So hey, anyone object to unbanning me?

Cerise

Well-Known Member
Hmmm. Not name calling.

Is that or is it not an image of a monkey in his av?

His avatar is representative of him. I think he is foolish, so there you go.

:shrug:
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
Darwin admitted that he had no explanation for the Cambrian explosion...mostly because he had no evidence to back it up. Then again, he wasn't trying to prove that the Cambrien explosion happened or didn't happen. He was trying to show the mechanism that nature uses in evolution.

Darwin's mechanism, i.e., natural selection, seem to be a valid concept in relation to micro evolution such as Darwin's finches and peppered moths. The problem arises when he tries to apply it to macro evolution, then it becomes invalid.

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (Source: C. Darwin, The Origin of Species, Penguin Books, London, 1968, 291.)

Evolution was accepted as fact long before Darwin came along...the mechanics of it weren't well researched or understood, but the fact of it was not in contention.

The idea was around before Darwin, however, Darwin's work made it more accepted.

As for the 2nd part of that statment...evidence of man and dinausaur co-existing. Now THAT, I would love to see. Let's start with proving that dinausaurs still existed less than 65 million years ago. Then let's put mankind (and by that, I assume that you mean modern man homo sapien sapiens) more than 65 million years ago.

Have fun.

Here you go.
 

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
I didn't KK him. As per an agreement among the admins, only the originator has full control.

For the love of god, gonz, either just come outright & say lil' spikey is going to stay there forever, or not. Stop tap-dancing around the issue.

If you use the Search feature and find her last posts. Face it, she's not here so it can't be put it on her. "Try to find a fury on Twitter" is not really doing it either.

How about we come up with a real solution.
Shit, seriously? Fury banned Spike? She posts an average of once a month. That's not much of an Admin for a board. No offense but to admin a board you need to be more hands on. Banning someone and walking away is lame. Leaving the decision to Fury who only visits once a month is just as bad as deciding to keep Spike banned yourself, Gonz.

Sorry for the criticism, but that's how I feel about being an admin. Don't take on the responsibility if your not going to be around.

If you can't get hold of Fury then my suggestion is to consider getting as many admins together and make a vote.
 

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
I find it amusing that a few people on the Right oppose Spike's ban removal yet come here to open threads and post as if this were TRW forum. What punishment has the ban inflicted if those that operate in TRW forum come here to discuss the same subjects as if this, the KK, were TRW forum? ;)

If the ban is not removed, then the KK will soon become a secondary RW Forum.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
Shit, seriously?Leslie banned Spike? She posts an average of once a month. That's not much of an Admin for a board.

Well Hon, it's not much of a board anymore, is it?

No offense but to admin a board you need to be more hands on.

The vast majority of staff on this site have just walked off, in disgust. I spoke with one recently and while he was polite, he made it clear that my searching him out was a welcome as a bout of the clap.

Banning someone and walking away is lame.

He wasn't banned. He was KKed. If he'd been banned, we wouldn't be having this conversation. As it is, he's no longer KKed either. Just restricted from the Real World forum.

Leaving the decision to Fury who only visits once a month is just as bad as deciding to keep Spike banned yourself, Gonz.

It's not even that good. I've spoken to Fury. He wants nothing to do with it either. Gonz is simply holding to the agreement made by the staff to not use his powers in any situation where he's got a conflict of interest.

Sorry for the criticism, but that's how I feel about being an admin. Don't take on the responsibility if your not going to be around.

If you can't get hold of Fury then my suggestion is to consider getting as many admins together and make a vote.

They were all around back when this place was a pleasure to post in. Now, it's a trial; about as much fun as unclogging a toilet. As it stands, Gonz is all the admins this place has. He's made his position clear. Whether or not he agrees with it, he won't overrule the decision made by another admin.


Again, Spike is not banned. He is not KKed. The only restriction placed on him is that he cannot post in the Real world.
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
Hmmm. Not name calling.

Is that or is it not an image of a monkey in his av?

His avatar is representative of him. I think he is foolish, so there you go.

:shrug:

I thought that image fits him as well. He is always parroting while in debate, which is quite annoying. Though since it appears to be a monkey, mimic may be the right word.
 

spike

New Member
I thought that image fits him as well. He is always parroting while in debate, which is quite annoying. Though since it appears to be a monkey, mimic may be the right word.


You're lack of image fits you well. You always have the "my religion says so" form of debate.
 

spike

New Member
It's not even that good. I've spoken to Fury. He wants nothing to do with it either. Gonz is simply holding to the agreement made by the staff to not use his powers in any situation where he's got a conflict of interest.

Wrong, he is relying on a decision by an admin that is no longer here. She posted once in the last 3 months. Before that post it was 3 months before that.

Leslie is not here. It seems if you can get Leslie to post her opinion it might be valid. Let's get her to say how many months of good behavior we need here.

Otherwise we need a real solution.
 

Cerise

Well-Known Member
You personally attacked me. I may think you're a lot of negative things right now but I'm not typing them. There's the difference.

No, the difference is I did not call you the noun: "fool"

I called you the adjective: "foolish."

Refer to the dictionary if you can't see the distinction.

Sorry you can't take a little criticism. :rolleyes:

That is my opinion, and I stand by it.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
No, the difference is I did not call you the noun: "fool"

I called you the adjective: "foolish."

Refer to the dictionary if you can't see the distinction.

Sorry you can't take a little criticism. :rolleyes:

That is my opinion, and I stand by it.

wow. that explanation is pretty asshole-ish. but, nah, i'm not saying anything about YOU with this comment. :alienhuh:
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
The forum's leaning so far to the right that I'm surprised that it's still called OTC and not RWC.

As far as I understand...if they walked away, they have no more say. Which leaves Gonz in charge. Neither fury nor Les want to touch it..so be it. No more say either. Mods aren't piping in..not even Luis, the only active Mod around.

Shit or get off the pot.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Darwin's mechanism, i.e., natural selection, seem to be a valid concept in relation to micro evolution such as Darwin's finches and peppered moths. The problem arises when he tries to apply it to macro evolution, then it becomes invalid.

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (Source: C. Darwin, The Origin of Species, Penguin Books, London, 1968, 291.)

It doesn't become invalid. Soft tissue and DNA does not survive fossilisation. Hell, it's pretty rare for any animal to become a fossil and demands very specific circumstances in order to do so. It's no surprise that the fossil record is not found on every piece of land and through every stratum. Hell...mankind had barely seen/named/catalogued 10% of the living species on Earth now. As for macro evolution, just looking at the movement from mastadon to common elephant(s) should be sufficient recent proof for even eyes that refuse to see.

Cute...cave pics of elk and moose that look like they might be dinos...if you squint just right and turn your head this way..maybe.

Proof... not conjecture. How about some non-fossilized remains? Maybe a mummified velociraptor or summat. Or better yet... if dinos were around 3000 years ago or so... where are their descendants?

Oh, and before you use the 'flood' - try and do the math. Noah and wife..a few sons and their wives. How many generations are needed to get to 6billion people currently alive plus the roughly 56million deaths per year?
In addition, why weren't the dinos on the arc?
 
Top