Joined: Jan. 2006
This is getting good. Sal responds to Allen, offering this pathetic rationalization of unfair moderation practices:
|Once again I am forced to ask, is there a double standard at work here, and if so, why?|
I’m not involved in decisions as to who is placed in the moderation queue, but if I may offer a consideration in terms of pure numbers.
In order for UD to succeed as a weblog serving the ID community, some equalization of numbers of participants in the comment section should be in order.
The weblog could be shut down by swarming tactics, and such attempts have been made.
I think a 60/40 balance (60 pro-ID, 40 anti-ID) would keep UD alive. If that balance is destroyed, I think readership will fall off.
These informal discussions have their value, but I don’t consider internet blogs necessarily the best venue for careful scholarly discussion.
So, I would not fault the moderators with double standards. The essentially serve as editors for the benefit of our readers.
As a matter of experience, ID proponents will lose the numbers game quite easily if there were not any filtering.
Many of our readers come here to hear the pro-ID position, and we have some obligation to deliver that.
Consider that I created a thread like the one regarding David Abel’s paper. I was swarmed with almost 100-200 opposing postings, most of which were directed at me. Even if I felt competent to answer many of the biggest concerns, it’s a fairly substantial workload.
For the record, I’ve not deleted any comments from this thread.
So I plead a litter forebearance in light of the fact that the ID proponents are probably outnumbered on the net. My personal expeirience puts the figure at about 20 to 1.
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G
Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF