posted
Ok, let's see how this works out. I've got an idea for a potentially intriguing thread, bear with me. Let's imagine, for the moment, that I am neither theist, atheist, or agnostic (I said IMAGINE!!!). Please convince me of your side of the debate, and why I should join you. It doesn't matter what side you stand on, you've got one. Also, try to keep the arguing to a minimum. The ultimate goal is to fill this thread like a theological classified ad.
Secondly, please don't judge any of the posts to this thread. This will make for a free environment. Thank you.
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm Troopers wanted for Evil Atheist Conspiracy. We are looking for can-do people to help us control the nation for our liberal agenda! Intimidating demeanour and ability to threaten media a must. Will supply black suit and heavy weaponry; must bring own club and AK-47. Ability to drive black helicopters a plus. Pay : 20-30k yearly. Duties : Kick nonsense out of theists on a daily basis; spread terror in Christian communities; censor media when they try to report miracles. Perqs : Bounty on every fundamentalist ear brought in. Free subscription to Skeptic. Free legal representation by the ACLU.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
You want to be an atheist. Yeah we piss theists off, and we may be condescending (or seem that way, when we aren't), HOWEVER....
If you believed in God, or the afterlife, or the concept of being saved, logically, you would find a duty to do something about the people who DIDN'T follow your beliefs. You would either want to save them or get rid of them. Exhibit A: Our current world and all of history.
Be an atheist. God ain't real, why kill someone if they have a different idea about something that's fake? Religion kills too many people.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry to be beating the rotting horse carcass but I just wanted a thread where I could jump to and see ads for shameless coercive religious affiliation. These guys have helped in their own ways.
posted
Yeah, I would appreciate if there weren't comments about other posts because I just wanted a list of pitches. It would also be interesting to see people exert a certain self control with regards to replying. Anyway, my arguments with you are only defeating my stated purpose for this thread, so I'll stop now. If you're under the opinion that my motivations are transparent (and apparently in a bad way) then feel free to not post (or read), if you so please. To be honest, my motivations aren't even trasparent to ME. I was just curious.
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think she's accusing you of living under a bridge. Hmm, that gives me an idea :
Sub-pontifical Life Forms wanted to convince Internet forum that there is no god. We are looking for can-eat people with great attitude! Required skills : Ignoring reasonable arguments, derailing threads, identifying and surfing on the edges of moderator tolerance. Strong opinions on abortion, operating systems, and politics a plus. Spelling and grammar skills optional. Pay : Nothing - sorry, that's supply and demand for you. Perqs : Use up tube capacity! Have fun!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kaminari, as an egotheist I think everybody should make their own choices regarding their life. That includes rational thinking, morality, religion, food habits and so on. Of course, it would be best if they were informed choices. Meaning that some education is recommendable before “being sure” of (i.e. making decisions about) anything. I say education is good and indoctrination is bad, because for me indoctrination means “teaching only one side of the story”, whatever the field. Acknowledging that there are questions that even the teachers don’t have a final answer for is a basic thing (in egotheism), but unfortunately not all people see it that way. On the thread dedicated to Egotheism there were opinions that all this is highly immoral, because teachers “have a moral duty to help” the ignorant. What I say is that there is no “perfect” teacher and that supposing that there is, it’s more often than not a bad idea. There must be a point where the “student” can make an informed choice, even if it goes against the personal beliefs of the teacher. Without variation there is no evolution.
As for the whole idea of “please convince me of your side of the debate” in a religious context, I think it’s not very helpful. Not for anyone. You’re asking for the worse thing there is (again, from the Egotheist POV), which is the “I have (the moral duty) to convert you to my beliefs because you’re wrong and I’m right” mentality. Plus, you’re unlikely to convert to any other religion that you already have, so it’s simply “bad”, without any other consequence.
NOTE: there is no “conversion (in the religious sense) to Egotheism” possible. You either are an egotheist or not. You can only “subscribe” to it by yourself, meaning that you have to come to the conclusion that is best for you. If you just take Egotheism for granted then you already failed at it.
