Why is atheist Ireland/Michael Nugent given free advertising space on boards.ie?

Morag

Brown Bomber did you PM the mods of the A&A forum about this?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you prepared to stand by this statement? What ratio of shilling:normal use is acceptable to you personally? I would estimate that Nugent's posts which don't involve promotion/defense of Atheist Ireland and their positions, campaigns, events etc to be less than 10%.

Working backwards from oldest to newest there begins with 14 (14)posts in ”would you join Atheist Ireland”

A single comment unrelated to Atheist Ireland and would be classified as regular user comment (1) is followed by 7 (21)posts on ”Atheist Ireland out to remove the Angelus”.

Next comes a single ”regular user” comment (2). Followed by 12 (33) more posts in ”would you join Atheist Ireland”, another 4 (37) posts on ”Atheist Ireland out to remove the Angelus” then a single post promoting AI in a thread called ”what makes a cult different from a religion?” (38), 4 (42) more in ”would you join Atheist Ireland”, another (43) in ”Atheist Ireland out to remove the Angelus” and then 7 (49) more in ” you join Atheist Ireland” and then another 4 (53) in ”Atheist Ireland out to remove the Angelus”

A new thread (54) is started by Nugent - ”Teach don't Preach: New Secular Education Website Launched”. This is an Atheist Ireland project. Then 2 more posts on ”would you join Atheist Ireland” (56), Next comes an Atheist Ireland campaign launched through boards entitled ”Be Honest to Godless in the Irish Census - New campaign launched” with Nugent as the OP (57).

2 (59) posts follow and after that another thread (60) is opened, again with Nugent as the OP on the same campaign. This is called ”Be Honest about Religion in the Irish Census - Campaign Updated” This is followed by another 2 (62) posts in ”would you join Atheist Ireland”

The next thread (63) courtesy of Nugent is ”Six Questions for Secular Voters ” - yet another Atheist Ireland campaign! There are two posts (65) from Michael in this thread when there arrives a third (3) ”regular user” comment, another post in (66) ”Six Questions for Secular Voters” and another (67) in ”Athiest Ireland out to remove the Angelus”.

Michael then makes five (8) posts as a ”regular user” and the proceeds to issue an Atheist Ireland press release (68) requesting volunteers to lobby for Atheist Ireland members involved in elections in a thread opened by Nugent called ”Canvass for Ivana Bacik and Ruairi Quinn, Saturday 19 Feb”. There are then 5 (73) posts made by Nugent in this thread followed by another post (74) in ”would you join Atheist Ireland” and then two (10) ”regular user” comments.

Then comes another post (75) in ”Canvass for Ivana Bacik and Ruairi Quinn, Saturday 19 Feb” After this comes 2 (77) posts about an debate between atheist Ireland and a Muslim, then a post each in ”atheist Ireland out to remove the Angelus” and ”would you consider joining Atheist Ireland”.

Next comes the promotion by Nugent of a conference Atheist Ireland is co-hosting in a thread ” called ”Attend the World Atheist Convention in Dublin, June 3-5 2011 ” included in the OP is a link to buy tickets (78). This is followed by 3 (81) more posts in the thread ”Be Honest To Godless – New Campaign Launched”.

In this cross-section of 101 posts, which I would be highly confident is representative ,there is as I've predicted a less than 10% non-atheist Ireland promotional posts. Any idea that Nugent is contributing genuinely and positively in other ways is a myth.

Brown Bomber

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Boards doesn't work like that.

Do you think the same rules should be applied in After Hours as in Personal Issues as in Atheism?

Moderators need to be able to pilot their own ships.

I believe that advertising/promotion rules should be applied without prejudice. Don't you?

I can accept a bending of the rules for users on good terms with the site (for their actual contributions to the site; not who they are and what they represent. If they were maybe to advertise for sponsorship in a marathon or a gig or something like that or even to sign a petitition to help save a local hospital or something. This is different though, 90% of his posts are political lobbying and self-promotion. This is his only significant contribution and I am not aware of another poster/interest group that is given such a privelidge. Are you...?

