Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A&A mods acting contrary to their own charter.

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    [...] never once responded in kind to any provaction to the multiple insults that were made against me, which incidentally had on occasions been thanked by the mod Robindch.
    There is a reporting mechanism in place for you to complain about posts which you believe contravene the forum charter. Checking back through my logs, I'm afraid I can't find any record of you reporting any post in this, or in any other, thread.

    If you had found the accusations of trolling offensive in private, rather than in public here, I'm sure you would have reported the posts. You didn't.

    As above, if you don't like the way that A+A is being moderated, then please feel free to post in some forum that's more to your liking.


  • Options
    #33
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    The point being made was clear, the poster merely point how convenient it was of having a American, highly educated, liberated woman arguing in favour of Islam, rather than someone from a typical Muslim country such a Pakistan, where liberation, education and progressiveness could prove difficult in a country where the women have a 16% literacy rate, half that of men and amongst the lowest in the world, with a school drop out rate of 50%, as well as women having considerably lower access to property and employment compared to men. Ironically the woman arguing against the motion was from a typical Muslim country.
    That's all very nice but none of it explains the reference to physical appearance does it?

    Oddly for an avowed atheist your irrational defense of the indefensible, which blatant racism surely is, and tunnel-vision is cult-like.


  • Options
    #34
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    robindch wrote: »
    There is a reporting mechanism in place for you to complain about posts which you believe contravene the forum charter. Checking back through my logs, I'm afraid I can't find any record of you reporting any post in this, or in any other, thread.

    If you had found the accusations of trolling offensive in private, rather than in public here, I'm sure you would have reported the posts. You didn't.

    As above, if you don't like the way that A+A is being moderated, then please feel free to post in some forum that's more to your liking.

    I actually would have reported the repetitive trolling accusations had you not thanked the accusations. Kind of redundant to report posts which you thank don't you think.

    I could give you a list as long as my arm with the unactioned personal insults that I've received in A&A up to and including the most vile insult of all Holocaust denier.


  • Options
    #35
    Joshua Jones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭Joshua Jones


    I think that thread shows the pitfalls of those who claim to lack belief trying to deify a flesh and blood human being.


  • Options
    #36
    Jumpy
    Registered Users Posts: 7,606 ✭✭✭Jumpy


    Jesus BB

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rX0EzgK9u0


    *whispers* It doesnt matter. Its the internet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    That's all very nice but none of it explains the reference to physical appearance does it?

    Oddly for an avowed atheist your irrational defense of the indefensible, which blatant racism surely is, and tunnel-vision is cult-like.

    I have no idea why there was any reference to physical appearance, you'd have to ask the person who wrote it about that. However, he offered an analogy of Megan Fox being introduced to aliens as a representative of the average female on Earth. Now I haven't gone back to watch the debate, but from recollection Zeba Khan is a very beautiful woman, certainly above average which by very definition means she doesn't represent the average woman of Pakistan or ANY other country.

    Like I said, I don't know why this was brought up and frankly I couldn't give a toss, the only reason it's important in THIS discussion is because YOU accuse that person of calling every woman in Pakistan ugly, which he very clearly didn't do.

    If you feel it was racism then I assume you reported the post? I have to say if I thought a post was racist I'd report it, as I'm sure most people would.

    Maybe the mods could confirm how many times that post was reported?


  • Options
    #38
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    all faiths or beliefs are welcome in any discussion

    They are.
    Also welcome are any questions/comments relating to religion, morality, ethics or the origins of life in general.

    Also allowed.

    I have been using/reading the A&A forum for years. It is one of my favourite forums on this site.
    The discussions are always lively, fun, informative and well thought out.

    The Mods, (as I've said elsewhere) are amongst the best on this site.
    They do a perfect job of moderation and I for one am well pleased with how they run the forum.

    Please note, a Mod can close a thread in any forum on this site if they judge it the correct course of action.

    Also, this is a privately owned site, as such, there is no freedom of speech.


