BS: Who are the editors here?

Subject: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 02:01 PM

If I wanted to subtly request an edit to a post title, who would I contact?

Is it possible to have an "inbox" or thread that only the editors could read where such good-natured requests could be made?

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 02:48 PM

I'm still the contact person, Jack.
I just don't do "disciplinary" moderation any more. That way, I get to go back to being Mr. Nice Guy, which is what I really am.
I've been waiting for you to ask me to change the title of the "spiritualism" thread.


-Joe-
[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 05:37 PM

""Who are the editors here?""

I expected to see a different question or thought it may be a tongue-in-cheek statement.

Oh well!

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 06:23 PM

the title of the "spiritualism" thread. That would be Gnus's call.

The error was point out pretty early and politely I thought. It didn't hurt the conversation as much as other factors.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 08:00 PM

Error? There was no error. The only error was in people's minds who couldn't understand my title EVEN after they read the OP. I am right, The rest of youse are wrong. Deal with it.

If anyone hasn't noticed, I haven't posted much on that thread because of the bullshit. Tell me that the word in the title is incorrect? Tell me *I* meant something else? WTF are youse to tell me what I think or mean? Rather snotty of you all, I think. Especially those that call themselves spiritual or religious or whatever else makes them think their shit don't stink but like to shit on me.

Like I said... been a lotta that shit gonna on lately. I, and I know of others, are not amused.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 08:30 PM

Gnu, If you meant to say religion vs séances and such, I am truly sorry. I guess people were giving you the benefit of a doubt. Honest mistake right?

Spiritualism is a belief system or religion, postulating the belief that spirits of the dead residing in the spirit world have both the ability and the inclination to communicate with the living. Anyone may receive spirit messages, but formal communication sessions (séances) are held by "mediums," who can then provide information about the afterlife.[1]

Spiritualism, a religious movement that began in the United States and which has flourished internationally from the 1840s to the present
    Spiritualism (beliefs), the belief that spirits of the dead can communicate with the living
    Spiritualism (philosophy), the idea, in any system of thought, that there exists an immaterial reality that is beyond the reach of the senses

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 08:33 PM

Hmmmm....I guess that means gnu doesn't want "spiritualism" changed to "spirituality," huh?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 08:34 PM

Robert... what do you not understand about "FUCK OFF!!!"????

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 08:37 PM

Damn straight I don't want it changed, Joe. Only idiots don't understand what I meant to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 09:05 PM

So, a horse goes into a bar, and the bartender saye
"why such a long face :)

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 09:20 PM

So, what did the horse say to THAT, Ed?

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: michaelr
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 09:39 PM

"Nobody understands me."

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 10:01 PM

I asked my question got my answer. this thread can go.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 01:36 AM

I have replayed gnu's OP on his GROSSLY MISNAMED thread. The Dalai Lama makes use there of neither word, so I can't see why gnu, in his defensive bluster, should cite his OP as if it confirmed his usage. He is plainly guilty of an appalling catchresis. He meant 'spirituality', not 'spiritualism', whatever he says. Why, Mrs Malaprop herself, if she knew the antonomasia formed from her name, might protest, as he does, that she knew, and said, what she meant, and the world has no right to tell her different. But she would just be silly to do so.

And so is gnu. Ignore him and go on thinking 'spirituality'; even if he goes on saying table-rapping by mediums when he means admiring the beauty of the universe or whevs!

LoL!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 02:13 AM

Often I would visit a thread, that deals with topics of this nature. I haven't even been to that one yet, because I figured that he didn't know what he was talking about, and therefore have to wade through 276 posts, just to point that out...because you have to assume, he doesn't know the difference, anyway!....When It's named accurately to the topic I'll pop in maybe.....then ....aw, never mind.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 02:48 AM

"This thread can go."

Why ask who the editors are when this is yet another example of you trying to dictate editorial policy?

Someone seems to be all at sea....

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 04:31 AM

Very impressive words there, M! But isn't it catachresis?