Doctor DooM

Wibbs wrote: »

Dont get me wrong DD, I'm well down with the local mods are at the sharp end take on things, but what happens if local decisions appear to break the terms of use for all of us on the site?

4.3 Representing a company or other entity

If you are using boards.ie as a representative of a company or other entity (including, but not limited to Charity or Volunteer organisations, Student’s Unions, Trade Unions, Academic Institutions, Chambers of Commerce, Departments of Government) you represent that you have the authority to enter into these Terms of Use on behalf of that company or entity, and agree that the terms “you” and “your” in this agreement refers to your company or other entity. You may not post on boards.ie other than in your individual capacity unless you have permission from Boards.ie Limited. Contact reps@boards.ie for more details.

Like the thunderdome does, for example? "Don't be a dick" doesn't apply there, with certain provisios.

Common sense should rule.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe that advertising/promotion rules should be applied without prejudice. Don't you?

I can accept a bending of the rules for users on good terms with the site (for their actual contributions to the site;

So you want the rules applied without predujice except for when you'd like them applied with predujice?

And no, if the same rules were applied sitewise, to the detriment of the posters- which in this case, I believe it would- I think exceptions should be made.

Brown Bomber

Doctor DooM wrote: »

So you want the rules applied without predujice except for when you'd like them applied with predujice?

I am clearly and specifically talking about the rules regarding promotion/advertising.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

And no, if the same rules were applied sitewise, to the detriment of the posters- which in this case, I believe it would- I think exceptions should be made.

What detriment would that be exactly? I've just demonstrated that less than 10% of his posts are non-promotional efforts.

Do these 10 posts out of a 100 entitle him to 90 posts of shameless self-promotion? If so, why?

And if possible could you answer this please?

I am not aware of another poster/interest group that is given such a privelidge. Are you...?

Penn

Again, BB, discretion of the moderator. The mods of the forum are clearly well aware of Michael Nugent's posts, and allow then because they are more beneficial to the forum than any negative aspects of the posts. Things are not black and white, judgement calls always have to be made as a moderator. I don't mod CVPL the same way I mod Podcasts, because they're not the same. The site wide rules are in effect, but the forum mods have to be able to and should be able to let one or two things by occasionally if the benefits outweigh the negatives. Surveys are occasionally posted on the Games forum even though they're not technically supposed to be. People advertise their own podcasts on forums other than the Podcast forum even though that's advertising. People are constantly notifying others of events they're helping to organise in certain forums.

It is not a black and white issue. The advertising rules cover most of the bases, but sometimes, advertisements are beneficial to the forum and its regular posters. That's the mods call to make.

It would be a sad day if mods were so restricted by rules that they had to act against their own judgement and what they felt was beneficial to the forum they were entrusted to help grow. The mods currently have a huge support network of co-mods, other mods, Cmods and Admin who they can get advice from if they felt what they alerts allowing was outside of the rules, but beneficial and worth making an exception for.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe that advertising/promotion rules should be applied without prejudice. Don't you?

That's a loaded question and you know it. Advertising/Promotion rules should be applied without prejudice to those whose sole purpose on the site is advertising or promotion. If the poster is also engaging in other discussions and their presence and the information they are providing are beneficial to the forum, any such advertising is within reason and the vast majority of forum users have no issue with it, then exceptions can be made at the moderators' discretion.

Doctor DooM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am clearly and specifically talking about the rules regarding promotion/advertising.

As was I.

I'll let the comedy charity lads know that can't promote that anywhere next year so, to make sure your rules are enforced. Bigger picture.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What detriment would that be exactly? I've just demonstrated that less than 10% of his posts are non-promotional efforts.

They provoke discussion from the regular posters. I'm not bothered to go examining all his previous posts, sorry, I'm just an actual regular user of the forum and I enjoy his contribution. Bigger picture than what he gets out of it, do the posters get something out of it?

I note every regular user except for you seems to be saying that.