  • Options
    #39
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,143 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Circular thread? :confused:
    Why is the Creationist thread still open then, if circular threads are supposedly closed?
    I'll tell you what i think. It's because of pure amusement for the Athiests and gives some of the regulars (Sarky and co.) a chance to post abusive and demeaning comments to J.C. consistently without a hint of moderation.
    Not an accurate portrayal. I've petitioned many times to have that thread shut down for good. And one time when it did, JC had a total flip-out session. For a guy who normally posts exclusively in that thread, it only took him about half an hour to get banned from both Christianity and A&A. It's open to keep the peace.


  • Options
    #40
    Mr.Biscuits
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Mr.Biscuits


    Overheal wrote: »
    And one time when it did, JC had a total flip-out session. For a guy who normally posts exclusively in that thread, it only took him about half an hour to get banned from both Christianity and A&A.

    Well if J.C himself is posting on Boards.ie then surely that in itself is evidence enough of creation.


  • Options
    #41
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Overheal wrote: »
    Not an accurate portrayal. I've petitioned many times to have that thread shut down for good. And one time when it did, JC had a total flip-out session. For a guy who normally posts exclusively in that thread, it only took him about half an hour to get banned from both Christianity and A&A. It's open to keep the peace.

    I think everyone at some stage or another has asked for that thing to be closed. I myself keep as far aware from it as possible, only venturing in in moments of extreme boredom, not to mention the fact that I keep the likes of J.C and deadone on ignore.

    So no, keeping it open is most definitely not to amuse us atheists. Sorry to disappoint ed2hands.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Circular thread? :confused:
    Why is the Creationist thread still open then, if circular threads are supposedly closed?
    I'll tell you what i think. It's because of pure amusement for the Athiests and gives some of the regulars (Sarky and co.) a chance to post abusive and demeaning comments to J.C. consistently without a hint of moderation.

    So i don't buy that given reason tbh.

    This one thread being closed on the grounds that it was going no where isn't some kind of anomaly. It's happened with plenty of threads before on that forum over the years. It also happens in other forums on the site all the time, even in AH it's a regular enough occurrence. If anything threads like the one in question are allowed to drag on far longer in A&A compared to a lot of other forums.

    The creationism thread is something of an anomaly however. J.C really only has one topic of discussion he is interested in, that's creationism/ID. It makes sense to have a dedicated 'Creationism' thread where he and other ID proponents can post and people can respond. (Although why they always insist on posting in A&A rather than Palaeontology or Biology or somewhere still puzzles me). Without the ID vs Evolution thread in question JC and others tend to have a habit of trying to discuss the topic in threads about the Irish school system or other such unrelated things. It also sometimes results in numerous threads where ID/evolution is being discussed running at the same time. So I'd imagine it's handy to be able to move that sort of off topic stuff into the one thread, rather than having to delete it all (which would no doubt eventually result in a feedback thread entitled 'Censorship in the A&A Forum111!!elevetny!'

    The Christianity forum had a similar solution, in fact I think the A&A thread is based in part on that solution.

    I'm sure J.C will be touched to hear of your concern for him. But trust me, he's a big boy and he gives as good as he gets.


  • Options
    #43
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I actually would have reported the repetitive trolling accusations had you not thanked the accusations. Kind of redundant to report posts which you thank don't you think.
    I thanked one post because you were trolling according to my understanding of the term. I note that a senior mod agreed with the accusation. If many posters find your style consistent with trolling, then I think it might be worth your while considering whether they have a point.

    Your subsequent posts have certainly done nothing to help, particularly the two concerning your (non-existent) right to free speech. In fact, for your information, the thread was left open so you could be facilitated and the feedback forum here be spared a thread on the actions of a "Fascist type mod full of self-importance", as you unhelpfully noted in this post. But the thread was closed down, as other threads are, because it was going in circles. And here, as expected, you're complaining.

    You shouldn't misconstrue the moderators' desire to maintain a high level of debate with personal disagreement for whatever point of view you happen to be putting forward.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I could give you a list as long as my arm with the unactioned personal insults that I've received in A&A up to and including the most vile insult of all Holocaust denier.
    If you found some post "vile", then you should have reported it as soon as you became aware of it, and action would have been taken, at the moderators' discretion, up to and including a forum ban for the offending party.

