Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
    The thing is Hicks, there are people with the attitude you describe everywhere. I think it's indefensible in the scientific field and everywhere else.

    I consider myself an agnostic and skeptic. I don't believe in a higher power. I'm open to the possibility, but I don't think that it's likely. I have my own thoughts and beliefs, but I try not to shove them down people's throats. I try to keep myself in check, so I hope I have not come off that way in this thread.
    I agree, there are people with that attitude everywhere. Certainly within religions, but not by any means exclusively within religions. It's just that when a scientist or a skeptic gets dogmatic about his or her beliefs, they tend to be in denial about it because they reject religion, they reject superstition, so 'how could they possibly' be dogmatic about any of their beliefs. But they are.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Seriously, just read this book and see if you still think exactly the same way about how open-minded all of the scientists are:

      http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Univ.../dp/0061778990

      Don't read some cynic's refutation of the book, don't read a fanboy's praise of the book, just read the book and let it speak for itself.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Apparently I'm losing my mind; I think I've been meaning to type 'psi' not 'psy'. Oye. Stupid brain.

        Well, there's only one way to leave this embarrassment behind:

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          And that's the problem: You'd think so, but from what I've read that doesn't seem to be the case. There are those who do research into things like psy, and typically the response from 'skeptics' is to dismiss the evidence, even when it's people who appear to be doing honest, solid work (Dean Radin comes to mind). They bend over backwards to come up with alternatives instead of what the evidence (in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of most generally open-minded if uncertain people) would suggest that there IS something to psy. I even recall one skeptic (name escapes me, but he's out there to be Googled) who basically was eventually forced to admit that the evidence, when judged by the same standards as other fields of study (the ones that AREN'T dismissed as woowoo), seems to suggest psy is real, so what did he say in the same breath? That it was time to RAISE the standards because of this! He's so dug in to his belief system that it can't be real, that when his own standards suggest otherwise, rather than adjust his beliefs, he wants to change the standards. I find that incredible.

          -----

          Generally, what they gain is they keep their positions and their scholarship money by not rocking the apple cart. What I've read multiple times is that when scientists start to look into psy, the 'powers that be' in the scientific community basically threaten to blacklist them from certain jobs and scholarships if they try to pursue it. They're kept in line by fear, in those cases. If you really take the time to read into it, it's not nearly as neat and tidy as you might like to think. Contrary to idealistic beliefs, many scientists DO hold onto THEIR belief systems, even though they're not based in religion, and they WILL cop an attitude when their peers start to push back against them. At least when it's a topic they consider 'woowoo' like psy. I find it childish myself.
          I'm not familiar with psi or those who study it, beyond just a quick glance at a Wiki page a moment ago. And I'll admit that I am idealizing the scientific community. There are some bad apples out there, I'm sure.

          But, as I said earlier, if there is legitimacy to psi or any of the other things you mentioned, the truth will win out eventually, even if there are scientists out there actively scheming to stamp it out now. There are too many scientists worldwide conducting experiments. And I'm sure there are proponents of psi out there doing their own research as well. If there's legitimacy to it, it will show eventually.

          I think part of the problem is that there is so much pseudoscience out there that some scientists are too skeptical for their own good.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
            I'm not familiar with psi or those who study it, beyond just a quick glance at a Wiki page a moment ago. And I'll admit that I am idealizing the scientific community. There are some bad apples out there, I'm sure.

            But, as I said earlier, if there is legitimacy to psi or any of the other things you mentioned, the truth will win out eventually, even if there are scientists out there actively scheming to stamp it out now. There are too many scientists worldwide conducting experiments. And I'm sure there are proponents of psi out there doing their own research as well. If there's legitimacy to it, it will show eventually.

            I think part of the problem is that there is so much pseudoscience out there that some scientists are too skeptical for their own good.
            I think that's correct.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              I am a Christian and believe Dinosaurs existed. This is a very good article to read if you are skeptical. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-and-the-bible

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by BearBugs View Post
                I am a Christian and believe Dinosaurs existed. This is a very good article to read if you are skeptical. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-and-the-bible
                ....and there it is...the flintstones theory.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  I'm no great shakes of a scientist. I did post-grad microbiology work at Butler but didn't complete my masters. I spent 40 years in various labs for Lilly. But that's practical science not theoretical. Anyway.... I've posted this elsewhere and I'll challenge all of you here.

                  Take a volume of space, any size you want but it must be completely devoid of ANYTHING. No heat, no light, no electrons, no quarks, nothing, nada, zip, zilch. The challenge? Create something within that space. GO!

                  Even the "god-particle" had to come from somewhere.
                  =======================

                  Even while I was an undergrad (back in the '60s) Natural Selection was being scoffed at.
                  My understanding was that the theory of the Earth being merely 5,000 years old was being taught by one particular sect of one certain denomination of Christianity. That is was just a minor group of people that held this belief.
                  Last edited by indygeezer; 04-30-2013, 02:07 AM.
                  Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    I think you may have just put your foot in your mouth. I'm 99% positive he is into old Earth creationism, and the "(I believe)" later in the quote as him approximating the beliefs of young Earth creationism believers.

