Locking the "atheism vs. non-theism" thread ...

[ZenYen]

I'm not arguing with the decision to lock the thread, but it might have been a good idea to let Michael get in a last word. Maybe next time, post a "wrap it up, please" message and give participants a chance to sum up before locking things down?

I kind of feel like I got the last word in the conversation only because of timing, and Michael got no chance to respond to my last couple of points.

[ZenYen]

P.S. This is not intended as an invitation to re-open the thread. Just a comment on locking topics.

Thanks

[TigersEyeDowsing]

Sure Zen, point noted. As you noted, Michael did actually have the last word as I was locking it, and you snuck in at the last second. But as I mentioned on the original thread, nobody won.

[ZenYen]

OK, TED. Thanks very much.

[sacrificialgoddess]

It was confusing. And, overall, pointless. I failed to see a point in it at all.


No reason for that thread at all.

[TigersEyeDowsing]

Well it started out okay, but when arguments become cyclical (and snarky) it's time to close it down and move on to better things.

[sacrificialgoddess]

I just didn't see any purpose to it. What was the argument again? Never mind, don't think I'd get it anyway. My brain doesn't work this way.

[Michael5810]

Sure Zen, point noted. As you noted, Michael did actually have the last word as I was locking it, and you snuck in at the last second. But as I mentioned on the original thread, nobody won.

Yes, it seems to me that when a thread is going to be locked, the participants should be warned in advance to wrap it up, and then allowed only 1-sentence posts, and only if they think there's something flatly obviously incorrect (as I did when I tried to post again).

About 3 or so posts by ZenYen posted after my last post. I attempted to reply to one of those, but couldn't because it was locked.

I understand the justification for locking a thread, when it becomes truly cyclical. But that thread wasn't standing still or merely cycling. It was making progress. ZenYen had just said something that could be easily answered. He had said:

An agnostic would not say "I don't believe God exists." An agnostic would say "I don't know."

I wanted to reply that Agnostics _don't_ believe that God exists, and that, if you asked an Agnostic if he believes that God exists, he would say, "No, I don't believe that God exists". On other occasions, of course, he might say, "I don't know", as well.

It was getting snarky? When wasn't it snarky? It was heavily rude from the start. It was a lynchmob. "Welcome to our Atheism debate forum, even if you don't agree with us."

[tmarie64]

Boo hoo..It was closed...It was closed because it became a cycle of same crap different post.
There was no lynchmob. Until you became disrespectful. You kept insisting that you know more about everyone else's beliefs than they did.

It stopped being "discussion" and turned in to repetitious diatribe.

It's been locked. The discussion is OVER. FINITO. Any further attempts to reopen it will be removed. Is THAT "warning" enough for you, Michael?

[TigersEyeDowsing]

Sure Zen, point noted. As you noted, Michael did actually have the last word as I was locking it, and you snuck in at the last second. But as I mentioned on the original thread, nobody won.

Yes, it seems to me that when a thread is going to be locked, the participants should be warned in advance to wrap it up, and then allowed only 1-sentence posts, and only if they think there's something flatly obviously incorrect (as I did when I tried to post again).

Sometimes advance warning may be appropriate; unfortunately, all posters who are going at it in a debate find the opposing posts "flatly obviously incorrect". The thread has to end eventually. Not everyone gets the last word.

[quote]About 3 or so posts by ZenYen posted after my last post. I attempted to reply to one of those, but couldn't because it was locked.

I understand the justification for locking a thread, when it becomes truly cyclical. But that thread wasn't standing still or merely cycling. It was making progress.

It was not only my opinion that the thread was cyclical, other administrators agreed. I saw no 'progress' being made, sorry.

ZenYen had just said something that could be easily answered. He had said:

An agnostic would not say "I don't believe God exists." An agnostic would say "I don't know."

I wanted to reply that Agnostics _don't_ believe that God exists, and that, if you asked an Agnostic if he believes that God exists, he would say, "No, I don't believe that God exists". On other occasions, of course, he might say, "I don't know", as well.

I know you're not attempting to reopen this topic.

It was getting snarky? When wasn't it snarky? It was heavily rude from the start. It was a lynchmob. "Welcome to our Atheism debate forum, even if you don't agree with us."

It had been snarky for a while and I saw no improvement. This post didn't help.

[Michael5810]

Boo hoo..It was closed...It was closed because it became a cycle of same crap different post.
There was no lynchmob. Until you became disrespectful. You kept insisting that you know more about everyone else's beliefs than they did.