Do these 10 posts out of a 100 entitle him to 90 posts of shameless self-promotion? If so, why?

And if possible could you answer this please?

It's not for you or me to decide: if the mods decide it enhances the forum- which I believe they do- then IMO he should stay. Bigger picture.

As pointed out to you, yes, in one forum I mod there are people exclusively posting about tournaments they are running, all over Europe.

If they do something I am not comfy with, I stop them (and have done).

It would be the end of a busy forum to stop this from happening.

I don't care if your focus is just political- that's goal shifting. It matters to more things than your own hobby horse. Bigger picture.

Wibbs

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Like the thunderdome does, for example? "Don't be a dick" doesn't apply there, with certain provisios.

Oh certainly, however in this case the rule doesn't apply in A&A but apparently does apply in Buddhism and applies to a member who doesn't seem to be a rep of what he/she was promoting.

I'll let the comedy charity lads know that can't promote that anywhere next year so, to make sure your rules are enforced. Bigger picture.

Ah C'mon DD that's apples and oranges. Atheist Ireland and the like aint charities raising money for sick kids or whatever with the backing of the folks in the office. Bit of a diff.

Penn wrote:

Surveys are occasionally posted on the Games forum even though they're not technically supposed to be. People advertise their own podcasts on forums other than the Podcast forum even though that's advertising. People are constantly notifying others of events they're helping to organise in certain forums.

Sure P, but how many of them have signed up as a representative of their respective organisations and that's all they create threads about?

The reason why I'm personally interested in this is because in the Watches & Timepieces forum from time to time(no pun ) we have had a few people representing brands and watchmakers etc and I or my comod warned and sent them to hello&boards.ie to get official accounts(that's another story..) or just banned them outright. Now we would well argue that having these guys and their expertise on board would be advantageous to the forum and the community. Chances are they would have added to the place and we would have left them well alone to see how it went. However we applied the "no advertising/representing" rule which I thought was nearly as set in stone as don't be a dick. Certainly more people are sitebanned on a weekly basis than for dickery

All but one of those guys started off like the example in A&A where they replied to other members asking about their brand, or asking about watchmaking advice and were giving good and free advice. Until we called a halt of course. So then I see this where a representative/spokesperson for an entity of interest to the locals is given completely free reign to promote their organisation, I'm sure you can understand my "eh wut"? If one of those guys I mentioned read this thread or read the A&A forum and spotted this they might have questions. I could understand it too.

I'd love to have various reps of different women's groups in tLL inc various women's political lobby groups which is what AI is, which would also add to the place but as it stands the chances are bloody high that if they signed up the way the chap in A&A did we'd nuke them in a heartbeat for self promotion and soapboxing and I'd put good money down that if they went to DRP about it they'd get short shrift and our ban would be upheld.

Just to make it clear re for the chap/org in question I like em, more power to their elbow, they're doing good work in a few areas. I've certainly ZERO issue with them, just would like some clarity about how the rest of us deal with similar should it arise again. *EDIT* maybe this is more a Dav thing to be fair.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

Again, BB, discretion of the moderator.

Is a feckless term without supporting justification.

Penn wrote: »

The mods of the forum are clearly well aware of Michael Nugent's posts, and allow then because they are more beneficial to the forum than any negative aspects of the posts.

That doesn't qualify as a reason. How on earth is 10 "regular user" posts for every 90 lobbyist posts a net positive???

Penn wrote: »

Things are not black and white, judgement calls always have to be made as a moderator. I don't mod CVPL the same way I mod Podcasts, because they're not the same. The site wide rules are in effect, but the forum mods have to be able to and should be able to let one or two things by occasionally if the benefits outweigh the negatives.

This hasn't been shown to be the case. And besides it's hardly "one or two things". Every single thread started by Nugent is self-promotion along with the vast majority of his posts, as I've demonstrated.

Penn wrote: »

Surveys are occasionally posted on the Games forum even though they're not technically supposed to be. People advertise their own podcasts on forums other than the Podcast forum even though that's advertising. People are constantly notifying others of events they're helping to organise in certain forums.

