins and it policies, and I was told to give up or
create = another group. Put it this way, would you walk in a
KKK meeting to tell them you have = scientific facts that
the Afro-American is superior, and your source was = Jimmy
the Greek? Now then.. do you believe T.O is a credible
group? My apologies form the crosspost, I am currently
banned and exile from =
T.A. due to their censorship of content material. But many of
the = crosspost NG have T.O readership.

------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C34E0B.724E5990 Content-Type:
text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type
content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META
content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2723.2500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY>
<DIV>From: <A=20 href=3D"h-
ttp://groups.google.com/groups?hl=3Den&lr=3D&ie=-
3DUTF-8&= amp;q=3Dauthor:jcsaves3%40aol.com+"=20
target=3D_top>Jason
Gastrich</A>
(<A href=3D"mailto:jcsaves3%40aol.com">jcsaves3@aol.com</A>) Subject:=20 Talk.Origins -
Credible? </DIV>
<DV><TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 align=3Dright
border=3D0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD> <TR> <TD> </TD></TR> <TR> <TD><A=20
=
href=3D"http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=3D&hl=3Den&amp-
;lr=3D&i= e=3DUTF-8&selm=3D20030718195011.27797.00000-
232%40mb-m23.aol.com"=20 target=3D_top>View this article=20
only</A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
<DVI>Newsgroups: <A=20 hre-
f=3D"http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=3Den&lr=3D&a-
mp;ie=3DUTF-8&= amp;group=3Dtalk.origins"=20
target=3D_top>talk.origins</A> Date: 2003-07-18 16:55:12 PST
 </DIV><PRE>A lot
of evolutionists love Talk.Origins. They = quote them
like law and use their web pages to argue against
creation, AIG, ICR, etc. Is this wise, though?

Talk.Origins is not a peer reviewed organization. Therefore,
their = arguments are essentially like those put forth by any
layman. Can anyone prove = that they are a credible,
scientific source that is peer-reviewed and not just = some
evolutionists writing about things they believe?

Sincerely, Jason Gastrich ------------------------------------
----------</PRE><PRE>Jabriol replies:</PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>Is any news group
credible?</PRE>
My recent experience is that
the answer = is=20 no.<PRE>T.O moderation has a = Content censorship policy
in effect, If you present material that may = throw a
negative light on the theory and crosspost to any three =
newsgroups to get additional support or comments in
regards, Your = message may not appear on the newsgroup.
You may also be banned. In = other words you are not free
to offer any contrary information to the = theory of
evolution, that other readers may find objectionable.
There = for in that light, The Newgroup is not a
credible, since not strong = opposition or material may
be use to counter the theory of evolution, = unless the
material will make you look like an utter fool for
amusement = purpose.</PRE><PRE>There is no actual = remedy to force a NG
moderator to abide fairly by its charter, or follow = the
rules of debate where a moderator is neutral on content
material. = Talk.Origins is a one-way debate. Under these
circumstances any material = presented is biased, not
because of it peer review material or lack of, = but
because you are not allow to strongly reveal information
that may = effectively counter the material presented in
the = FAQ's.</PRE><PRE>Here is an example, = If you state, that "rape"
is a vestigial behavior, as an appendix is a = vestigial
organ, and therefore is completely natural, because the
act of = Rape is sexual in nature, and 50,000 conceptions
occur due to rape. Your = post most likely will not
appear in the NG.</PRE><PRE>You will also not find in their FAQ's Material =
that will back up the allegation by external verifiable =
source.</PRE><PRE>You
will find that = many members of the NG, will find your
statement repulsive, because at = this point, many accept
the theory based on faith and not on =
facts.</PRE><PRE>In
short, my = conversations in News.Group has validated my
concerns with Talk.Origins = and it policies, and I was
told to give up or create another =
group.</PRE><PRE>Put
it this way, = would you walk in a KKK meeting to tell
them you have scientific facts = that the Afro-American
is superior, and your source was Jimmy the =
Greek?</PRE><PRE>Now
then.. do you = believe T.O is a credible
group?</PRE><PRE>My
apologies form the crosspost, I am currently banned and =
exile from T.O. due to their censorship of content
material. But many of = the crosspost NG have T.O
readership.</PRE> <DIV align=3Dleft><PRE> </PRE></DIV><PRE> </PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE> </PRE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C34E0B.724E5990--

Zachriel

Sat, Jul-19-03, 19:14

<sorry, headers got screwed up somehow>

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f199e00$0$59263$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> From: Jason Gastrich (jcsaves3@aol.com) Subject:
> Talk.Origins - Credible?