I know this because I'm the one who introduced him to Hatrack. I can say with complete confidence that his purpose here wasn't to ambush anyone or "exert dictatorial control," but to learn more about the people on this forum and their beliefs. If this thread offended or annoyed anyone, it's my fault for not adequately explaining the culture of Hatrack to him, and I apologize.
The negative responses here are understandable given the recent trolling problems this forum has seen, but are unwarranted in this case.* Please show Kaminari some patience and I'm sure both he and Hatrack will benifit from his presence.
*Though I will talk to him about trolls (which I'm not actually sure he knows about) so we can avoid this kind of thing.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why settle for one when you can join them all?
Here's what I'm thinking. Forget the ones that say whatever path you choose is ok and will lead you to God. Find the ones that teach that you'll go to hell if you don't listen to them and join them all. Then you've got all your bases covered.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kaminari, I think that there are a couple of things about Hatrack that may not be immediately apparent that will keep this thread from going in the direction you were hoping that it would. First, controlling the direction of conversations here is nearly impossible. Most threads veer dramatically off-course fairly quickly, and settle into paths that are difficult to predict at their outset. Secondly, most people come here to discuss things. You'll get a little bit of milage out of threads where people just rattle off one specific thing and don't respond to other people's posts, but not a lot. Either the thread will die, or people will start responding to each others' posts. Efforts to keep them from doing so will either kill the thread, be ignored, or themselves become the thread's new subject of discussion.
A problem with this thread in particular is that it invites people to violate the forum's terms of service, as I understand them. Moose, if I'm wrong about this last point please let me know.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Find the ones that teach that you'll go to hell if you don't listen to them and join them all. Then you've got all your bases covered.
This isn't easy, considering the whole "No other God's before me" thing, and that pesky "There is no God but Allah" thing.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Kaminari's not a troll.
To clarify, I was not calling him a troll, nor do I think he is one.
I do however, believe he is looking to make fun of religious beliefs, and that this was clear from his very first post in this thread. He has started 8 threads and only participated in 21 threads other than those he started. I also believe he expects to have a great deal more control over threads he begins than is usual round here (or most of the fora I frequent, for that matter), and manipulates them to that end.
That doesn't make him a troll, but it does make him someone whose threads I will avoid. At least until he's been properly indoctrinated. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Juxtapose -- you didn't also teach him about just "lurking" for a few weeks to get the feel for the atmosphere? Just kinda one of those "jump in with both feet" people?
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing, kaminari: people who take their faith seriously aren't going to take your request seriously, because you pretty clearly indicated that you wouldn't take them seriously. People who do respond to your post are going to be the type to mock religion anyway.
So you'll either get serious responses from people who aren't religious, or fluff responses from people who are religious. Sorry.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Kaminari, I think that there are a couple of things about Hatrack that may not be immediately apparent that will keep this thread from going in the direction you were hoping that it would. First, controlling the direction of conversations here is nearly impossible. Most threads veer dramatically off-course fairly quickly, and settle into paths that are difficult to predict at their outset. Secondly, most people come here to discuss things. You'll get a little bit of milage out of threads where people just rattle off one specific thing and don't respond to other people's posts, but not a lot. Either the thread will die, or people will start responding to each others' posts. Efforts to keep them from doing so will either kill the thread, be ignored, or themselves become the thread's new subject of discussion.
A problem with this thread in particular is that it invites people to violate the forum's terms of service, as I understand them. Moose, if I'm wrong about this last point please let me know.
Noemon: Well, I'd have to say that you're the kind of person I thought would be prevalent on these forums. Thank you for not only respecting my integrity but also for informing me in a calm and supportive manner. To tell you the truth, I know that most forums spur off on tangents and that most post counts are achieved through debate. However, those two conditions were reflective of most forums on the net. When I came here, thanks to juxtapose, I was told that this was a different kind of community. A community where people woulud engage this kind of topic in a constructive way without jumping to hateful conclusions. This forum enjoys a high degree of diversity in almost any topic imaginable. In this respect I can certainly understand your warnings and I will heed them from here on out. I just have to find another community somewhere that can take on this kind of topic without all the hate. I was pretentious, and I'm sorry everyone.