Are you seriously trying to equate a (with respect) a billy-no-mates, homemade podcast of insignificance with a lobby group, who count amongst their members the deputy leader of the Seanad and count amongst it's employees a former Westminister lobbyist who str aggressively and repeatedly pushing their agenda in what is supposed to be a discussion forum?

Penn wrote: »

It is not a black and white issue. The advertising rules cover most of the bases, but sometimes, advertisements are beneficial to the forum and its regular posters. That's the mods call to make.

Can someone clarify this?

Are mods empowered to ignore the site rules?

Penn wrote: »

It would be a sad day if mods were so restricted by rules that they had to act against their own judgement and what they felt was beneficial to the forum they were entrusted to help grow..

No it wouldn't. That's like saying it'd be sad the day a policeman felt so restricted by that rules he had to arrest the man who raped the girl with the short skirt (even though she was asking for it.)

The rules are there for everyones benefit.

Penn wrote: »

That's a loaded question and you know it. Advertising/Promotion rules should be applied without prejudice to those whose sole purpose on the site is advertising or promotion.

So you are also saying that 90% of contributions that are promotional is acceptable?

(but just for Michael Nugent, because he is special)

Penn wrote: »

If the poster is also engaging in other discussions and their presence and the information they are providing are beneficial to the forum, any such advertising is within reason and the vast majority of forum users have no issue with it, then exceptions can be made at the moderators' discretion.

Can someone clarify this for me?

That advertising is permitted on boards.ie if they also post here and there (less than 10&) on something else? This seems ridiculous to me.

Adyx

Lelantos wrote: »

Unless the OP is a bible thumper & is appalled that boards supports the dark lord

Rubbish, I'm certainly far from being a "bible thumper" and I would take issue with him being allowed post as he as. It's just another reason to avoid the A&A forum though.

Doctor DooM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is a feckless term without supporting justification.

You see this is why you're never going to have many fans on Boards.

It is not a feckless term. It's the very reason any of the forums here work. Forums need to be adaptable and their moderators need to be able to make changes for the better from the norm. Atheism is not Buddhism.

Until you understand that, your reasoning on this topic will remain flawed.

You can rules lawyer as much as you like: at the end of the day, the mods do what they can to make accomodating, useful forums for people who want to use them.

Your demanding change would negatively impact my enjoyment of A and A, and the forum I mod, for no profit other than the continuing of your agenda: Thus, I vehemently oppose it.

Doctor DooM

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh certainly, however in this case the rule doesn't apply in A&A but apparently does apply in Buddhism and applies to a member who doesn't seem to be a rep of what he/she was promoting.

Ah C'mon DD that's apples and oranges. Atheist Ireland and the like aint charities raising money for sick kids or whatever with the backing of the folks in the office. Bit of a diff.

Buddhism and Atheism are different forums, you cannot assume the same rules.

As for apples and oranges- yes, that's my point! BB is saying the same rules should be applied across the board, with no predujice (although he immediately contradicted that). So, charity gig would have to go. Fighting games wouldn't be able to have posts from the World Game Cup organisers (who we work with closely). I'm trying to point out how ridiculous this could get, from the view of the whole site.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is a feckless term without supporting justification.


That doesn't qualify as a reason. How on earth is 10 "regular user" posts for every 90 lobbyist posts a net positive???



This hasn't been shown to be the case. And besides it's hardly "one or two things". Every single thread started by Nugent is self-promotion along with the vast majority of his posts, as I've demonstrated.



Are you seriously trying to equate a (with respect) a billy-no-mates, homemade podcast of insignificance with a lobby group, who count amongst their members the deputy leader of the Seanad and count amongst it's employees a former Westminister lobbyist who str aggressively and repeatedly pushing their agenda in what is supposed to be a discussion forum?


Can someone clarify this?

Are mods empowered to ignore the site rules?


No it wouldn't. That's like saying it'd be sad the day a policeman felt so restricted by that rules he had to arrest the man who raped the girl with the short skirt (even though she was asking for it.)