I've never understood the notion that starting a thread gives one any kind of ownership or control about what happens to it. I've no idea whether that's how most people see it. It doesn't work that way in normal conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 06:04 AM

Thanks, McGrath ~~ 'catachresis' indeed: not a typo, just a mistake! Peccavi!

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 07:20 AM

spir·it·u·al /ˈspiriCHo͞oəl/
Adjective
Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

ism [ˈɪzəm]
n
Informal, often derogatory an unspecified doctrine, system, or practice

No, I don't own the thread. So WTF do all of you think YOU own it? Why do all of you want to tell me what I think? Give your heads a shake and see if they rattle.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 07:27 AM

Those of us, including myself, who do not have the time to read all threads - not even the OPs -, rely on well-chosen thread titles. Therefore I would like to encourage Joe and the other elves to change the titles more liberally, and without waiting for the creator's request or consent. For example, someone asked for sheet music in ABC format, and used the "Tech" prefix - certainly not conducive to her purpose.

If there is a risk that posters cannot rediscover the thread, a little mark may narrow down the search, e.g. an "R" for "retitled". It may also help the creator to note down the "threadid" number, but should rarely be necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 07:59 AM

"just a mistake"

Now that is remarkably honest of you M - I suspect most of us would have let it pass as an assumed typo. I'm very impressed.

The English language would of course have allowed the word spiritualism to acquire the meaning ascribed to t in the thread title - but it hasn't. Still that's hardly a matter of too much importance.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 08:15 AM

Rather than a "R", Put a "P" for posessed, (spurred or moved by a strong feeling, madness or a supernatural power) - as I suspect some 'cat heads have rotated near 360 degrees.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 08:18 AM

That is "possessed"

My head rotated as I typed:)

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 08:26 AM

Spiritualism is a belief system or religion, postulating the belief that spirits of the dead residing in the spirit world have both the ability and the inclination to communicate with the living.

Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us!

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 10:25 AM

Ed, I would like to decide for myself whether I risk being exposed to "possession". If I insisted on being surrounded only by reasonable persons, I would certainly avoid all public forums - and I may in fact become very lonely indeed.

If a thread is titled either "Spiritualism vs. religion" or "Spirituality vs. religion", seasoned Mudcatters know pretty well what to expect in it (- the "P" is implied -), and that is all we can expect. In contrast, if a title says "Would you believe that?" and the OP only consists of a link, we feel abused.

Threads being "hijacked" are a different problem. In some forums, the admin takes the liberty to split off any side drift to an extra thread - which may result in confusion or even unreadable threads. I think there is no other solution than to discourage seriously thread drifts that amount to hijacking or "possession".

For instance: Jack Sprocket, you clearly meant to contribute to that other thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 10:34 AM

"No matter how thin you slice it, there will always be two sides."
― Baruch Spinoza

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 11:06 AM

GUEST,Grishka

I expect one cause of "serious thread drift" (if there is such a beast) is disinterest in the OP and more interest in another (closely related or not) aspect - as seen by the drifter, and other participants. Personally, I see no harm in that, but recognize that it may annoy more structured type folks than I am. I also suspect, at times, the OP related matters are dealt with, in one manner or another, and people move on to other areas. Additionally, like with conversations, topics frequently move into varied directions, stimulated by items arising in the discussion.

As to thread "hijacking", I suspect there are similar issues, (and possibly similar people hijacking) as some folks may be cautious or lazy on opening new threads. But,I have noted that some threads stay open very long, which encourages this to occur. If you open a thread, it seems reasonable that you also have the option to ask it be closed, if that concerns you. However, none of this stuff actually concerns me at all (though I recognize it does some others).

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 11:36 AM

Not at all Comrade Grishka, the question was "spirituality" vs "spiritualism". Someone volunteered a definition of spiritualism as a religion; I merely attempted to point out that at least one other major religious sect shares the belief that we can communicate with the dead.

And the prayer continues.. "pray for us Shinners now, and at the hour of Ard Fheis" so it's not only on topic but topical.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 12:22 PM

Ed, my concern in this thread is not to criticize anybody, but to find procedures so that the contents of a thread can be more safely guessed from its title. If an elf happens to see a misleading thread title, she or he can earn my gratitude, and presumably other readers' as well, by correcting it immediately.

