This forum is non-functional

Tigger · 10-07-2017 08:40PM

Without opposing views the atheist or the not atheist fora are pointless imho

Here is what I thought before about non atheists posting in the atheist area

Tigger wrote: »

other wise it'd be a boring forum here with

op; i dont believe in god

tigger; me neither wanna go for a pint

op; i don't believe in drinking before lunch time

tigger; but look at all the evidence of drinking before lunchtime how can you dispute it.

op; i'm off to talk to the godbotherers

J C · 10-07-2017 09:02PM

Tigger wrote: »

Without opposing views the atheist or the not atheist fora are pointless imho

Here is what I thought before about non atheists posting in the atheist area
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
other wise it'd be a boring forum here with

op; i dont believe in god

tigger; me neither wanna go for a pint

op; i don't believe in drinking before lunch time

tigger; but look at all the evidence of drinking before lunchtime how can you dispute it.

op; i'm off to talk to the godbotherers

Competition may be the life of trade and all that ... but then perhaps the two fora need some 'incubator' threads to develop their ideas in a kind of 'safe space' ... where diametrically opposed ideas aren't allowed.

I'm a bit like yourself ... I like getting into robust debate ... with the God-deniers !!!:D
This is where 'the rubber meets the tar' ... on the big issues of where we've come from and where we're all going IMO.

... but I can see that there may be people who are shy or reserved, who may be put off by 'knock em down ... drag em out' debate ... perhaps we need 'courses for horses' ... to coin a phrase.:)

uck51js9zml2yt · 10-07-2017 10:55PM

J C wrote: »

Competition may be the life of trade and all that ... but then perhaps the two fora need some 'incubator' threads to develop their ideas in a kind of 'safe space' ... where diametrically opposed ideas aren't allowed.

I'm a bit like yourself ... I like getting into robust debate ... with the God-deniers !!!:D
This is where 'the rubber meets the tar' ... on the big issues of where we've come from and where we're all going IMO.

... but I can see that there may be people who are shy or reserved, who may be put off by 'knock em down ... drag em out' debate ... perhaps we need 'courses for horses' ... to coin a phrase.:)

That's like hinault wanting RCC only threads. Not a good idea.
But maybe on the whole lgbtqi+ ( did I miss anything?) thing. We have a mega thread but yet threads appear sporadically. Can we keep it to the megathread please? ....and hinault to his own thread ( joking as he can't see this post

J C · 10-07-2017 11:05PM

Malcolm Substantial Lemonade wrote: »

That's like hinault wanting RCC only threads. Not a good idea.
But maybe on the whole lgbtqi+ ( did I miss anything?) thing. We have a mega thread but yet threads appear sporadically. Can we keep it to the megathread please? ....and hinault to his own thread ( joking as he can't see this post

Why can't he see your post ... are you on his ignore list?:)

... the A & A 'snowflakes' have protected themselves from anything that might bother them about their God-denying activities ... in the form of me !!!:)
... so it might work over here as well.
... maybe the other way around, perhaps ... designate one thread where only Christians can post (on a voluntary basis) ...
... I do seriously think that there are many people who may be shy or timid ... and who might start posting, if they were assured that they wouldn't be 'robustly addressed', shall we say.
I'd also voluntarily stay off such a thread ... and hold my tongue ... even if all kinds of 'theolgical novelties' were being displayed there !!:)
It would be an experiment ... what have we got to lose?

Delirium · 11-07-2017 07:14AM

J C wrote: »

They wouldn't have to state their beliefs ... just challenge Christianity strongly.
It seems to work over on the A & A.

A&A doesn't have the policy you describe, i.e. all non-atheists are required to post in a general megathread.

It provides a kind of 'safe space' for atheism on the A & A ... it might be worth a try on the Christianity forum.

I can see why people with a common interest would like to develop their thinking amongst each other ... and have another thread for any strident opposing views to have their say.

'strident opposing views' would also include some Christians. Pretty soon you'll have the whole forum thread-banned from all thread aside from the megathread you propose :P

smacl · 11-07-2017 09:21AM

J C wrote: »

... the A & A 'snowflakes' have protected themselves from anything that might bother them about their God-denying activities ... in the form of me !!!:)

If you're concerned about the A&A snowflakes on this forum I would suggest your activity on the A&A forum at over five thousand posts constitutes a blizzard of biblical proportions. The volume of posts you have on that forum is not only a large multiple of that of the number of posts that any A&A regular has on this forum it is also one of the largest overall on the A&A forum.