> View this article only Newsgroups: talk.origins Date:
> 2003-07-18 16:55:12 PST

> A lot of evolutionists love Talk.Origins. They quote them
> like law and
use
> their web pages to argue against creation, AIG, ICR, etc. Is
> this wise, though?

> Talk.Origins is not a peer reviewed organization.
> Therefore, their
arguments
> are essentially like those put forth by any layman. Can
> anyone prove that
they
> are a credible, scientific source that is peer-reviewed and
> not just some evolutionists writing about things they
> believe?

View from the Academy of Sciences
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/

There is no scientific dispute about the factual nature of
biological evolution.

George Wil

Sat, Jul-19-03, 19:14

jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...] Jabriol replies:
>
>Is any news group credible? My recent experience is that the
>answer is no.
>
>T.O moderation has a Content censorship policy in
> effect, [...]

This is off topic for news.groups, as have your prior posts
for the last several days.

Your posting large quantities of off topic postings to
news.groups are in violation of your News ISP's terms of
service and acceptable use policies, see:
http://news.astraweb.com/aup.html

Annoying and trolling news.groups because we have told you we
can't help you with your problems with the talk.origins group
is only going to get your account cancelled if you keep this
up, not solve your problems in t.o. Nobody can help you other
than you yourself acting in a manner that is consistent with
that groups policies if you chose to post there in the future.

-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com

Jabriol

Sat, Jul-19-03, 19:14

a

"George William Herbert" <gherbert@gw.retro.com> wrote in
message news:bfc84t$j7s$1@gw.retro.com...
> jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > [...] Jabriol replies:
> >
> >Is any news group credible? My recent experience is that
> >the answer is no.
> >
> >T.O moderation has a Content censorship policy in effect,
> > [...]
>
> This is off topic for news.groups, as have your prior posts
> for the last several days.
>
> Your posting large quantities of off topic postings to
> news.groups are in violation of your News ISP's terms of
> service and acceptable use policies, see:
> http://news.astraweb.com/aup.html
>
> Annoying and trolling news.groups because we have told you
> we can't help you with your problems with the talk.origins
> group is only going to get your account cancelled if you
> keep this up, not solve your problems in t.o. Nobody can
> help you other than you yourself acting in a manner that is
> consistent with that groups policies if you chose to post
> there in the future.
>
>
> -george william herbert gherbert@retro.com
>

really?.. I see.. yet another said it was ok to discuss
news.groups problems, why did you remain quiet until now?

George Wil

Sun, Jul-20-03, 19:15

jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>really?.. I see.. yet another said it was ok to discuss
>news.groups problems, why did you remain quiet until now?

It was remotely possible that you had a legitimate complaint
based on reading the beginning of the discussion.

Now it is clear that you do not. Given that you were told
repeatedly in the middle of the week that news.groups has no
authority over the areas you are complaining about, further
posts by you demanding action are at best a troll. In
particular, as you've admitted you are not even trying to post
there anymore, complaining of ongoing censorship is somewhat
of a bizarre claim.

If you want to see talk.origins unmoderated then you need to
do a *real* RFD. The FAQs for how to do that are posted to
news.groups regularly.

Any other form of complaint in news.groups is off topic and
clearly trolling net abuse. We have told you repeatedly that
we can't discipline or otherwise change the talk.origins'
moderators' mind on his crosspost blocking policy. Continuing
to complain here that he's doing that is pollution and
harrassment of *this* group, and the others you are
crossposting to.

Either shut up, or do a real RFD.