Secondly, I was not aware that this topic would invite a breach of the terms of this forum, and for that I greatly apologize.
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: So Juxtapose -- you didn't also teach him about just "lurking" for a few weeks to get the feel for the atmosphere? Just kinda one of those "jump in with both feet" people?
Folks, don't rag on juxtapose for telling me about these forums. True, he didn't give me the beginner's manual that stated all these rules but my ignorance is not a fault of his. It's all mine.
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by Farmgirl: So Juxtapose -- you didn't also teach him about just "lurking" for a few weeks to get the feel for the atmosphere? Just kinda one of those "jump in with both feet" people?
Honestly, it didn't occur to me to suggest it until after Kaminari had already begun posting. At that point, I figured he'd learn on the fly.
I'll remember it in the future.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sexy Atheist seeking same for godless tryst and dirty, sinful, lust-based relationship. Turn ons: crime, cold logic, disorder, immorality, leading the faithful to hell, rock and roll, dungeons and dragons, birth control. Turn offs: Higher authority, marriage, puppies, babies, bunny rabbits, flowers, rainbows, state religion, body hair.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It occurs to me that people started up with this kamirani-is-a-religion-basher belief after I posted a comment thanking the previous two posters. They both happened to present atheistic arguments. It's sad that it had to turn out this way because if anyone had posted, regardless of which side they stand, I'd have thanked them. In the future I'll be sure to wait for other opinions before I thank people.
Also juxtapose just schooled me about trolls and trolling and recent troll sightings on these forums. It calrifies a lot of things.
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kaminari: Noemon: Well, I'd have to say that you're the kind of person I thought would be prevalent on these forums.
There are people here of all types, with all degrees of civility, direct friendliness, and so forth. Most of them are pretty great people, but with some you need to get to know them before that's apparent.
quote:When I came here, thanks to juxtapose, I was told that this was a different kind of community. A community where people woulud engage this kind of topic in a constructive way without jumping to hateful conclusions.
I think that Juxtapose is right in saying that this is a pretty unique place. Most of us do work to live up to the "speak with passion, listen with respect" ideal. It's just that after we've gotten done listening to somebody say something, very few of us can resist the urge to respond. It's actually a very cool thing, as ideas mature when they're prodded at and defended. It just means that "tell me x, and nothing else" threads aren't that successful.
quote:I just have to find another community somewhere that can take on this kind of topic without all the hate.
Do you really feel like you've met with a lot of hate here? You've gotten a fair amount of static in this thread, partly because people have mistaken your tone, partly because it's a subject that can easily cause flare ups, and partly because we have had a few trolls recently that have left everyone's nerves a bit frayed, but in general it seems to me that you've gotten a pretty warm welcome.
quote:I was pretentious, and I'm sorry everyone.
You didn't really come off as being pretentious, to me.
quote:...I was not aware that this topic would invite a breach of the terms of this forum, and for that I greatly apologize.
If I remember correctly there is a bit in there about not prosetylizing, and it struck me that you were asking people to do something that was approaching that. I'm sure it wasn't an intentional thing, and it's certainly nothing people are going to hold against you.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kaminari: . . . shameless coercive religious affiliation.
This is constructive how?
Well, in short, yes. I wanted a forum where people could post their opinions free of criticism ("shameless")((hence I also asked not to judge posts)). I also asked people to convince me ("coercive") about their beliefs ("religious affiliation"). I can see how my above quote can be construed as leaning toward atheism, but it's really not.
Also, upon rereading your first post rivka, it occurs to me that you were pretty level-headed at the time, and that I did something to piss you off thereafter that lead to this slippery slope that we have before us (or, after us, I guess). I'm sorry for whatever it was.