    That's what the reporting mechanism is for and there's no point in you complaining long after the fact about others not actioning forum-rule-violating posts, if you weren't prepared to action them yourself.


  • Options
    #44
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Anyone suggesting that threads on the A&A forum get closed because people disagree with certain userbase, needs to read more threads.

    Some threads with opposing views continue indefinitely with relatively polite, reasoned discussion. Others - I'm thinking of the Creationism thread - are a blight on humanity but prove a useful box to keep all such nonsense. And some are simply destined to have a short shelf-life, as the work/profit ratio just doesn't warrant keeping them open.


  • Options
    #45
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    So no, keeping it open is most definitely not to amuse us atheists. Sorry to disappoint ed2hands.

    Ok. It would be more relief than disappointment.


  • Options
    #46
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    strobe wrote: »
    (Although why they always insist on posting in A&A rather than Palaeontology

    Woah now, let's not say things we'll all regret! :eek:


  • Options
    #47
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Penn wrote: »
    I see your point, and agree to an extent, but I disagree this is what happened in this case. "Hitchens views on torture >>>> Hitchens being waterboarded >>>> Interpretations and analysis of Hitchens' Vanity Fair column >>> Whether he objected to torture on moral or legal grounds" - There was no progression in these points because they are the same point. These four points have the same "smaller details". Hitchen's article about being waterboarded where he gives his views on torture. These points are intrinsically connected to each other. There was no progression between these points because these points all boil down to one point.
    I'm sorry, but this is completely false. There are multiple nuances between just these points alone and almost unlimited scope for conversation/opinions to branch out from here. The fact that these different points can meet in the centre of a single Venn Diagram is surely a positive sign that the discussion is staying true to topic and is progressing organically...?
    Penn wrote: »
    Difference is, discussions on things like the origin of life can progressively move forward as it has many points which can be discussed.
    Penn, by that very same token the issue of torture equally has many points that can be discussed. Numerous titles as well as academic studies have been published on the topic. It is a primary topic of discussion for Human Rights groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and The Red Cross.
    Penn wrote: »
    There are many things about Hitchens which could be discussed, but the discussion kept focusing on torture, and since there were no signs this issue was going to be resolved or discussed politely, there was no point in continuing it.

    1. I would like to point out again that there is no actual requirement for the two opposing sides in a debate to resolve anything. By definition this would be dialectic, I believe; not debate.

    2. You say there was no sign it was going to be resolved, well here is an example of where a point was resolved. I had previously and wrongly IMO been suggesting that Hitchens was indirectly responsible for the War Crimes and atrocities during the Iraq, that he "encouraged" these crimes through his constant warmongering that sold the war to the American public. However, I climbed-down from that position to refine "encourages" to "accepts" and submitted a supporting quote from a prominent scholar for good measure. This is a form of resolution is it not?

    3. I completely reject that there was no sign it was going to be discussed politely as I had no intention of doing otherwise. By way of example I offer our most recent exchange:

    I gave my "impression" on a Hitchens column     / You asked me to explain my conclusions / I obliged, dedicating no little time, effort and consideration to you request in the interest of progression, politeness and discussion. I picked out 12 points he made in his column and offered comments on all, accompanying links to reputable sources for background reading and also multiple questions directed to you based on Hitchens' quotes / You disagreed with my conclusions and posed some questions (and I thanked your post) / I addressed your questions, posed some of my own to you and the discussion progressed down (interesting IMHO) philosophical avenues. / Then the thread was closed.

    By any reasonable account this exchange was certainly "polite"
    Penn wrote: »
    The issue here is did the mods act contrary to their own charter, and the answer is no. Things got heated and were only likely to get more heated, so they closed the thread, which is a perfectly acceptable modding procedure.
    Penn, to be fair things didn't get "heated". It takes two to tango and I was more than prepared to shrug off sporadic ad-hominen attacks as they have been par for the course for me personally in A&A on every thread I've ever posted in there. After my very first post in this thread I was insulted for having a contrary view to the "regulars". That is all of course provided that the attacks aren't so repetitive that they aren't to the total detriment of the thread (as in a genuine response from me to to receive "keep fishing troll x 10).