A debate forum isn't only for people who agree with you. Any time more than one person participates in a debate, they're claiming that they're right about something that someone else is wrong about. That is the nature of a debate. That can and should be discussed politely, as I tried to do--or people can behave as they did in that thread.

Remember that there weren't any self-designated Atheists participating in the thread. I wasn't, therefore, discussing the beliefs of the other participants when I discussed Atheism.

"Knew more than they did"? Isn't the whole point of a debate forum to express when you believe that something is incorrect?

What did I say that was disrespectful? Did I say something like "Which part of 'I'm not interested' aren't you bright enough to understand?" ? No, that was you. That manners-lapse was entirely uncalled for. I had never criticised you or engaged in any namecalling or other rude conduct toward you.

Of course, quite aside from being uncalled-for, the appropriateness of that comment's content was questionable too: You had asked if someone would PLEASE tell you where the reference to violence was (someone had complained about a violent reference in a posting in the thread). So I was merely answering the question that you'd asked. So your question about "What part of 'not interested' aren't you bright enough to understand" was entirely out-of-line, because you'd just expressed interest in being told where the violent statement was.

What part of "Please show me the reference to violence" aren't you bright enough to understand?

Oh, excuse me, I can't insult people here, because I'm not an administrator.

[tmarie64]

~~sigh~~ Anyone got any cheese?

And, just for the record, you can't insult anyone here because you are too, umm let's see who said it best... oh yeah!, Zen said it, "obtuse" to be insulting. Your attempts at insult weren't insulting, merely pathetic. Saying the same thing 1000 times, in 20 different ways does not make the argument authentic, it only makes it boring.

[sacrificialgoddess]

Michael, it may have escaped your notice, but at the moment you are talking to 3 out of the 5 admins. And I assure you, all the admins are in agreement on this one. Now if you would like to start a new topic, a different topic, I am sure we can all discuss that different topic like adults. Surely there are many topics that capture your interest. Or you can sound off on something someone has already started talking about on another thread.

[gillyflower]

4th Admin here and I agree. Next topic, please.

[DotNotInOz]

It was not only my opinion that the thread was cyclical, other administrators agreed. I saw no 'progress' being made, sorry.

An opinion that was decidedly shared by one of those unfortunately participating in the endless circle dance it had become, namely yours truly.

Sometimes, progress like beauty is in the eye of only a single beholder and someone must say, "Ummmm, dude, the emperor is wearing no clothes."

The admins have the often thankless task of saying, "Wake up! The guy's nekkid and it ain't pretty."

[sacrificialgoddess]

Dot. Ew.

[DeavonReye]

Ewwww. . . a dude. . . . .nude. . . . . .

[tmarie64]

Yeah, it's an ugly image that Dot, oh-so-thoughtfully, put in our heads...an action that I'm sure she will pay for (LOL)... but it's an accurate one.

Dot...for giving us that image... 100 lashes.

[DotNotInOz]

Dot. Ew.

Well, far as I'm concerned, the thread itself was pretty "ewwww" from the start...but that's another issue.

Always did like that story, though. Makes a helluva good point relevant to American politics oftentimes.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Not an admin, don't really want to be, but, on other sites I have been in such a position, there was a rule against questioning mod or whatever the site calls them, actions on the main board.

If people wanted to do it through the PM system of the site, fine, but if they did it on the chat board, it was gone like yesterdays news.

One of the things I found, is if you got a variety of people saying that you are persecuting them, then you're probably doing your job.

all

[TigersEyeDowsing]

*sigh* Overworked, underpaid and unappreciated.














I may as well be married.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

*sigh* Overworked, underpaid and unappreciated.














I may as well be married.

You're appreciated TED.

I've been married for almost 11 years now.










2 of the happiest years of my life....

[Beribee]

TED, you are appreciated!!!

All, you're just bein' a naughty boy! Your wife must be a saint! LOL

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

My wife is.

The other one I always tell is....

Marriage is about compromise. See, when we first got married, I learned the value of compromise. We wanted to get a pet. I wanted a dog, and she wanted a cat. So we compromised and got a cat. Then, a few years later, we compromised again and got another cat.

[Michael5810]

To comment better on an earlier statement from T.Marie64:

You kept insisting that you know more about everyone else's beliefs than they did.

I wasn't speaking about what anyone's beliefs were. I was speaking about the names by which everyone else refers to certain beliefs and absences of belief.

Did I "know more" about that? Well, I'd done a bit of reading. Evidently that disntinguished me from the other participants in the discussion.

[Sponsored content]