-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com

Jabriol

Sun, Jul-20-03, 19:15

"George William Herbert" <gherbert@gw.retro.com> wrote in
message news:bfer5f$l52$1@gw.retro.com...
> jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >really?.. I see.. yet another said it was ok to discuss
> >news.groups problems, why did you remain quiet until now?
>
> It was remotely possible that you had a legitimate complaint
> based on reading the beginning of the discussion.
>
> Now it is clear that you do not. Given that you were told
> repeatedly in the middle of the week that news.groups has no
> authority over the areas you are complaining about, further
> posts by you demanding action are at best a troll. In
> particular, as you've admitted you are not even trying to
> post there anymore, complaining of ongoing censorship is
> somewhat of a bizarre claim.

small correction here, I am not allowed to post there based on
the content. I admit to not wasting time to in a newal attempt
to post there, and the reason, twisted as it may, by Phillip
was enssentially correct.. I don't agree, with "wax on, wax
off" agt the whim of the moderator.

>
> If you want to see talk.origins unmoderated then you need to
> do a *real* RFD. The FAQs for how to do that are posted to
> news.groups regularly.

And as you have read here on News.Groups, Any RFD I write
would not see the light of day in Talk.Origins. golly are you
really that dense?

It is useless, I got the message by now.. it is not worth it.

>We have told you repeatedly that we can't discipline or
>otherwise change the talk.origins' moderators' mind on his
>crosspost blocking policy.

Ahhhhhhh Christ.. did not I just wrote that?

> Continuing to complain here that he's doing that is
> pollution and harrassment of *this* group, and the others
> you are crossposting to.
>
> Either shut up, or do a real RFD.
>

Ahh yes.. you have not been reading this Properly, let me
state this in language you can understad:

Even if I have Jesus Christ write the RFD for me in a legit
fashion, it will not be posted on Talk.Origins. It will be
Blocked. The Moderator have stated he will not accept an RFD
outside of T.O.

now then, would you widh for me to write this in spanish,
french or Catalan?

George Wil

Mon, Jul-21-03, 06:12

jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>small correction here, I am not allowed to post there based
>on the content.

The moderator has stated that you are not allowed to crosspost
to some groups you want to but are otherwise free to post.

>I admit to not wasting time to in a newal attempt to post
>there, and the reason, twisted as it may, by Phillip was
>enssentially correct.. I don't agree, with "wax on, wax off"
>agt the whim of the moderator.

This is a bizarre and unsupported explanation for your
activities.

>> If you want to see talk.origins unmoderated then you need
>> to do a *real* RFD. The FAQs for how to do that are posted
>> to news.groups regularly.
>
>And as you have read here on News.Groups, Any RFD I write
>would not see the light of day in Talk.Origins. golly are you
>really that dense?

No, it has been clearly stated that any RFD, and the ensuing
discussion, would have to be crossposted into talk.origins for
it to be valid. That is fine, as the news.groups standard and
Guidelines are that any such discussions / RFDs have to be
crossposted into the affected group anyways.

Your reading comprehension in these threads is not sufficient.

Stop trolling news.groups . Your only recourse is to actually
figure out how to create and submit a *real* RFD to unmoderate
the group, and then do so.

-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com

Arthur L.

Mon, Jul-21-03, 19:15

George William Herbert wrote:
>
> jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >And as you have read here on News.Groups, Any RFD I write
> >would not see the light of day in Talk.Origins. golly are
> >you really that dense?
>
> No, it has been clearly stated that any RFD, and the ensuing
> discussion, would have to be crossposted into talk.origins
> for it to be valid. That is fine, as the news.groups
> standard and Guidelines are that any such discussions / RFDs
> have to be crossposted into the affected group anyways.

It should be added that the guidelines requires the permission
of the moderator for a vote to change moderators or unmoderate
the group; it does not require the approval of the
robomoderator.

Susan S

Mon, Jul-21-03, 19:15

In news.groups I read this message from "Arthur L. Rubin"
<ronnirubin@sprintmail.com>:

>George William Herbert wrote:
>>
>> jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >And as you have read here on News.Groups, Any RFD I write
>> >would not see the light of day in Talk.Origins. golly are
>> >you really that dense?
>>
>> No, it has been clearly stated that any RFD, and the
>> ensuing discussion, would have to be crossposted into
>> talk.origins for it to be valid. That is fine, as the
>> news.groups standard and Guidelines are that any such
>> discussions / RFDs have to be crossposted into the affected
>> group anyways.
>
>It should be added that the guidelines requires the
>permission of the moderator for a vote to change moderators
>or unmoderate the group; it does not require the approval of
>the robomoderator.
>

DIG has stated on many occasions that he would support
unmoderating t.o.