  • Options
    #48
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    I have no idea why there was any reference to physical appearance...
    ...Yet you know it wasn't racism???

    Despite it very clearly and directly being racist and you've had it explained to you why it is racist???


  • Options
    #49
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    all faiths or beliefs are welcome in any discussion
    They are.
    Also welcome are any questions/comments relating to religion, morality, ethics or the origins of life in general.
    Also allowed.

    On the contrary,
    ^^^ BB, I don't believe there's any chance that your viewpoint will coincide with anybody else's, so can you please move on from Hitchens' views on the Iraq war? Thanks.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76268673&postcount=171
    Beruthiel wrote: »
    I have been using/reading the A&A forum for years. It is one of my favourite forums on this site.
    The discussions are always lively, fun, informative and well thought out.
    I would expect it is if your coming from the right side of the fence. If you don't mind may I ask would I be correct in speculating that you, yourself are atheist/agnostic and think lowly of religion?
    Beruthiel wrote: »
    The Mods, (as I've said elsewhere) are amongst the best on this site.
    They do a perfect job of moderation and I for one am well pleased with how they run the forum.
    Hand-on-heart I agree with you and I've also said so elsewhere. The charter is as near-perfect and progressive as can be expected IMO. However, complacency can creep in and mistakes can happen.

    • I believe it was a mistake to forbid discussion of a topic in one thread and at the same time allow another to be opened entitled "Bitch about Hitchens here" to be used as a trashcan for unwelcomed/forbidden opinions. Especially as the subject of the opinions was such a polarising figure.
    • I believe it was a mistake to allow a single user to go unchecked making troll calls near every second post.
    • I believe it was an mistake for a mod of a forum to thank posts of these troll-calls.
    • I believe it was a mistake for a mod to ban single user from expressing a particular viewpoint (see above), when the viewpoint is on-topic.
    • I believe it was a mistake to offer the "regulars" of the forum the power to self-moderate by giving them and them alone the decision over whether to keep a thread opened or closed.
    • I believe it was a mistake to close the thread on such spurious grounds.
    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Please note, a Mod can close a thread in any forum on this site if they judge it the correct course of action.
    I do appreciate this. In fact, it's essential. Though I do think that they should have good reason and be able to explain this good reason.
    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Also, this is a privately owned site, as such, there is no freedom of speech.
    I do appreciate this too. I never brought it up Freedom of Speech as boards policy. It was a strawman by Robin tbh.


  • Options
    #50
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Though I do think that they should have good reason and be able to explain this good reason.
    You may have missed the post which explained the reasons that thread was closed. That post again is here:
    robindch wrote: »
    robindch wrote: »
    This thread has been going in circles for something like two weeks. This thread will be closed later today unless (a) a few worthwhile posts appear; (b) some improbable synthesis arises from these opposing theses; or (c) a significant number of regular posters ask for it to be kept open.
    If you look at the posts that were made following that warning, (a) only one worthwhile post had appeared, (b) no synthesis had appeared and instead from your side, you'd posted two whiny posts and (c) only one poster had implied that it should be kept open (and even at that, only for whiny comments to be made).
    I trust this response clarifies the issue for you.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I never brought it up Freedom of Speech as boards policy. It was a strawman by Robin tbh.
    If you recall, you made two whiny posts concerning freedom of speech just before the thread was closed.

    As above, it's inappropriate to misconstrue the moderators' desire to maintain a high level of debate in keeping with the forum's general standard, as a wish to silence whatever point of view you happen to be putting forward.


  • Options
    #51
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ...Yet you know it wasn't racism???

    Despite it very clearly and directly being racist and you've had it explained to you why it is racist???
    OMG, there was a mention of physical appearance. RACISM!!!

    I think Halle Berry is more attractive than the average women, and I include women from Pakistan.... OMG RACISM!!!!

    Just another classic case of one person saying one thing, and BrownBomber saying they said something else, it's as unsurprising as it is tiresome.

    You never did tell us if you reported the post?