Worth noting that this forum is already more heavily protected than the A&A forum, which specifically allows content that includes proselytising and open criticism of any worldview.

uck51js9zml2yt · 11-07-2017 10:28AM

smacl wrote: »

If you're concerned about the A&A snowflakes on this forum I would suggest your activity on the A&A forum at over five thousand posts constitutes a blizzard of biblical proportions. The volume of posts you have on that forum is not only a large multiple of that of the number of posts that any A&A regular has on this forum it is also one of the largest overall on the A&A forum.

Worth noting that this forum is already more heavily protected than the A&A forum, which specifically allows content that includes proselytising and open criticism of any worldview.

Might be worth counting the total number of posts/posters that he is rebutting

@JC..yes I'm on his ignore list

smacl · 11-07-2017 12:14PM

Malcolm Substantial Lemonade wrote: »

Might be worth counting the total number of posts/posters that he is rebutting

All of us

J C · 12-07-2017 07:56PM

smacl wrote: »

If you're concerned about the A&A snowflakes on this forum I would suggest your activity on the A&A forum at over five thousand posts constitutes a blizzard of biblical proportions. The volume of posts you have on that forum is not only a large multiple of that of the number of posts that any A&A regular has on this forum it is also one of the largest overall on the A&A forum.

... my posts are probably the largest ad revenue generator on the boards.ie, then :cool: ... and my thanks is to have a ban threat hanging over me.:eek:

smacl wrote: »

Worth noting that this forum is already more heavily protected than the A&A forum, which specifically allows content that includes proselytising and open criticism of any worldview.

... provided nobody criticises the atheist worldview too strongly or too effectively ... apparently.:)

J C · 12-07-2017 07:59PM

wrote:

Originally Posted by tatranska
Might be worth counting the total number of posts/posters that he is rebutting:D

smacl
All of us

My wife keeps saying 'what a man!!'
... and I'm beginning to believe her !!!:):pac::eek:

J C · 12-07-2017 08:04PM

Delirium wrote: »

A&A doesn't have the policy you describe, i.e. all non-atheists are required to post in a general megathread.

Just one, in the form of me, apparently.:)

Delirium wrote: »

'strident opposing views' would also include some Christians. Pretty soon you'll have the whole forum thread-banned from all thread aside from the megathread you propose :P

'That would be a bit mad, allright, Ted ... eh' !!:)

Delirium · 26-07-2017 11:59AM

Carrying this over from "Female priests thread" as this thread has kinda fallen into a Feedback thread.

lazybones32 wrote: »

So i can counter incorrect information but it's offensive to say that a person has posted incorrect information before and is very likely to post incorrect information again, despite them having a proven track record of doing so? (Even current evidence of accusing other believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of being devil-worshippers)

There is no point in me pm'ing you about something that is valuable to the other forum users to see and understand.

The poster has been warned to desist from that.

It's not a question of offensive, the site has a general rule of "attack the post, not the poster".

"because before long you'll misrepresent your fellow Christians again" reads to mean that you're suggesting a degree of dishonesty on the part of the other poster. This is a personal attack, which as already stated is a no-no.

You could have just said you disagree frequently with the poster and all would be cool beans.

So it would be appreciated if you could measure your responses so as to avoid what can be read as a personal attack.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

lazybones32 · 26-07-2017 01:14PM

Delirium wrote: »

Carrying this over from "Female priests thread" as this thread has kinda fallen into a Feedback thread.

The poster has been warned to desist from that.

It's not a question of offensive, the site has a general rule of "attack the post, not the poster".

"because before long you'll misrepresent your fellow Christians again" reads to mean that you're suggesting a degree of dishonesty on the part of the other poster. This is a personal attack, which as already stated is a no-no.

You could have just said you disagree frequently with the poster and all would be cool beans.

So it would be appreciated if you could measure your responses so as to avoid what can be read as a personal attack.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

But tetranska is the one who claims that he once was RC and nearly joined a fraternity/religious order and that he knows all about the RCC. When he speaks on most topics concerning the RCC or RC doctrine, he is soundly and roundly shown to be wrong on the matter. He is misrepresenting Church teaching either deliberately or through ignorance but he is still misrepresenting. That is an accurate description.

Another issue: same user objects to being called a protestant but if the church he is a member of came into existence after the reformation, he is a protestant. He protests against the RCC at every opportunity, so the title is particularly apt.

The restriction of use of words such as 'protestant', 'heretic' and 'misrepresenting' shows that the charter needs to be updated, in line with your interpretation of it, rather than having boundaries only being made known by infractions of them.

