Crosswords39 mins ago
Keeping R&S Civil
177 Answers
Afternoon.
We've noticed it's got a bit "rough" in here recently.
We'd like this section to be accessible to all without fear of being "ambushed" by members who simply disagree with them.
Please remember calling someone an idiot (or similar) is very unlikely to aid the changing of their perspective.
We're not asking you to change what you say - we're asking you to change the way you say it.
In other news: we now have a small "welcome box" between the "enter a question" box and the questions below. Suggestions welcome for things we could pop in there.
All the best,
Ed
We've noticed it's got a bit "rough" in here recently.
We'd like this section to be accessible to all without fear of being "ambushed" by members who simply disagree with them.
Please remember calling someone an idiot (or similar) is very unlikely to aid the changing of their perspective.
We're not asking you to change what you say - we're asking you to change the way you say it.
In other news: we now have a small "welcome box" between the "enter a question" box and the questions below. Suggestions welcome for things we could pop in there.
All the best,
Ed
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ed, //Are you suggesting that calling someone's "Good Book" a "magic book" isn't dismissive and likely to cause friction?//
No, I’m not. It is dismissive, and if disputed by those who think these books are beyond criticism, of course it is likely to cause friction - but then discussions in any section of AB can, and often do, cause friction.
//We're not asking you to change what you say - we're asking you to change the way you say it.//
You’ve got me there, Ed. Bearing in mind the content of the ‘Good Books’ – and I’ve studied them all thoroughly - I can’t think of another way to say it.
//We're going to attempt the goldilocks style of moderation - aiming for "just right". As always //
Well, up until now, it certainly hasn’t been ‘as always’ – but good - I hope that works both ways - because so far on this thread it would appear that the blatant untruths, the disrespectful innuendoes, and the insults towards non-believers have been overlooked entirely – and in your accusation to Birdie, you’re very wrong indeed. He is far too intelligent to even contemplate leading ‘pitch fork carrying rabble’ (so much for respect and keeping R&S civil!) - the ‘rabble’ you refer to are far too intelligent to contemplate supporting someone else simply for the sake of it – and his arguments, like the arguments of most atheists here don’t depend upon the support of the ‘rabble’ – they stand very firmly upon their own merits.
No, I’m not. It is dismissive, and if disputed by those who think these books are beyond criticism, of course it is likely to cause friction - but then discussions in any section of AB can, and often do, cause friction.
//We're not asking you to change what you say - we're asking you to change the way you say it.//
You’ve got me there, Ed. Bearing in mind the content of the ‘Good Books’ – and I’ve studied them all thoroughly - I can’t think of another way to say it.
//We're going to attempt the goldilocks style of moderation - aiming for "just right". As always //
Well, up until now, it certainly hasn’t been ‘as always’ – but good - I hope that works both ways - because so far on this thread it would appear that the blatant untruths, the disrespectful innuendoes, and the insults towards non-believers have been overlooked entirely – and in your accusation to Birdie, you’re very wrong indeed. He is far too intelligent to even contemplate leading ‘pitch fork carrying rabble’ (so much for respect and keeping R&S civil!) - the ‘rabble’ you refer to are far too intelligent to contemplate supporting someone else simply for the sake of it – and his arguments, like the arguments of most atheists here don’t depend upon the support of the ‘rabble’ – they stand very firmly upon their own merits.
-- answer removed --
// I'm pretty sure we can stop name-calling and intentional hurtfulness though. Even if we set the bar that low we'd be well on our way! //
Ed! Ed! - I've found some on this thread .......
// I am also saying that I've seen you at the front of the pitchfork carrying rabble when it's time to lynch a Christian //
^^^^ posted at 9.50 on Monday. I hope you're going to come down hard on the miscreant!
Ed! Ed! - I've found some on this thread .......
// I am also saying that I've seen you at the front of the pitchfork carrying rabble when it's time to lynch a Christian //
^^^^ posted at 9.50 on Monday. I hope you're going to come down hard on the miscreant!
Ludwig, Exactly!! How easily it's done! ;o)
I get the impression that the atheists here have never been speedy with the report button – they prefer to stand their ground and fight their corner - but perhaps it’s time we took a leaf out of the book (no pun intended there) of those who appear to be in possession of heightened sensitivities and of those who just want to silence the opposition - and started pressing the button at every opportunity. The only problem with that is some people ‘report’ because they have a personal axe to grind – and often one that appears to go unnoticed by those with access to the ‘delete’ button - and some are mistaken in their perception of the required criteria – as is demonstrated by Ichkeria’s missive to Jomifl here where he was convinced he knew what the Ed wanted - and the Ed’s subsequent dismissal of it. It’s all about perception. I know from professional experience that it’s impossible to elicit someone else’s thought processes in an effort to record them precisely as the ‘thinker’ himself would wish. In short, it’s impossible to get inside someone else’s head – which leads my back to my last post regarding the conclusions I’ve reached on the nature of the ‘Good Books’. Shooting the message does not equate to shooting the messenger – and I think that should be acknowledged.