This instrument will of course be powerless against substantial thread drifts. (An example of a thread drift is a message about the relation between religion and spiritualism, found in a thread about admins editing thread titles.) Certainly most thread drifts and asides are harmless, and I may well be guilty of a couple as well. The problem will become bigger if a non-"possessed" thread drifts to a "possessed" topic in the sense of Ed T 08:15 AM.

The admins do a good job; thanks once more to all of them!

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 12:47 PM

Jack Sprocket, if your message of 08:26 AM was meant as an argument that gnu's title is adequate, it is in fact on topic, but neither comprehensible in that sense nor convincing.

I am not sure whether that particular title should be changed withoud gnu's consent. Most readers will know what to expect alright. For really enlightening and/or enlightened discussions about religion and philosophy, neither possessed nor possessive, there are other forums than MudcatBS.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 01:07 PM

One thing I've learned from the last month's output.

Never disagree with Gnu.

He is RIGHT!

Whether it makes sense or not.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 02:08 PM

""Never disagree with Gnu.

He is RIGHT!

Whether it makes sense or not.""

That would surely define alot of "somewhat stunborn mudcatters".

Defining "right and wrong" is a very difficult topic on itself, outside the personal attachement some folks seem to have on being on the right side of an issue). However, I have debated gnu on a variety of topics. My experience has been that, when faced with reason and courtesy, he has clearly and openly (with no strings attached) indicated he felt he was in error.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 02:15 PM

""For really enlightening and/or enlightened discussions about religion and philosophy, neither possessed nor possessive, there are other forums than MudcatBS".

I suspect some posting on Mudcat do just that, as I observe that quite a few of the arguments closely mirror others I have seen on some of those sites. IMO, those topics have been "debated to death", and rarely is anything unique or enlightening posted here (outside the insults,that is, as some of those do seem spirited and unique:) .

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 02:57 PM

Ed, if on "those sites" you find arguments for debates to death, you are not talking of the same sites as I did. But we agree that Mudcat's strong points are elsewhere, so we must be content to have thread titles that help us to find the threads we like to read.

Because of this function, a thread title should describe the topic so that it is roughly recognizable at first sight, without reading the contents. Thus, if gnu's argument were "The word spiritualism has been viciously captured by persons who should correctly be called spiritists, so I want to recapture it to its prevopis meaning", he may say so in his posts, but should not "beg the question" in the thread title.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 04:10 PM

" If you open a thread, it seems reasonable that you also have the option to ask it be closed,"

Anyone should and does, of course have the option to ask that a thread be closed. I can't see why the person who opened it shoud have any special position as regards that. And whether it gets closed or not is decided by our benevolent guardians. It seems to work out well enough.

Thread drift I can't see as much of a problem. Occasionaly you get an effort to interrupt a discussion by energetically trying to hijak a thread, but it rarely works.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 04:24 PM

"I observe that quite a few of the arguments closely mirror others I have seen."

Like the mirroring the arguments of Richard Dawkins? LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 06:57 PM

Some reasonable discussion. It is truly welcome.

I would like to encourage Joe and the other elves to change the titles more liberally,.... they do as they see fit.

If you open a thread, it seems reasonable that you also have the option to ask it be closed... certainly, but it still is the mods' call.

the question was "spirituality" vs "spiritualism"... no, it was NOT. THAT is another thread. Read this thread first.

Never disagree with Gnu. He is RIGHT!... bullshit! Just once, prove me wrong and don't get a heartfelt apology when I understand I am in error. It would behoove many of you to become a gentleman in this regard and, more imprortantly, to respect the discussion at hand as it was intended and post what OBVIOUSLY belongs on a different thread to THAT thread or start a new one and not toatally fuck up someone else's thread. My goodness you blood thirsty holier than thou fuckers are simply apalling! Especially when you join the other chickens in the flock pecking at the chicken that appears weak. Ever watch chickens? Every now and then one will peck another one in the back of the head for no good reason. If it gets stunned and falters, the rest of the chickens will join in and peck it to death and eat it.