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just have to find another community somewhere that can take on this kind of topic without all the hate.
Do you really feel like you've met with a lot of hate here? You've gotten a fair amount of static in this thread, partly because people have mistaken your tone, partly because it's a subject that can easily cause flare ups, and partly because we have had a few trolls recently that have left everyone's nerves a bit frayed, but in general it seems to me that you've gotten a pretty warm welcome.
You're totally right about that, I've received a very warm welcome. Thanks to everyone for that. What I meant was that I'd have to find somewhere else to pose that specific question. Or, as I've learned, wait for a more opportune time when trolls haven't just run rampant over the forums.
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Help Wanted: Church in need of Warrior of God after previous Warrior left due to decapitation in the course of work. Warrior of God must poses unshakable moral foundation based on the Holy Word, must be able to instantly spot and do battle with unbelievers, and must have own sword. Salary DOE. Benefits include eternal bliss, optional dental and eyecare, 2-week religious retreat and on the job righteousness training. With possible Summer Crusade/Jihad, this position has great room for advancement for the right person.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can see how my above quote can be construed as leaning toward atheism, but it's really not.
Ok, so assume that atheistic/agnostic/humanist/etc. viewpoints are included. (I was assuming they were.) Most people do not consider "shameless" or "coercive" neutral adjectives, right?
quote:Also, upon rereading your first post rivka, it occurs to me that you were pretty level-headed at the time, and that I did something to piss you off thereafter that lead to this slippery slope that we have before us (or, after us, I guess). I'm sorry for whatever it was.
*laugh* As far as I know, all my posts in this thread have been calm and level-headed. I only got annoyed (and even then, not particularly) when you implied that some posters in this thread had been unsupportive, unwelcoming, and hateful.
Thank you for clarifying. The apology is unnecessary; everyone was a newbie at some point.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can see how my above quote can be construed as leaning toward atheism, but it's really not.
Ok, so assume that atheistic/agnostic/humanist/etc. viewpoints are included. (I was assuming they were.) Most people do not consider "shameless" or "coercive" neutral adjectives, right?
I wasn't asking for neutralilty. Rather, the opposite, I wanted shameless coercive (insert your belief here) statements. Now, some people may have inserted a word like: "shameless coercive atheistic affiliations". But it's really just as simple to add: "shameless coercive catholic (just an example) affiliations". So, in conclusion, neutral adjective? No, you're right, they're not neutral. If you had assumed those other viewpoints were included, then what were my "transparent (even before you stated them outright) motivations"?
quote:
quote:Also, upon rereading your first post rivka, it occurs to me that you were pretty level-headed at the time, and that I did something to piss you off thereafter that lead to this slippery slope that we have before us (or, after us, I guess). I'm sorry for whatever it was.
*laugh* As far as I know, all my posts in this thread have been calm and level-headed. I only got annoyed (and even then, not particularly) when you implied that some posters in this thread had been unsupportive, unwelcoming, and hateful.
Thank you for clarifying. The apology is unnecessary; everyone was a newbie at some point.
"*laughs*" I didn't know about that whole asterisk with the word in it thing. That must mean that you laughed to yourself in front of your computer screen because what you read was so funny right? Like LOL? Guess that's what all the veterans type huh? I truly didn't know that. But then I wouldn't know, I'm just a newbie. I'm also sorry that my words carry such implications to you. If this thread is any indication, it seems my words are always interpreted in a way that you object to (or why would we be arguing). This often happens when people argue. But it's true that everyone takes things differently, so I understand. We just seem to be at a communicative impasse here. Sorry to have annoyed you.
*edited to get the quotes right.
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
kaminari, you are welcome here, and we do appreciate and enjoy new enthusiastic posters. I hope you don't mind the suggestions from oldtimers explicating the ways in which you may have unwittingly rubbed some people the wrong way.
I have one suggestion to second, that you participate in at least twice as many thread started by others as you create new threads of your own. That's is a rough rule of thumb, but I think you'll find that almost all posters have a ratio much higher than 2 to 1.