Susan Silberstein

Jabriol

Mon, Jul-21-03, 19:15

"Susan S" <otoe@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:kkjohv07ccotq2q6iffhh08lduq22s4q1h@4ax.com...
> In news.groups I read this message from "Arthur L. Rubin"
> <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com>:
>
> >George William Herbert wrote:
> >>
> >> jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >And as you have read here on News.Groups, Any RFD I
> >> >write would not
see the
> >> >light of day in Talk.Origins. golly are you really that
> >> >dense?
> >>
> >> No, it has been clearly stated that any RFD, and the
> >> ensuing discussion, would have to be crossposted into
> >> talk.origins for it to be valid. That is fine, as the
> >> news.groups standard and Guidelines are that any such
> >> discussions / RFDs have to be crossposted into the
> >> affected group anyways.
> >
> >It should be added that the guidelines requires the
> >permission of the moderator for a vote to change moderators
> >or unmoderate the group; it does not require the approval
> >of the robomoderator.
> >
>
> DIG has stated on many occasions that he would support
> unmoderating t.o.
>
> Susan Silberstein

which of course must be by RFD in T.O. where I am banned from
posting. But nothing is stoping you, from writing one..

and of course it will snow in Miami tommorrow, and WMD has
been found, but because of national security, the goverment is
faking it not being found :-)

I think this issue is over, Nothing can be done, and Lawrence
see it as a joke.. so goes life on Usenet.

George Wil

Tue, Jul-22-03, 19:14

jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>a technicality, still will not allow me to write and RFD and
>post to T.O.

The moderator posted and said that you could.

You are free to prove him a liar by trying and having it
rejected, but sitting here and whining "he won't let me" when
you won't even *try* to do so and prove him wrong is a tactic
worthy of kindergarten play groups.

Grow up. Any unfair persecution you are suffering is in your
own mind only, and we're tired of your whining.

-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com

Arthur L.

Tue, Jul-22-03, 19:14

jabriol wrote:

> which of course must be by RFD in T.O. where I am banned
> from posting. But nothing is stoping you, from writing one..

Let me rephrase. IF what you say were true, then your posts
would not be "approved" by the robomoderator for T.O. What I
was saying in this thread is that the RFD requires the
permission of DIG; it does not require that DIG "approve" the
RFD, as that is done by the n.a.n. moderator. A technical
difference, but DIG has stated he would approve an RFD for
unmoderating the group.

Jabriol

Tue, Jul-22-03, 19:14

"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F1D364A.54BF@sprintmail.com...
> jabriol wrote:
>
> > which of course must be by RFD in T.O. where I am banned
> > from posting.
But
> > nothing is stoping you, from writing one..
>
> Let me rephrase. IF what you say were true, then your posts
> would not be "approved" by the robomoderator for T.O. What I
> was saying in this thread is that the RFD requires the
> permission of DIG; it does not require that DIG "approve"
> the RFD, as that is done by the n.a.n. moderator. A
> technical difference, but DIG has stated he would approve an
> RFD for unmoderating the group.
>
>

a technicality, still will not allow me to write and RFD and
post to T.O.

Kystall

Wed, Jul-23-03, 19:14

// gherbert@gw.retro.com (George William Herbert) wrote in
message news:<bfkgtk$1t1$1@gw.retro.com>...
> jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >a technicality, still will not allow me to write and RFD
> >and post to T.O.
>
> The moderator posted and said that you could.
>
> You are free to prove him a liar by trying and having it
> rejected, but sitting here and whining "he won't let me"
> when you won't even *try* to do so and prove him wrong is a
> tactic worthy of kindergarten play groups. al owens Grow up.
> Any unfair persecution you are suffering is in your own mind
> only, and we're tired of your whining.
>
>
> -george william herbert gherbert@retro.com