Flock off ya birds of a feather. I am a gnu. A gentle, dumb animal. And I am a Wildebeeste when attacked. Wildebeestes kill lions. They merely get annoyed by fowl. And youse are foul.

In closing, I'd just like to recap what I have tried to impart herein and on a number of threads lately... flock off ya bunch chickenshits.
Does this really consume you that much? Ya got fuck all better ta do? Or fuck all better ta say?

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 12:47 AM

We are much more methodical about changing titled of music threads, because we are trying to build an easily-accessible collection of music information - so we cross-index, combine threads, correct spellings, standardize format, and move messages to try to make our collection of information as useful as possible.

Our non-music/BS section is different. It's an open discussion about whatever is on anybody's mind, so we try to stay out of the way as much as possible. If somebody wants to talk about atheism vs. spiritualism, who am I to interfere? If things get nasty, our Anonymous Moderation Team takes a look at it, and they decide if and how to calm things down. I don't deal with that any more.

Personally, though, all these atheist threads are getting me nervous. Too much nastiness on both sides.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 01:54 AM

Joe Offer: "Personally, though, all these atheist threads are getting me nervous. Too much nastiness on both sides."

I John 4:8: 'God is Love'....Explains it all!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 02:04 AM

Oh? Define "God"; define "love"; define "explains"; define "all".

('is' & 'it' will do for the moment.)

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 02:20 AM

I have a lot of respect and affection for many people here at Mudcat. Some of them bitterly disagree with me on matters of religion, even though I often have a fair level of agreement with their perspective (I'm speaking especially of Jim Carroll, a man for whom I have a lot of respect - but also of Steve Shaw, Bonnie Shaljean, Frank Hamilton, Peter K (Fionn) and a number of others).

No, I don't want to relinquish my religious perspective - it's a major part of who I am. But on the other hand, I don't want to fight with people I respect so deeply.

So, yeah, most of these religion/atheist threads make me nervous. I wish there were a way to exchange ideas in a nondestructive, mutually respectful way, but I haven't found that way yet.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 03:07 AM

Problem is Joe, both "sides" see the issues from their perspective.

The idea that something is or isn't cannot be worked out by debate as I doubt pete will ssy that he is no longer a creationist as a result of these threads and I am no nearer my God either.

You are then left with either earnest views put forward which fall on deaf ears or abuse which has about the same effect.   I for one cannot see how middle ground can be reached because whilst always accepting and appreciating how much some people's religion means to them personally, the idea that it is more than that nor indeed should be more than that frankly isn't an idea that grabs me.

The problem with a rose such as yourself is the pricks hiding behind your petals. Similarly, by pointing out lack of religion, I and others are lumped by association with those who make a living out of questioning the role of faith beyond the personal. I am apparently a follower of Dawkins. I hope the after service tea is better than our local church. .. (I may not attend service but being married to a bell ringer, we are in the building most weeks.)

Sorry but mutual abuse is the inevitable end game. Also, cultural differences occur as here in the UK such banter is a normal method of friendly debate whereas most American posters seem to be more serious and analyse the wording of posts far more.

Separated by a common language. Separated by an uncommon God.

You tell me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Megan L
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 03:22 AM

As a child I remember being shown a picture of Budapest my dad pointed out that the river divided the city in two and my mum pointed out that all the bridges joined the city together.

To often we use words and ideas to build walls dividing us of into ideological ghettos. How much better to build bridges for in the middle of a bridge is a place of respect where we might not entirely agree with each other but have enough common ground where we no longer wish to kill each other.

If only we built more bridges
If only we let our walls fall
Then together we onwards could travel
To a world that was safer for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 03:52 AM

Thanks, Megan. I walked those bridges in Budapest, so what you said meant a lot to me. You know what? It's beautiful on both sides of the river. Why can't people understand that?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 07:05 AM

The river is beautiful and the bridges hopeful. Far better than when barriers and sentry boxes failed to reach the artist's brush.