    Feel free to PM the original poster to come and defend himself since you're accusing him of racism. Other than that, I'm out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,143 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I believe it was a mistake to forbid discussion of a topic in one thread and at the same time allow another to be opened entitled "Bitch about Hitchens here" to be used as a trashcan for unwelcomed/forbidden opinions. Especially as the subject of the opinions was such a polarising figure.
    I believe it was a mistake to allow a single user to go unchecked making troll calls near every second post.
    I believe it was an mistake for a mod of a forum to thank posts of these troll-calls.
    I believe it was a mistake for a mod to ban single user from expressing a particular viewpoint (see above), when the viewpoint is on-topic.
    I believe it was a mistake to offer the "regulars" of the forum the power to self-moderate by giving them and them alone the decision over whether to keep a thread opened or closed.
    I believe it was a mistake to close the thread on such spurious grounds.
    While I think this molehill has turned into popcorn mountain, these seem like pretty valid and widely applicable points.


  • Options
    #53
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Overheal wrote: »
    these seem like pretty valid and widely applicable points.
    You may have missed the two posts which refuted these points.

    Those two posts again are here and here.

    Anyhow, I've addressed all of bb's points and as (s)he hasn't responded to me since yesterday's most recent and less-than-helpful post, I'm going to park this conversation here unless something new turns up.


  • Options
    #54
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,143 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    robindch wrote: »
    You may have missed the two posts which refuted these points.

    Those two posts again are here and here.
    That leaves a few points up in the air still. It explains why the thread was locked and explains why you thanked some posts that you did but not the points I have just quoted.
    I believe it was a mistake to forbid discussion of a topic in one thread and at the same time allow another to be opened entitled "Bitch about Hitchens here" to be used as a trashcan for unwelcomed/forbidden opinions. Especially as the subject of the opinions was such a polarising figure.
    I believe it was a mistake to allow a single user to go unchecked making troll calls near every second post.
    I believe it was an mistake for a mod of a forum to thank posts of these troll-calls.
    I believe it was a mistake for a mod to ban single user from expressing a particular viewpoint (see above), when the viewpoint is on-topic.
    Now I can't deeply comment on all this 'Forbidden Topic/Viewpoint' stuff as I'm not wanting to get that involved in such an isolated incident. In general, based on what I'm reading, I don't think mods should really be either allowing posters to call eachothers trolls, and thank them whatsmore, unless you would like to take some form of action or warning or banning or something. Troll calls just bring down the level of any discussion.

    I also don't think there should be too many cases where there are Pro and Anti threads. You see that kind of garbage in AH when people are having a moan about some topic they don't like the direction of so they go to start their own thread, barring any blackjack and hookers. It's basically the same sort of thinking as hey let's just have a Pro Creation thread and a Pro Evolution thread, rather than one thread where they can both sides can bathe in their mutual disagreement of one another.


  • Options
    #55
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,728 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Overheal wrote: »
    I also don't think there should be too many cases where there are Pro and Anti threads. You see that kind of garbage in AH when people are having a moan about some topic they don't like the direction of so they go to start their own thread, barring any blackjack and hookers. It's basically the same sort of thinking as hey let's just have a Pro Creation thread and a Pro Evolution thread, rather than one thread where they can both sides can bathe in their mutual disagreement of one another.

    Obviously, I can't speak for the mods, but from my point of view, I would say that the two threads in question weren't a Pro thread and an Anti thread.

    Hitchens had just died, and the first thread was a condolence thread of sorts As was the Hitchens Quotes thread, because it was in memory of Hitchens. And as with most other condolence threads throughout Boards, posts talking about the recently deceased generally aren't welcome.

    Now, maybe it was a mistake to call the 'Anti-Hitchens' thread "Bitch about Hitchens", but it wasn't the mods who named the thread. But the so-called Anti thread was, in essence, a thread for people to discuss the pro and anti sides of the debate.

    That's just the way I see it anyway.


  • Options
    #56
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    And then you get the likes of this garbage thread. :

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056511392

    Which is perfectly acceptable of course.
    Bet this one won't be closed too quickly.

    Innane self-gratifying trollish back-slapping sometimes trumps intelligent dialogue/criticism it seems. :)


  • Options
    #57
    recylingbin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,001 ✭✭✭recylingbin


    Where is this forum? It sounds like MASSIVE craic.