Delirium · 26-07-2017 01:30PM

no one was infracted for use of 'protestant', 'heretic' or 'mispresenting'.

lazybones32 · 26-07-2017 02:17PM

Delirium wrote: »

no one was infracted for use of 'protestant', 'heretic' or 'mispresenting'.

I didn't say anyone was issued a card. I said that the charter should be revised according to your interpretation of it. That might allow people to know what words are permissable, rather than only finding out by infracting the charter. Still confused?
But you have issued 3 warnings over the use of legitimate language. Stellar work!

hinault · 26-07-2017 02:33PM

Delirium wrote: »

no one was infracted for use of 'protestant', 'heretic' or 'mispresenting'.

You issued a threat concerning the use of some of those words.

Delirium · 26-07-2017 02:33PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

I didn't say anyone was issued a card. I said that the charter should be revised according to your interpretation of it. That might allow people to know what words are permissable, rather than only finding out by infracting the charter. Still confused?
But you have issued 3 warnings over the use of legitimate language. Stellar work!

context is key.

Getting personal with other posters (or their families!) was the crux of it.

EDIT: this is also addressed to hinault.

uck51js9zml2yt · 26-07-2017 04:17PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

But tetranska is the one who claims that he once was RC and nearly joined a fraternity/religious order and that he knows all about the RCC. When he speaks on most topics concerning the RCC or RC doctrine, he is soundly and roundly shown to be wrong on the matter. He is misrepresenting Church teaching either deliberately or through ignorance but he is still misrepresenting. That is an accurate description.

Another issue: same user objects to being called a protestant but if the church he is a member of came into existence after the reformation, he is a protestant. He protests against the RCC at every opportunity, so the title is particularly apt.

"They were first called Christians in Antioch"
The labeling came later. If you've read any church history that wasn't RC, there was always a stream of Christians outside the denominations, many of whom were persecuted for their faith by those same denominations.

To assume everything is Catholic or Protestant is rather blinkered and doesn't reflect the reality.:D

lazybones32 · 26-07-2017 04:37PM

Delirium wrote: »

context is key.

Getting personal with other posters (or their families!) was the crux of it.

EDIT: this is also addressed to hinault.

Context my eye! I have never gotten personal with tatraska but calling misrepresentation misrepresentation is considered ad hominem now?

Maybe you are starting to see why there are issues relating to your modding abilities?

lazybones32 · 26-07-2017 04:48PM

Malcolm Substantial Lemonade wrote: »

"They were first called Christians in Antioch"
The labeling came later. If you've read any church history that wasn't RC, there was always a stream of Christians outside the denominations, many of whom were persecuted for their faith by those same denominations.

To assume everything is Catholic or Protestant is rather blinkered and doesn't reflect the reality.:D

And if you source your history from non-Chick comics, you'd be much improved. But i truly am tired of interacting with you. We'll speak again if you misrepresent RCC/RC's again.

uck51js9zml2yt · 26-07-2017 05:13PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

And if you source your history from non-Chick comics, you'd be much improved. But i truly am tired of interacting with you. We'll speak again if you misrepresent RCC/RC's again.

No one is forcing you to reply. It's time to take responsibility for your own actions

Edit: some of the books I've read have included Foxes Book of martyrs and Broadbents Church History..btw As for Chick, I like comic books but not fables

Delirium · 26-07-2017 05:19PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

Context my eye! I have never gotten personal with tatraska but calling misrepresentation misrepresentation is considered ad hominem now?

Nope.

As I already said: "because before long you'll misrepresent your fellow Christians again" reads to mean that you're suggesting a degree of dishonesty on the part of the other poster. This is a personal attack, which as already stated is a no-no.

Unless you've something new to add, I'm out as we seem to be talking past each other.

lazybones32 · 26-07-2017 05:37PM

Delirium wrote: »

Nope.

As I already said: "because before long you'll misrepresent your fellow Christians again" reads to mean that you're suggesting a degree of dishonesty on the part of the other poster. This is a personal attack, which as already stated is a no-no.

Unless you've something new to add, I'm out as we seem to be talking past each other.

I'm not responsible for your interpretation but i never included whether his misrepresentation is deliberate or a result of ignorance.

Now, i've spoken to you in your capacity as a mod and am not satisfied with your reasoning. I'd like to take this issue further but you want out. What is the process for taking a moderation issue further?

Delirium · 26-07-2017 05:47PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

I'm not responsible for your interpretation but i never included whether his misrepresentation is deliberate or a result of ignorance.