The rules are there for everyones benefit.


So you are also saying that 90% of contributions that are promotional is acceptable?

(but just for Michael Nugent, because he is special)


Can someone clarify this for me?

That advertising is permitted on boards.ie if they also post here and there (less than 10&) on something else? This seems ridiculous to me.

Discretion of the moderator is not a "feckless term", its one of the sitewide guidelines

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq_guidelines#faq_bie_faq_guidelines_discression

If you think these rules bind the moderators hands, think again. The moderators have discretion to react and moderate as they see fit, in the best interests of the forum they take care of. You can challenge a decision using the Dispute Resolution Process, but don’t think for a moment you can use the guidelines above to find some semantic loophole to excuse your behaviour (people who do this are known as “rules lawyers” and are seen as a small step above trolls). It’s not going to work. The spirit of the law is more important than the wording of the law on boards.ie and our guidelines can and will change if and when there’s need.

And I disagree with your claims of 90% of his posts being promotional. Lets say MN starts a thread about a meeting AI is holding to discuss X. The conversation on the thread then turns into a discussion amongst the users about X in general. If MN then continues posting in the thread and also discussing X, his posts are no longer promotional, but instead are about the topic.

Michael Nugent

Just to clear up some facts....

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He has opened 33 threads press releases all publicising atheist Ireland's campaigns, the organisation itself or issuing directives:

Issuing directives

I am happy to go along with whatever rules the moderators decide on.

Before I posted any event announcements, I sent a pm to the moderators asking what is the protocol on whether and how they were allowed.

Brown Bomber wrote:

fee-paying lobby group...selling tickets...

Atheist Ireland is a non profit making voluntary body. We have a nominal membership fee of €10 for unwaged people and €25 for waged people. We have no paid staff. On a personal level, our officers typically contribute money as well as time to our involvement in Atheist Ireland.

Almost all of our events, some which have included international speakers, are free to attend. We’ve only sold tickets for one event, the World Atheist Convention, where we kept the price lower than similar events elsewhere and specifically aimed to break even rather than to maximize profit.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Re the Christianity forum he more or less is using to promote his events/campaigns. The difference being he is pandering to a more suitable demographic for these particular campaigns.Three OP's, all concernced with lobbying campaigns

That’s a disgraceful comment. You should really distinguish between legitimate concerns about commercial or other abuse of a discussion forum, and encouraging people to lobby to help to save the lives of people facing execution for their religious beliefs.

As an aside, none of these posts mention Atheist Ireland.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In this cross-section of 101 posts, which I would be highly confident is representative ,there is as I've predicted a less than 10% non-atheist Ireland promotional posts.

I’ve just checked my post history, though not in much detail as you have, and about two thirds of my posts are in threads started by others.

Some of these are in threads that other people (like you here) have started about me and about Atheist Ireland, but obviously I am going to respond to those.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Any idea that Nugent is contributing genuinely and positively in other ways is a myth.

How could you possibly judge that? It’s entirely subjective.

The only approximation I can think of is the thanks ratio from other members, where my mythologically-genuine contributions get five times as many thanks-per-post as do your presumably genuinely-genuine ones.

Benny_Cake

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you prepared to stand by this statement? What ratio of shilling:normal use is acceptable to you personally? I would estimate that Nugent's posts which don't involve promotion/defense of Atheist Ireland and their positions, campaigns, events etc to be less than 10%.

RE the Christianity forum he more or less is using to promote his events/campaigns. The difference being he is pandering to a more suitable demographic for these particular campaigns. Three OP's, all concernced with lobbying campaigns and only one follow up post in total in any of the three thread.

Yes, I am prepared to stand by that statement and if you have an issue with any of his posts in the Christianity forum you could report them.

Wibbs

Of course each situation should be looked at on it's merits DD, but when there's an obvious deviation from the "norm" questions are bound to be asked, if nothing else so the rest of us can get a handle on what's OK or not in our own forums, or what to report in other forums.