Jason Gast

Mon, Jul-28-03, 17:10

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3f199e00$0$59263$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...
> From: Jason Gastrich (jcsaves3@aol.com) Subject:
> Talk.Origins - Credible?
>
>
>
> View this article only Newsgroups: talk.origins Date:
> 2003-07-18 16:55:12 PST
>
> A lot of evolutionists love Talk.Origins. They quote them
> like law and use their web pages to argue against creation,
> AIG, ICR, etc. Is this wise, though?
>
> Talk.Origins is not a peer reviewed organization. Therefore,
> their arguments are essentially like those put forth by any
> layman. Can anyone prove that they are a credible,
> scientific source that is peer-reviewed and not just some
> evolutionists writing about things they believe?
>
> Sincerely, Jason Gastrich
> ---------------------------------------------
> Jabriol replies:
>
> Is any news group credible? My recent experience is that the
> answer is no.
>
> T.O moderation has a Content censorship policy in effect, If
> you present material that may throw a negative light on
> the theory and crosspost to any three newsgroups to get
> additional support or comments in regards, Your message
> may not appear on the newsgroup. You may also be banned.
> In other words you are not free to offer any contrary
> information to the theory of evolution, that other readers
> may find objectionable. There for in that light, The
> Newgroup is not a credible, since not strong opposition or
> material may be use to counter the theory of evolution,
> unless the material will make you look like an utter fool
> for amusement purpose. There is no actual remedy to force
> a NG moderator to abide fairly by its charter, or follow
> the rules of debate where a moderator is neutral on
> content material. Talk.Origins is a one-way debate. Under
> these circumstances any material presented is biased, not
> because of it peer review material or lack of, but because
> you are not allow to strongly reveal information that may
> effectively counter the material presented in the FAQ's.
> Here is an example, If you state, that "rape" is a
> vestigial behavior, as an appendix is a vestigial organ,
> and therefore is completely natural, because the act of
> Rape is sexual in nature, and 50,000 conceptions occur due
> to rape. Your post most likely will not appear in the NG.
> You will also not find in their FAQ's Material that will
> back up the allegation by external verifiable source. You
> will find that many members of the NG, will find your
> statement repulsive, because at this point, many accept
> the theory based on faith and not on facts. In short, my
> conversations in News.Group has validated my concerns with
> Talk.Origins and it policies, and I was told to give up or
> create another group. Put it this way, would you walk in a
> KKK meeting to tell them you have scientific facts that
> the Afro-American is superior, and your source was Jimmy
> the Greek? Now then.. do you believe T.O is a credible
> group? My apologies form the crosspost, I am currently
> banned and exile from
> T.O. due to their censorship of content material. But many
> of the crosspost NG have T.O readership.

Thanks for your message.

In my experience, I haven't been censored at T.O. All of my
posts have been posted in their entirety and I'm thankful to
the T.O. moderators for this. Some of my messages haven't been
exclusively about origins (e.g. minor tangents), but they have
still been allowed and posted.

I see what you are saying about biases, though. It makese
sense. However, I wasn't saying that T.O. was illegitimate or
unethical. I was simply addressing the credibility of T.O. as
a peer-reviewed, scientific resource.

I'm sorry that you were banned. Have you emailed them and
asked them why or how to be reinstated?