I get the impression that the atheists here have never been speedy with the report button – they prefer to stand their ground and fight their corner - but perhaps it’s time we took a leaf out of the book (no pun intended there) of those who appear to be in possession of heightened sensitivities and of those who just want to silence the opposition - and started pressing the button at every opportunity. The only problem with that is some people ‘report’ because they have a personal axe to grind – and often one that appears to go unnoticed by those with access to the ‘delete’ button - and some are mistaken in their perception of the required criteria – as is demonstrated by Ichkeria’s missive to Jomifl here where he was convinced he knew what the Ed wanted - and the Ed’s subsequent dismissal of it. It’s all about perception. I know from professional experience that it’s impossible to elicit someone else’s thought processes in an effort to record them precisely as the ‘thinker’ himself would wish. In short, it’s impossible to get inside someone else’s head – which leads my back to my last post regarding the conclusions I’ve reached on the nature of the ‘Good Books’. Shooting the message does not equate to shooting the messenger – and I think that should be acknowledged.
If the Ab Editor, in his wisdom, decides that there are some who are beyond the pale will he set an angel with a flaming sword to guard the entrance and keep them out?
And what's to become of these hapless exiles from our on-line Eden? Will they find their way to the Limbo that is Yahoo Answers or sink even deeper into depravity and settle for a place in SAB?
And what's to become of these hapless exiles from our on-line Eden? Will they find their way to the Limbo that is Yahoo Answers or sink even deeper into depravity and settle for a place in SAB?
When all's said and done it depends on how one (the Ed to be precise) is going to interpret civility.
If being civil means you're not allowed to call someone a bible bashing twonk
or the torch bearing leader of a lynch mob rabble then fine.
That's the kind of civility I support.
If it's going to turn out to mean that you can't criticise religion or perhaps express an opinion that you think it's daft because someone might be offended, then it's going to be a pretty boring, pointless and sparsely populated section of the site.
We'll just have to see how it works out.
If being civil means you're not allowed to call someone a bible bashing twonk
or the torch bearing leader of a lynch mob rabble then fine.
That's the kind of civility I support.
If it's going to turn out to mean that you can't criticise religion or perhaps express an opinion that you think it's daft because someone might be offended, then it's going to be a pretty boring, pointless and sparsely populated section of the site.
We'll just have to see how it works out.
-- answer removed --
Proper replies to everyone later (although I now see how these threads get so long...!)
but:
"Quick question. Have one or more openly religious contributors to AB recently become moderators of this website?"
No, don't think so. They certainly can't be that open about it if I've not noticed when making them a mod. What makes you ask that?
but:
"Quick question. Have one or more openly religious contributors to AB recently become moderators of this website?"
No, don't think so. They certainly can't be that open about it if I've not noticed when making them a mod. What makes you ask that?
-- answer removed --
"To be fair, you've completely failed to notice when I was being called a drug addict and a 'dementia patient' and that the same poster who made those remakes has also tacitly threatened me with physical violence on a number of occasions. So I hope you'll forgive me if I humbly suggest that your powers of observation may leave a little to be desired."
No, that's not logical. I can't read everything on AB, I think you understand this. It would be unreasonable to expect me to.
It would be reasonable for me to observe and understand a moderator - in fact you might expect, rightly, that I look quite closely at their posting history. So if I did not notice religious tendencies it in the instance of a creating a moderator it would be reasonable to assume that there are no overt religious tenancies there.
In regards to your abuse suffered here - did you report any of it? I've check the email backlog and I see nothing from your email address. I find no reports FROM you, although I do see some about you.
How do you expect us to do anything to help a situation like the one you describe when you're not alerting us to it? You should find a "report" link on every question and answer. If someone is abusive, please click it and tell us why.
"As to what made me ask the question – curiosity. It seems like a rather odd thread and there are a couple of things that you have said in it that simply do not ring true."
Which bits? And by ring true do you mean that I don't believe them, or that they're objectively inaccurate? If it is the former then there may be some truth there - I'm a fairly "hard-line" (for lack of a better phrase) atheist. It's also a nuanced position I'm asking everyone to take and as such, our steps are bound to be a little unsure as we negotiate it.
(If I have time I WILL come back and answer above queries later today. It's been mad busy to be honest.)
No, that's not logical. I can't read everything on AB, I think you understand this. It would be unreasonable to expect me to.
It would be reasonable for me to observe and understand a moderator - in fact you might expect, rightly, that I look quite closely at their posting history. So if I did not notice religious tendencies it in the instance of a creating a moderator it would be reasonable to assume that there are no overt religious tenancies there.
In regards to your abuse suffered here - did you report any of it? I've check the email backlog and I see nothing from your email address. I find no reports FROM you, although I do see some about you.
How do you expect us to do anything to help a situation like the one you describe when you're not alerting us to it? You should find a "report" link on every question and answer. If someone is abusive, please click it and tell us why.
"As to what made me ask the question – curiosity. It seems like a rather odd thread and there are a couple of things that you have said in it that simply do not ring true."
Which bits? And by ring true do you mean that I don't believe them, or that they're objectively inaccurate? If it is the former then there may be some truth there - I'm a fairly "hard-line" (for lack of a better phrase) atheist. It's also a nuanced position I'm asking everyone to take and as such, our steps are bound to be a little unsure as we negotiate it.
(If I have time I WILL come back and answer above queries later today. It's been mad busy to be honest.)
Latest Posts
ChatterBank71 mins ago
Trump Is Becoming More And More Unhinged
News78 mins ago
Ok I Get It, Cut The Benefits...
News78 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles82 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles124 mins ago