Maybe the site needs an "other" type rep account? For people like that Michael/AI, charities, lobby groups, political parties etc. The non profit type of outfits*. The ones that don't fit into the "commercial interest" slot. though folks like event organisers that DD mentions could be added too. That way randomers and other users can see what they're dealing with in a discussion. Plus if there was a route open for such entities it might get more of such people/organisations on Boards.ie to add to the discussion for all of us like the folks in A&A feel Michael/AI have. Like I said I'd personally love to see various reps from different women's interest orgs in tLL and can think of many a forum where this kinda thing would be a great addition. All at local mod discretion and admin/office thumbs up of course.



*less restrictive than other official accounts of course so they wouldn't be restricted to "their" forum. The example where MN posts in Christianity in a helpful fashion a good example.

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Just to clear up some facts....

Issuing directives

Not sure where the laughter comes from. You do issue directives. For example,

Party and candidate replies to secular policy questions
Atheist Ireland and the Humanist Association of Ireland are asking voters to vote for candidates who support secular policies in the General Election on Friday

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Before I posted any event announcements, I sent a pm to the moderators asking what is the protocol on whether and how they were allowed.

Fair play. So what did they? Sure Michael here is a blank cheque to promote your interest group however and how often as you please.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Atheist Ireland is a non profit making voluntary body. We have a nominal membership fee of €10 for unwaged people and €25 for waged people. We have no paid staff. On a personal level, our officers typically contribute money as well as time to our involvement in Atheist Ireland.

Almost all of our events, some which have included international speakers, are free to attend. We’ve only sold tickets for one event, the World Atheist Convention, where we kept the price lower than similar events elsewhere and specifically aimed to break even rather than to maximize profit.

As I've said a fee-paying club who have used the medium of boards, a discussion site to flog tickets to your event. A club with a large donation button on the page that you link to.

• How You Can Help
  
  
  Please join Atheist Ireland
  
  Click here to find out how to become a member of Atheist Ireland, and help us to bring about an ethical, secular State
  
  
• Please help us to fund our work
  
  

Michael Nugent wrote: »

That’s a disgraceful comment. You should really distinguish between legitimate concerns about commercial or other abuse of a discussion forum, and encouraging people to lobby to help to save the lives of people facing execution for their religious beliefs.

And you should really NOT distinguish between people who are the victims of injustice due to religious oppression and people who are victims of injustice but aren't the victims of religious oppression. But that's another story.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

As an aside, none of these posts mention Atheist Ireland.

This is rather disingenious Michael. They don't mention Atheist Ireland but were the subject of ongoing atheist Ireland campaigns.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I’ve just checked my post history, though not in much detail as you have, and about two thirds of my posts are in threads started by others.

Some of these are in threads that other people (like you here) have started about me and about Atheist Ireland, but obviously I am going to respond to those.

Right but the fact remains that the vast majority of your posts are defending/promoting atheist ireland and all of the threads you opened are.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

How could you possibly judge that? It’s entirely subjective.

It's nothing personal. You seem like a nice chap and I have no problem with personally and largely support much of what you do but my judgement is based on the numbers.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The only approximation I can think of is the thanks ratio from other members, where my mythologically-genuine contributions get five times as many thanks-per-post as do your presumably genuinely-genuine ones.

It's not X Factor Michael. In any case we are dealing with a forum where comments like

I f*cking hate religion. I really, really do....

gets you twenty thankers, and also I am not the head of an interest group that counts among it's members other users of boards.ie.

Wibbs

Michael Nugent wrote: »

JThe only approximation I can think of is the thanks ratio from other members, where my mythologically-genuine contributions get five times as many thanks-per-post as do your presumably genuinely-genuine ones.

Dunno about that MN, I got over thirty thousand thanks and I talk an awful lot of shíte.

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And you should really NOT distinguish between people who are the victims of injustice due to religious oppression and people who are victims of injustice but aren't the victims of religious oppression. But that's another story.

I'll come back to the other points later, but I'm not going to leave a comment like that hanging there.