I have a second suggestion to make, that when you make new threads eliciting opinions, that you rather quickly make your own opinion on that subject clear.
I'm less fond of the threads where everyone lists their own whatever, and there is very little interaction. Those are relatively dull, to my taste. I enjoy threads that include a good bit of give and take, but only if conducted with respect and without rancor. That's hard for new people to do (not speaking of you but other "newbies" who have been here seven years or less ) because they genuinely get angry, feel defensive, and so on. So we're always walking a line, trying to be respectful and friendly to each other, while still adamantly arguing against ideas we consider wrong, about subjects that touch us closely. Sometimes we fail. But I do believe Hatrack can often be one of the rare places where it's possible to discuss sensitive subjects without contempt or rancor. There are usually a few hotheads, but they are kept under control by the mods occasionally lopping of the hottest of the heads, which has a cathartic and calming effect on the rest.
Anyway, I've enjoyed your posts and topics here so far, and really hope you will stick around. We need fresh bloo... I mean, we like new posters. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kaminari: "*laughs*" I didn't know about that whole asterisk with the word in it thing. That must mean that you laughed to yourself in front of your computer screen because what you read was so funny right? Like LOL? Guess that's what all the veterans type huh? I truly didn't know that. But then I wouldn't know, I'm just a newbie.
Oh, everybody does it differently. I use asterisks to indicate stress, much the same way that I do italics. This annoys the living carp out of some people. I will typically set actions off by bracketing them with "::". For example, if I wanted to indicate to you that I just realized that I'd been frittering away my time online all night instead of doing the work that I'd intended to do, it might look something like this:
::checks time::
::realizes with horror that he's managed to waste a good four hours onine::
::hastily ends post and gets to work::
Just, you know, hypothetically.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haha, thanks Tatiana . I'll be puting your suggestions to work immediately. I had no idea about that ratio of posts in other people's forums thing . I just thought some people like to start em and some people like replying. It certainly wasn't my intention to dilute this forum. I actually thought things were going well until now. I am a newb here, and I definitely appreciate your patience and candor. I definitely am fresh blood, and in an argumentative sense, let's rumble!
I know this because I'm the one who introduced him to Hatrack. I can say with complete confidence that his purpose here wasn't to ambush anyone or "exert dictatorial control," but to learn more about the people on this forum and their beliefs. If this thread offended or annoyed anyone, it's my fault for not adequately explaining the culture of Hatrack to him, and I apologize.
I didn't think he was a troll. On the contrary, he seems well meaning, intelligent, and almost all of his sentences have both subject and verb .
When people don't follow the status quo, oftentimes it's because they're not aware of it (a side effect of jumping right into the fray, as someone mentioned). I'm not big on lecturing, so I offered my input in a somewhat sharp manner.
But it shouldn't be taken as a slam, or a character assault. It's pointed snark -- a high art form (I study at the feet of KoM and Primal Curve, among others).
He'll learn (quickly, I'll bet), and I don't think he or you have anything to apologize for.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wasn't asking for neutrality. Rather, the opposite, I wanted shameless coercive (insert your belief here) statements. ... So, in conclusion, neutral adjective? No, you're right, they're not neutral. If you had assumed those other viewpoints were included, then what were my "transparent (even before you stated them outright) motivations"?
Perhaps I can help. To me, the word "shameless" does not imply "free from the fear of criticism", as you defined it. It may mean that in some dictionary somewhere, but it comes across as, "you ought to be ashamed and yet you're not". That's how it's most often used.
Likewise, "coercive" does not imply that someone is trying to convince someone about their beliefs through debate or discussion. "Coercive" implies trying to force someone to do something - in this case, believe.
So to my mind, seeing you request "ads for shameless coercive religious affiliation" implied you wanted to see people just try to force you into believing in their religion, in a manner that they ought to be ashamed of but were brazenly doing anyway. Apparently this is not what you meant at all, but that's what that phrase implies. Which is why people who really take their faith seriously wouldn't take this wonderful opportunity to be made fun of.