                    This post kind of demonstrates the point some of us have made about the attitudes of some athiests materialists with this "LOL gotcha!" kind of post...
                    I'm not an atheist though. His quote(s) could be held against him no matter what he says really. Darwin was one of the greatest thinkers we have ever had.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Hicks, I certainly can't speak for Team Science and generalizing anyone "scientific" into some sort of cynical dismissive group seems silly.

                      I try to be objective and open minded, but I have a pretty good bullsht detector. It was beeping hard in this thread. Didn't you feel that too?

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        Originally posted by BearBugs View Post
                        This is a very good article to read if you are skeptical.
                        Very good? Really? That opinion piece is so chock-full of blatant factual errors that I don't even know where to start. Notice how the author tries to tie several of his arguments to science without ever referencing any scientific study or fact. There's a reason for that. I suppose that I should give one example:

                        No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.
                        So... if I didn't see something happen, then it did not exist. Plus vast areas of scientific inquiry, such as paleontology, archaeology, geochemistry, geophysics, etc. all either do not exist, or better yet, there is some vast conspiracy among all scientists to collaborate and get to get their data to fit together nicely to fit with their strong anti-new-Earth agenda. Really? It's hard to get 3 ultra-competitive leading scientists working in the same field to agree on a place to go for dinner and to cordially last the night.

                        There are many modern methods of dating animal, plant, and geological artifacts that have been refined over the decades or discovered anew in recent years. Sure, one method might suggest a fossil is 65.2 million years old and other may say it's 66.8 million years old. That difference of 1.6 million years seems enormous and invalidating to someone who insists (no matter what) that NOTHING is over 0.006 million years old, but the best methods seem to be converging over time.

                        We can date things thousands of years old, tens of thousands of years old, hundreds of thousands of years old, millions of years old, tens of millions of years old, hundreds of millions of years old, and billions of years old. Dates for the moon rocks, for example, led scientists to the unexpected conclusion that the moon was likely shed off the pre-formed Earth by an impact, early in its history, since some surface rocks on both the Earth and the moon are amazingly similar in age and composition.

                        Every sentence in that linked article that mentions, even indirectly, any principle of science is riddled with egregious logical and factual errors.

                        Of course the author is entitled to believe every word of it, as are you. But the author is claiming scientific support when his arguments do not have any. They fail kindergarten science, actually.
                        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 04-30-2013, 09:25 AM.
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                          My understanding was that the theory of the Earth being merely 5,000 years old was being taught by one particular sect of one certain denomination of Christianity. That is was just a minor group of people that held this belief.
                          No, no, no, Geez. Billions of Christians throughout the world, who can't agree on much other than believing in Christ, ALL think dinosaurs are a made up fantasy. Billions upon billions of people, all of them, there isn't one single person in that billions of people, all believe the EXACT same thing.

                          You're just being irrational here.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            The world uses about 90,000,000 barrels of oil per day (http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx).

                            Oil is a hydrocarbon that is produced only from organic matter, the decayed remains of plants and animals that, under optimal conditions of temperature and pressure, is converted over tens of millions of years into crude oil. These conditions and the timescale required are very exacting. Not surprisingly, oil deposits are rare, since optimal conditions of temperature and pressure mush be maintained over those millions of years and be undisturbed by geological phenomena such as plate tectonics, volcanic activity, etc. The vastness of the world’s oil reserves (90 million barrels, every day!) suggests that life has thrived on Earth for a very, very long time.


                            If you think that the Earth is thousands of years old, the only possible explanation for the existence of the gas that you put in your tank every week is that God created those deposits of oil, as they are, for our use. Now that’s a fine thought, but since we understand how it can form naturally, why deny the scientific evidence and rely on a supernatural explanation? We don’t fall immediately to the supernatural explanation in our day-to-day lives, so why in this case? If some guy cut you off in traffic this morning, was he driving like a jerk because he is a jerk, or did God just plant him there to teach you something?
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                              I'm not an atheist though. His quote(s) could be held against him no matter what he says really. Darwin was one of the greatest thinkers we have ever had.
                              Interesting. May I ask what you do believe?

                              Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                              Hicks, I certainly can't speak for Team Science and generalizing anyone "scientific" into some sort of cynical dismissive group seems silly.
                              I don't mean anyone. But there are plenty. You see them anywhere someone is trying to study things that are dismissed by the mainstream. It's silly to me because they tear into or tear down studies that result in anything but confirm their a priori beliefs on the matter. Could be psi, could be NDE studies, or generally anything that might go against the idea that we are just biological robots.

                              I try to be objective and open minded, but I have a pretty good bullsht detector. It was beeping hard in this thread. Didn't you feel that too?
                              More so in regards to a BS attitude than necessarily what he was trying to say with said attitude. But it's hard to be sure because I have yet to see much in the way of his facts or ideas. Thus far he's spent most of the time poopooing someone else's ideas.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hicks;

                                More so in regards to a BS attitude than necessarily what he was trying to say with said attitude. But it's hard to be sure because I have yet to see much in the way of his facts or ideas. Thus far he's spent most of the time poopooing someone else's ideas.
                                .....which is about as BS as you can get.

                                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X