But when the glorious but vain cathedrals are on one side of the river and the dowdy but exciting academy of science is on the other, you have to shout to communicate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 07:56 AM

" Similarly, by pointing out lack of religion, I and others are lumped by association with those who make a living out of questioning the role of faith beyond the personal. I am apparently a follower of Dawkins."

So it is just innocent banter. All you are trying to do is communicate respectfully pointing out your lack of religion.

If that is true then you have solved the problem right there. It means you don't have to mock peoples beliefs, you don't have to talk about delusions. It means you don't have to spend page after page defending Dawkins and spouting his arguments because you are not his follower. You can just say what you just said every time a religious topic comes up. Seems pretty simple to me. But what do I know, I am just one of the "pricks" behind the rose right?

One can't take a Dawkins like stance without being disrespectful. You can't say things like "its a delusion" and Godbotherers say this and religions are fantasy and "there are no such thing as Christian children." Without being disrespectful. If you are not following Dawkins and trying to beat the religion out of us, I really don't see the point of all the mockery. That is what Olddude has been getting at I think.

Joe would like to let all of that pass, because he respects some of you for other reasons not specified. I respect that. But I am not convinced that you and Steve and Frank realize just how disrespectful you are. You and Steve are quite a bit different in style from Frank but the message you carry to the forum is the same "look how I use my superior brain to put these superstitious believers in their place."

pete has some far out ideas imho, perhaps he is not as enlightened ad you and Steve, in your opinion. But he can be treated with respect and Rob Naylor does. The childish mockery of him does nothing but entertain yourselves. It really is not necessary.

None of it is necessary. You are bright enough to express your beliefs without insulting people. You insult people because you think it is fun. If you want to banter. Banter with people who want to banter with you. don't spread it all over the forum.

And don't think you are clever even when you are trying to look reasonable sneaking in those little hidden insults. Everyone here knows that the rose is surrounded by thorns, THORNS, NOT PRICKS and "prick" is when the thorn sticks you and causes pain or draws some blood.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Musket
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 09:44 AM

Of course I'm being disrespectful Jack. Whatever makes you question?

"One can't take a Dawkins like stance without being disrespectful." Oh, and taking a religious stance is to be all embracing, seeing the other person's view and respecting their right to exist eh? zzzzz

I am not sure whether you are a prick behind the rose if you must know. Reasonable people try to make reasonable debate, and therefore Joe Offer tries to put forward his take on his faith as being reasonable. You don't exactly do that, do you Jack? In fact, although Joe sounds reasonable, his continued faith perpetuates the club he is a member of, and by association, you can end up, if you aren't careful, of judging all by the reasonableness of others. The "pricks" hide nicely behind. If you are one, then I hope the cap fits but believe it or believe it not, you were nowhere in my thoughts when I wrote it. You may be a prick for all I know, but as the invite to Carolina seems to have dried up, I guess I will not know you any more than you will know me.

I don't spread it all over the forum, I reserve it for the BULLSHIT section, or BS to give it its Sunday name. My music posting is about music funnily enough. My posting on religion is to tease out hypocrisy, because in the final analysis I see lots of it. It ain't pretty.

If you insist on provoking people from a smug "look at me, I can pray" stance, don't be upset when you get the piss ripped out of you mercilessly. You ask me to respect pete. Fine. When pete respects reality, I will reciprocate. In the meantime, I think dismissing him is less respectful than patronising him or making him think he may have a point. Young earth creationism is slowly gaining respectability and that is dangerous. Dangerous because children are being taught an alternative to reality. Here in England, two schools, according to "Local Government Today" have been investigated by their local safeguarding childrens boards for this. "This" being what pete wants us to respect.. No.

What you call mockery I call debate. To say anything other than delusion would be to accept there is substance in the superstition. There isn't. Full stop. It may be a nice comfort blanket but I cannot bring myself to move from the point of it has no no more chance of existing than the infamous orbiting teapot. I have consistently said I can understand a personal faith and live & let live. You never seem to acknowledge that. But you insist that Christians are being persecuted when people make the rational observation that it is a load of old bollocks. Two thousand years of bollocks but round & hairy all the same.