You can't just make vague unsubstantiated defamatory allegations about someone on a public forum, and then skip on to your next point as if you've said nothing unremarkable.

Can you please either explain what you mean by this, or else withdraw that comment?

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'll come back to the other points later, but I'm not going to leave a comment like that hanging there.

You can't just make vague unsubstantiated defamatory allegations about someone on a public forum, and then skip on to your next point as if you've said nothing unremarkable.

Can you please either explain what you mean by this, or else withdraw that comment?

I don't believe you have launched any campaigns to support the victims of injustices where the injustice didn't have any religious aspect. I apologise in advance if you can show me to be wrong.

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't believe you have launched any campaigns to support the victims of injustices where the injustice didn't have any religious aspect. I apologise in advance if you can show me to be wrong.

Okay, you’ve just jumped there from ‘victims of injustice but aren't the victims of religious oppression’ to ‘victims of injustices where the injustice didn't have any religious aspect’, so I’m responding to your first comment. Some quick examples....

I have launched and chaired campaigns against terrorism in Northern Ireland by republican and loyalist paramilitaries, and against unlawful killings by the British and Irish security forces, and against miscarriages of justice by the Irish and British States, including the imprisonment of Nicky Kelly, the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four.

I helped to coordinate the Tallaght Two miscarriage of justice campaign. I have campaigned against local crime and for victim support and neighbourhood watch, and for the opening of a house in my locality to help released prisoners reintegrate into society. I have campaigned against various aspects of government corruption, which indirectly involves a lot of victims.

I don’t like having to list these here, as this is nothing to do with the main topic we are discussing, but it would have been wrong for me to leave the comment uncorrected once it had been made.

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Okay, you’ve just jumped there from ‘victims of injustice but aren't the victims of religious oppression’ to ‘victims of injustices where the injustice didn't have any religious aspect’, so I’m responding to your first comment. Some quick examples....

I have launched and chaired campaigns against terrorism in Northern Ireland by republican and loyalist paramilitaries, and against unlawful killings by the British and Irish security forces, and against miscarriages of justice by the Irish and British States, including the imprisonment of Nicky Kelly, the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four.

I helped to coordinate the Tallaght Two miscarriage of justice campaign. I have campaigned against local crime and for victim support and neighbourhood watch, and for the opening of a house in my locality to help released prisoners reintegrate into society. I have campaigned against various aspects of government corruption, which indirectly involves a lot of victims.

I don’t like having to list these here, as this is nothing to do with the main topic we are discussing, but it would have been wrong for me to leave the comment uncorrected once it had been made.

I apologise for the confusion and all these acts are highly commendable but by "you" - and I should have made this clearer - I meant you in the capacity of leader of atheist Ireland.

DublinWriter

What's the problem Brown Bomber - if you're a Christian then maybe, forgive him?

Orion

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you prepared to stand by this statement? What ratio of shilling:normal use is acceptable to you personally? I would estimate that Nugent's posts which don't involve promotion/defense of Atheist Ireland and their positions, campaigns, events etc to be less than 10%.

It's not shilling. He's not pretending to be someone else e.g. a satisfied customer. If you're going to get your knickers in a twist* at least do it for the right reasons.

As for his 10% - at least 99% of my posts in Parenting are about me being a parent. He's an atheist - he posts in the Religion sub-category. What would you expect.



* I also wonder why you care so much

ejmaztec

Complaining about the activities of atheists on Boards is akin to waving two fingers at Islam in a mosque, in my opinion anyway.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I apologise for the confusion and all these acts are highly commendable but by "you" - and I should have made this clearer - I meant you in the capacity of leader of atheist Ireland.

It's "Atheist Ireland". It will obviously be more involved in issues relating to "Atheism" in "Ireland".

Why aren't Homelessness charities helping to sort out apartheid? Why don't Greenpeace seem to care about helping drug addicts?

Brown Bomber

DublinWriter wrote: »

What's the problem Brown Bomber - if you're a Christian then maybe, forgive him?