Sincerely, Jason Gastrich

Jabriol

Tue, Jul-29-03, 19:15

"Jason Gastrich" <groups@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:dfcd1cb5.0307281341.55ec4bd8@posting.google.com...
> "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3f199e00$0$59263$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...
> > From: Jason Gastrich (jcsaves3@aol.com) Subject:
> > Talk.Origins - Credible?
> >
> >
> >
> > View this article only Newsgroups: talk.origins
> > Date: 2003-07-18 16:55:12 PST
> >
> > A lot of evolutionists love Talk.Origins. They quote them
> > like law and use their web pages to argue against
> > creation, AIG, ICR, etc. Is this wise, though?
> >
> > Talk.Origins is not a peer reviewed organization.
> > Therefore, their arguments are essentially like those put
> > forth by any layman. Can anyone prove that they are a
> > credible, scientific source that is peer-reviewed and not
> > just some evolutionists writing about things they believe?
> >
> > Sincerely, Jason Gastrich
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > Jabriol replies:
> >
> > Is any news group credible? My recent experience is that
> > the answer is no.
> >
> > T.O moderation has a Content censorship policy in effect,
> > If you present material that may throw a negative light
> > on the theory and crosspost to any three newsgroups to
> > get additional support or comments in regards, Your
> > message may not appear on the newsgroup. You may also be
> > banned. In other words you are not free to offer any
> > contrary information to the theory of evolution, that
> > other readers may find objectionable. There for in that
> > light, The Newgroup is not a credible, since not strong
> > opposition or material may be use to counter the theory
> > of evolution, unless the material will make you look
> > like an utter fool for amusement purpose. There is no
> > actual remedy to force a NG moderator to abide fairly by
> > its charter, or follow the rules of debate where a
> > moderator is neutral on content material. Talk.Origins
> > is a one-way debate. Under these circumstances any
> > material presented is biased, not because of it peer
> > review material or lack of, but because you are not
> > allow to strongly reveal information that may
> > effectively counter the material presented in the FAQ's.
> > Here is an example, If you state, that "rape" is a
> > vestigial behavior, as an appendix is a vestigial organ,
> > and therefore is completely natural, because the act of
> > Rape is sexual in nature, and 50,000 conceptions occur
> > due to rape. Your post most likely will not appear in
> > the NG. You will also not find in their FAQ's Material
> > that will back up the allegation by external verifiable
> > source. You will find that many members of the NG, will
> > find your statement repulsive, because at this point,
> > many accept the theory based on faith and not on facts.
> > In short, my conversations in News.Group has validated
> > my concerns with Talk.Origins and it policies, and I was
> > told to give up or create another group. Put it this
> > way, would you walk in a KKK meeting to tell them you
> > have scientific facts that the Afro-American is
> > superior, and your source was Jimmy the Greek? Now
> > then.. do you believe T.O is a credible group? My
> > apologies form the crosspost, I am currently banned and
> > exile from
> > T.O. due to their censorship of content material. But many
> > of the crosspost NG have T.O readership.
>
> Thanks for your message.
>
> In my experience, I haven't been censored at T.O. All of my
> posts have been posted in their entirety and I'm thankful to
> the T.O. moderators for this. Some of my messages haven't
> been exclusively about origins (e.g. minor tangents), but
> they have still been allowed and posted.

yes, That simply means that your opinions are not a threat to
the theory, and you can be debunked very easily.

>
> I see what you are saying about biases, though. It makese
> sense. However, I wasn't saying that T.O. was illegitimate
> or unethical. I was simply addressing the credibility of
> T.O. as a peer-reviewed, scientific resource.

Don't think so. I buy literature on Evolution constantly,and I
have never seen T.O used as reliable material.
>
> I'm sorry that you were banned. Have you emailed them and
> asked them why or how to be reinstated?
>
> Sincerely, Jason Gastrich

yup, I have to be a nice guy and play the average creationist
fool. No matter how many time I've told them I am not a
creationist. No matter. My point was, that talk.origins
moderator practice content censorship, and that been proven
and verified here in News.Groups. He goes beyond charter or
his resposibilities he was selcted for, per news.groups he
can do so. This kill the purpose of T.O as stated in its
charter and FAQ's

bard

Thu, Jul-31-03, 06:11

jabriol wrote:

> My point was, that talk.origins moderator practice content
> censorship, and that been proven and verified here in
> News.Groups.

It has not been proven to my reading, that content was
censored. No one has verified content was censored AFAIK, what
has been proved is thst some cross post filters were deemed
required by the moderator.

He goes beyond charter or
> his resposibilities he was selcted for, per news.groups he
> can do so.

Yes indeed he is allowed to change the rules, the charter is a
founding purpose of a proposed group, over time things do
change that indirectly (creation of new groups) or directly
(change in the dynamics of the group) that require clauses of
the charter to be revised or ignored.

This
> kill the purpose of T.O as stated in its charter and FAQ's

Excessive cross posting appears to be the problem and at this
point in time the discussion is not on-topic for news.groups
prepare and submit an RFD under the posting guidelines of both
n.a.n and t.o then come back to n.g

--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at
http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt news:news.groups FAQ at
http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt Want a new group FAQs
http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html