Now, i've spoken to you in your capacity as a mod and am not satisfied with your reasoning. I'd like to take this issue further but you want out. What is the process for taking a moderation issue further?

Contact a CMod.

The CMods are: bluewolf, K-9, big bag of chips , Neyite and Pat Mustard.

antiskeptic · 26-07-2017 09:45PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

Another issue: same user objects to being called a protestant but if the church he is a member of came into existence after the reformation, he is a protestant.

A useful example to highlight what I think is the overarching problem.

What you've expressed above is your view. The Roman Church is the church of Christ and anything outside that post-reformation is protesting against the true church.

That's not how others view it. I, for example, plough my own furrow with like minds and in so far as we band together we are a church. I'm not CoI, not Methodist, not Presbyterian. Not Protestant: I'm not protesting against the RCC, rather, I'm seeking the truth where I think it best be found

This is a discussion forum. No one is right or wrong on a discussion forum because there is no judge and jury to decide who is right and wrong. You try to argue your points as best you can and you encounter people who argue well, people who argue badly, people who divert, people who duck. You take it on it's own terms, stay if you want, leave if you want.

A public forum is not the place where justice occurs. It doesn't belong here. If a person is misrepresenting (within the bounds of the charter) then the only thing you can do is chose to leave that poster be - you cannot demand justice. Nor can you step over the line and express your frustration at the lack of justice. You suck it up and move on.

I can understand that frustration but that's just the way public forums work. It's not appropriate, I don't think, to chase down a mod because you've forgotten (or not realised) that there is no justice on a public forum.

The issue isn't whether you can wiggle around the issue of Tat misrepresenting RCC through "ignorance" (vs. the charter disallowed accusation of lying). The tone of the discussion is clear, the frustration and anger present for anyone to see. The mod needs to step in.

lazybones32 · 26-07-2017 11:39PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

A useful example to highlight what I think is the overarching problem.

What you've expressed above is your view. The Roman Church is the church of Christ and anything outside that post-reformation is protesting against the true church.

That's not how others view it. I, for example, plough my own furrow with like minds and in so far as we band together we are a church. I'm not CoI, not Methodist, not Presbyterian. Not Protestant: I'm not protesting against the RCC, rather, I'm seeking the truth where I think it best be found

This is a discussion forum. No one is right or wrong on a discussion forum because there is no judge and jury to decide who is right and wrong. You try to argue your points as best you can and you encounter people who argue well, people who argue badly, people who divert, people who duck. You take it on it's own terms, stay if you want, leave if you want.

A public forum is not the place where justice occurs. It doesn't belong here. If a person is misrepresenting (within the bounds of the charter) then the only thing you can do is chose to leave that poster be - you cannot demand justice. Nor can you step over the line and express your frustration at the lack of justice. You suck it up and move on.

I can understand that frustration but that's just the way public forums work. It's not appropriate, I don't think, to chase down a mod because you've forgotten (or not realised) that there is no justice on a public forum.

The issue isn't whether you can wiggle around the issue of Tat misrepresenting RCC through "ignorance" (vs. the charter disallowed accusation of lying). The tone of the discussion is clear, the frustration and anger present for anyone to see. The mod needs to step in.

I'm not wriggling around anything. I don't care whether he misrepresents through ignorance or malice; not only about the RCC but the words of scripture also, then he's going to get called on it. If it were a case of just being mistaken, he had plenty of opportunities to admit his mistake.

I lol'd at the "frustration and anger.." bit. I thought i was quite reserved - by my standards. When i got tired of him i said so...talk about a public meltdown on my behalf, huh?

hinault · 27-07-2017 12:40AM

lazybones32 wrote: »

I'm not wriggling around anything. I don't care whether he misrepresents through ignorance or malice; not only about the RCC but the words of scripture also, then he's going to get called on it. If it were a case of just being mistaken, he had plenty of opportunities to admit his mistake.

I lol'd at the "frustration and anger.." bit. I thought i was quite reserved - by my standards. When i got tired of him i said so...talk about a public meltdown on my behalf, huh?

Every time it happens, report it to the "moderator". Then escalate it.

Be sure to take a screen grab for future reference too.

lazybones32 · 18-08-2017 11:32AM

Since delirum deleted my post from the thread, i'll post it here.

Back seat modding is supposedly against the charter but on page 4 of the Apologetics thread, he allows it and even applauds it. I wonder if he got the ninja edit in before someone took a screencap?

This forum is non-functional

Comments