I'm not and my problem is not with Michael, he is just doing as anyone else would do who wishes to promote their organisation and given carte blanche to do so.

The problem is that a special case is being made for atheist Ireland to promote it's agenda. Atheist Ireland could be anyone in the previous sentence.

Don't advertise your company

We strongly protect the conversational feel of this site. Interjecting your commercial message into that conversation is not only rude, counterproductive, against the rules but also a poor way to win customers, build goodwill and will ultimately get you banned.
We have two alternatives for commercial interaction with the community.

• We have forum-targeted ads - you can find out more here.
• You can have your own forum for your own company/organisation - please contact us.

Promotion is NOT our focus here, discussion is.

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I apologise for the confusion and all these acts are highly commendable but by "you" - and I should have made this clearer - I meant you in the capacity of leader of atheist Ireland.

Okay, fair enough, but here’s what I think you should consider to avoid such confusion in the future. Don’t start threads that fuse together “Atheist Ireland/Michael Nugent” as if it is the same thing. Don’t discuss “Atheist Ireland/Michael Nugent” as if it is the same thing. I think a lot of your issues with my posts flow from this way of looking at things.

Now, with regard to the point we were discussing, if you are talking about Atheist Ireland, here are some of our policies as per our recent AGM, that are not directly confined to victims of religious oppression.

Promote specific ethical positions based on the following principles:

• that society should address ethical issues based on human rights and compassion, and applying reason to empirical evidence, and not on religious doctrines; and
• that individual ethical decisions should where possible be made on the basis of personal autonomy and individual conscience, while not infringing on the rights of others.

Also:

• Be inclusive, caring and supportive of people of all races, genders, sexualities and abilities
• Include people of diverse backgrounds on our organizing committees and event panels
• In particular, aim for a reasonable gender balance in our activities
• Host our events in venues suitable for wheelchair users
• Host our events in ways that accommodate people with other disabilities
• Do good for the community without religious influence
• Raise money for Kiva and secular charities
• Compile list of secular-safe charities to support
• Support and promote charitable activities by members
• Respond to requests for help where we can provide it

ejmaztec

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Okay, fair enough, but here’s what I think you should consider to avoid such confusion in the future. Don’t start threads that fuse together “Atheist Ireland/Michael Nugent” as if it is the same thing. Don’t discuss “Atheist Ireland/Michael Nugent” as if it is the same thing. I think a lot of your issues with my posts flow from this way of looking at things.

Now, with regard to the point we were discussing, if you are talking about Atheist Ireland, here are some of our policies as per our recent AGM, that are not directly confined to victims of religious oppression.


Promote specific ethical positions based on the following principles:

• that society should address ethical issues based on human rights and compassion, and applying reason to empirical evidence, and not on religious doctrines; and
• that individual ethical decisions should where possible be made on the basis of personal autonomy and individual conscience, while not infringing on the rights of others.

Also:

• Be inclusive, caring and supportive of people of all races, genders, sexualities and abilities
• Include people of diverse backgrounds on our organizing committees and event panels
• In particular, aim for a reasonable gender balance in our activities
• Host our events in venues suitable for wheelchair users
• Host our events in ways that accommodate people with other disabilities
• Do good for the community without religious influence
• Raise money for Kiva and secular charities
• Compile list of secular-safe charities to support
• Support and promote charitable activities by members
• Respond to requests for help where we can provide it

I've noticed quite a few charitable organisations pleading against their banning in the Prison Forum, and haven't noticed any where the permanent siteban has been reversed. It makes me wonder what the difference in the tolerance level is.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=335

Ken.

Penn wrote: »

It's "Atheist Ireland". It will obviously be more involved in issues relating to "Atheism" in "Ireland".

Why aren't Homelessness charities helping to sort out apartheid? Why don't Greenpeace seem to care about helping drug addicts?

If Greenpeace signed up and started posting in the animals and pets forum about meetings,fundraisers and seminars without first getting a rep account the mods their would ban them immediately and they'd be told to contact hello@boards or told to go away by Gordan in prison.