How can you start the threads you do, and make the points you do without expecting someone to point out we are discussing fantasy here?   You may take it serious but as there is nothing to take serious other than destroying myth, I appear to be on the side of your angels. Which is interesting, because whenever I see people scarred by mea culpa, afraid to enjoy themselves, asking others for permission to a view.. You know what? I get angry. I don't get angry about many things, because there are pros and cons to all views. But if everybody is to get on, whether in the world or on this website even, putting faith where it belongs, where it can do most good, in the hearts of those who either want or need it, would be a good start. Trying to label those who have no use for it isn't big, isn't good and isn't worth a prayer.

Stirring people with a stick so you can feel persecuted isn' worthy of you.

Mind you, just for you and only for you. I have done this with my cookie in place. After all, we wouldn't want to upset you now, would we. (You might get upset if you insist on perpetuating religion / atheism threads and throwing a tantrum when people laugh at you though.)

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Megan L
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 10:19 AM

My dad for many years had his own dance band and MC'd at weddings and dances. A lot of folk in here remind me of a story he frequently told.

A young couple decided the wanted to get married and went to see the minister to arrange the calling of the bans. Well things went along fine in their little chat till the fell to quarrelling and Bob jumped up "Forget it we're no getting married ahm scunnered." And of he stomped.

A few weeks later the minister opened the door once more to the same young couple once more they fell a quarrelling during the discussion and this time it was Jean who jumped up. "Whit did ah ever see in ye? Ahm jist scunnered."

Another few weeks passed and once more the minister opened the door to find the quarrelsome couple standing there asking if he would marry them "NAW" Shouted the minister "Ahm jist fair scunnered wie the pair o ye." And with that he closed the door

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 10:24 AM

"I am not sure whether you are a prick behind the rose if you must know."

Here you are being a jackass, being vulgar, VIOLATING THE TERMS OF USE by hiding it behind pretty words and metaphors because you are SO MUCH better and smarter than the rest of us.

Grow up. Don't use a pejorative like "prick" when the proper word is THORN.


If you don't think that is true, try being civil on this forum. See if I try to stir you!

" To say anything other than delusion would be to accept there is substance in the superstition."

And you say that you are NOT a Dawkins follower. You know that there is no standard definition of delusion that encompasses religion. YOU ALSO KNOW THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO DESCRIBE SOMEONE AS HAVING A DELUSION WITHOUT IT BEING EITHER A DIAGNOSES OR A PERSONAL PUT DOWN.

Are you saying that you can't talk to a religious person about religion without starting with a put down?

You are very intelligent and well spoken. I think you can do better.

You also know that that is far from the only example of your mockery.

But we have been over this so many times it just is not funny any more.

"Stirring people with a stick so you can feel persecuted isn't worthy of you."

What is worthy of you? Name calling? Baiting? Mocking?
You have said on one of the Atheist threads that you feel freer to "speak my mind here" than elsewhere. That says to me that you show more respect to people elsewhere than here. I am sorry that you feel we have not earn a minimum of respect and good manners from you.

I don't feel persecuted at all Mr. Musket. I was trying to housebreak you by rubbing your nose in your own leavings. Now I am trying reason.

Please how some respect. Choose your words more carefully. Don't do it for me. Do it for Olddude, or Joe or someone else that you respect. Do it for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 10:40 AM

To all. That was conversation between Musket and me about the approach of "the new Atheists."

I believe that their strategy is basically to insult believers, pick a fight and trade insults with religious leaders for entertainment and profit.

I think that most atheists do not like this approach because it tends to polarize. But for someone who likes to argue, it is very very attractive. You can buy the books, go to the seminars and gain a whole range of prepackaged arguments with which to attack people.

I think that debate is OK, discussion is OK but words like delusional are no way to describe a debate opponent. When an "accomplished scientist" like Richard Dawkins starts a debate with an insult. He is saying that it is OK to do that. I disagree.

I am tired of people on the Mudcat calling me and my friends "delusional" just because Dawkins did it. There was a thread about dwindling participation. One reason that people might come here, look around and leave is the basic lack of respect. Maybe we can think of ways to show more respect and to not be deliberately and tauntingly insulting.