  • Options
    #58
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    ed2hands wrote: »
    And then you get the likes of this garbage thread. :

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056511392

    Which is perfectly acceptable of course.
    Bet this one won't be closed too quickly.

    Innane self-gratifying trollish back-slapping sometimes trumps intelligent dialogue/criticism it seems. :)

    I think your obsession with that forum is getting a tad concerning...


  • Options
    #59
    brimal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭brimal


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I think your obsession with that forum is getting a tad concerning...

    It's not the forum he's obsessed with..


  • Options
    #60
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    robindch wrote: »
    No, it was closed because the thread had been going in circles for something like two weeks.
    A - You haven't show any evidence at all of the thread going in circles.
    B - The two week time period was made redundant by a watershed Mod Note from your co-mod Dades, which you thanked! Which specifically stated that the thread in question was 1) open..."to all Hitchens-related business" 2) was an..."outlet open to all" and 3) we were given the instruction to "knock yourselves out"

    This came only 3 days before your warning.
    robindch wrote: »
    This was pointed out in this post:
    Which, from my perspective and under the circumstances was a completely unreasonable demand.

    Perhaps you could give an example post of what I could have posted that you would have considered "worthwhile" or creating a synthesis in a timespan of less than a day?
    robindch wrote: »
    If you look at the posts that were made following that warning, (a) only one worthwhile post had appeared,
    This is very unreasonable. I make it 4, which considering the thread was essentially only open kept open for office hours, far less than a day, is decent IMO.
    1
    2
    3 Clarification requested.
    4 Clarification attempted given.
    robindch wrote: »
    (b) no synthesis had appeared and instead from your side, you'd posted two whiny posts and
    The "whiney" posts were the result of being backed into a corner but were genuinely felt. It is incredibly ironic that a thread on Hitchens, the ultimate contrarian, who was a true defender of free speech is being shut down and censored due to non-synthesis
    robindch wrote: »
    (c) only one poster had implied that it should be kept open (and even at that, only for whiny comments to be made).
    C is irrelevant IMO as I don't think a sub-group of users should get to decide the rules while others are automatically disenfranchised,
    robindch wrote: »
    (In these circumstances, it's quite reasonable to close the thread in order to maintain forum standards. The A+A forum already has one thread going in pointless circles -- on creationism -- and I don't believe it's worth having another.
    To be fair in the very same thread you posted these comments:
    Still, it's much more fun than listening to a string of desperately dull preachers saying that "religion is true", eh?

    BTW, what is the collective noun for preachers? A yawn, a pomp?

    Suggestions, please!

    and...
    Perhaps worth a thread of its own?

    A stew of fundamentalists
    A suspicion of priests
    A fulmination of baptists
    A chill of presbyterians
    A writ of scientologists

    Any more?
    Standards are relative.
    robindch wrote: »
    If, as seems likely, you don't like the atmosphere in A+A, then I politely request that you don't waste your time posting there.
    That does raise a broader question. Am I essentially now (unofficailly) barred from discussing prominent atheists in A&A? Am I free to open a new thread right now on the morality of Christopher Hitchens? Don't worry though, I won't. That in fairness would actually be taking the piss.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Penn wrote: »
    Hitchens had just died,
    To be fair my first post came four days after he had died and in Hitchens we are talking about someone who went on national TV the morning after Baptist Minister Jerry Falwell had died and said ""If you gave falwell an enema he could be burried in a matchbox."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq939cZv2Uc
    Penn wrote: »
    Now, maybe it was a mistake to call the 'Anti-Hitchens' thread "Bitch about Hitchens", but it wasn't the mods who named the thread.
    Yes, but the could have easily changed it with the stroke of a pen as I did in fact request of Dades. He never responded unfortunately...
    Actually, I have a suggestion for you that you could make as an act of good faith. Re-naming the "Bitch about Hitchens thread here" to something like "Hitchens' legacy frankly discussed here".

    Surely it's more appropriate and without the sexist connatations?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76241008&postcount=42


Advertisement