People here do often discuss their beliefs - there are at least two threads going on right now - but not in an "advertise here" manner. They discuss. They don't advertise and try to coerce.
(FWIW, I don't think you're a troll either. I think you just didn't realize how your choice of words sounded, or why your thread didn't get the response you wanted. Stick around!)
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it shouldn't be taken as a slam, or a character assault. It's pointed snark -- a high art form (I study at the feet of KoM and Primal Curve, among others).
Clearly, I should start taking lessons. Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
JennaDean: You bring up an excellent point, definitions are very important. Otherwise we could argue all day!
Shame
Main Entry: 1shame Pronunciation: 'shAm Function: noun
1 a : a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety b : the susceptibility to such emotion <have you no shame?> 2 : a condition of humiliating disgrace or disrepute : IGNOMINY <the shame of being arrested> 3 a : something that brings censure or reproach; also : something to be regretted : PITY <it's a shame you can't go> b : a cause of feeling shame
So, I guess "shameless" means to be without the above definitions. In this case, I think it fits what I was trying to say.
Coerce
One entry found for coerce. Main Entry: co·erce Pronunciation: kO-'&rs Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): co·erced; co·erc·ing
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious -- W. R. Inge> 2 : to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing> 3 : to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance> synonym see FORCE - co·erc·ible /-'&r-s&-b&l/ adjective
So you were definitely right about the whole force part of the word coerce. I was definitely wrong to use that word. I apologize.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Are we arguing? I thought we were having a discussion.
*laughs* Well, so long as you want to split hairs with definitions...Here it is!
discuss One entry found for discuss. Main Entry: dis·cuss Pronunciation: di-'sk&s Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French discusser, Latin discussus, past participle of discutere to disperse, from dis- apart + quatere to shake -- more at DIS-, QUASH 1 obsolete : DISPEL 2 a : to investigate by reasoning or argument b : to present in detail for examination or consideration <discussed plans for the party> c : to talk about 3 obsolete : DECLARE - dis·cuss·able or dis·cuss·ible /-'sk&-s&-b&l/ adjective - dis·cuss·er noun synonyms DISCUSS, ARGUE, DEBATE mean to discourse about in order to reach conclusions or to convince. DISCUSS implies a sifting of possibilities especially by presenting considerations pro and con <discussed the need for a new highway>. ARGUE implies the offering of reasons or evidence in support of convictions already held <argued that the project would be too costly>. DEBATE suggests formal or public argument between opposing parties <debated the merits of the amendment>; it may also apply to deliberation with oneself <I'm debating whether I should go>.
posted
tedious One entry found for tedious. Main Entry: te·dious Pronunciation: 'tE-dE-&s, 'tE-j&s Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin taediosus, from Latin taedium : tiresome because of length or dullness : BORING <the thread became tedious when definitions were overused> - te·dious·ly adverb - te·dious·ness noun
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
<grins> Aww, I was just yankin' your chain, kam. Personally I thought this was an ok idea for a thread, if I wasn't stressed out I'd try to think of a funny ad myself. Some people (not me) are a little thin-skinned about mocking belief structures, and it is in the user agreements. But your real misconception is this:
quote:Originally posted by kaminari: Yeah, I would appreciate if there weren't comments about other posts because I just wanted a list of pitches. It would also be interesting to see people exert a certain self control with regards to replying.
*shakes head sadly* Sorry, but it's really impossible to control threads, even ones you start. Some rare threads stay pretty structured, and go on forever, like Begging the question. Most end up like Noemon's 4:21 summary.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
There are people here of all types, with all degrees of civility, direct friendliness, and so forth. Most of them are pretty great people, but with some you need to get to know them before that's apparent.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
. I just thought some people like to start em and some people like replying. It certainly wasn't my intention to dilute this forum. I actually thought things were going well until now. I am a newb here, and I definitely appreciate your patience and candor. I definitely am fresh blood, and in an argumentative sense, let's rumble! ![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
