View Full Version : Miss tery, Slydevl, and VOR -- what are your intentions in this forum?
hasbeen99
03-30-04, 03:33 PM
The reason I ask you three is because going back over the turmoil this forum has had over the past week, you three have been in the center of it. Here are the impressions I'm getting from your posts/threads thusfar:
Miss tery: You've spoken your mind in the past, but you seem to be making an effort to conform to the rules of this forum. You've started more threads than anyone else here, and your questions are getting better. I see a significant drop in sarcasm and unflattering generalizations. The impression I get is that you're actually interested in seeing what religious people have to say about God.
Slydevl: Every thread you've started in this forum has been directed toward atheists in general or Miss tery personally. Of the four threads you've started, one was in direct retaliation to an assertion Miss tery made about atheists having higher IQ's than religious people. Another started out benign enough but quickly became a challenge to all atheists who argue against Christianity, calling into question the knowledge base from which they're arguing. The impression I'm getting is that your sole intention in this forum is to call out all atheists, and Miss tery in particular, for the purpose of debate/argument.
VOR: The reason I've included you in this list is because other than the two above, I've had to edit or delete more of your posts than anyone else. It seems to me that you're bored and this forum is not much more than a new toy for you to play with.
I'm posting this rather than PMing you all about it because I want this out in the open. These are my perceptions, and they may be way off. I'm giving you all this opportunity to set me straight. All I ask is that you be honest. Thanks.
slydevl
03-30-04, 03:51 PM
The purpose of this forum should be intelligent debate. I feel the knowledge base from which anyone argues anything is certainly valid when participating in a debate. Anything which I say I will always hang around to defend or discuss and I will always attempt to answer any question anyone poses to me about anything dealing with the subject of religion and my background, educational or otherwise, as it pertains to religion in an honest manner.
If my responses have overwhelmingly been directed at MT it is only because she is the only member of the forum who continually fires salvos at anyone and the refuses to hang around and discuss or defend them.
If my responses have overwhelmingly been directed at MT it is only because she is the only member of the forum who continually fires salvos at anyone and the refuses to hang around and discuss or defend them.
Thessalonians 5:15
slydevl
03-30-04, 04:05 PM
Thessalonians 5:15
Thank you Reznor. You were absolutely correct in pointing that out to me.
Thank you Reznor. You were absolutely correct in pointing that out to me.
Hey, I'm certainly not trying to be an ass, and I do honestly respect your beliefs. I just feel that you can be a little overbearing, even if your intentions are probably good. I don't have any hard feelings or anything about that topic you started. I was unaware of the motive, and I would have said the same things in MT's thread stating the opposite.
gridfaniker
03-30-04, 04:17 PM
Is that the sound of the seams in hasbeen's britches coming apart?
hasbeen99
03-30-04, 04:32 PM
Trying to tell me something, Grid? :D Am I getting too big for my britches?
gridfaniker
03-30-04, 04:41 PM
Trying to tell me something, Grid? :D Am I getting too big for my britches?
I just don't see the point of people having to give detailed explanations of their posts. if they're breaking rules, delete the posts and let them know about it. If they persist, ban them from the forum.
I think you're erring heavily on the side of not stepping on the toes of specific controversial people, to a point. Which is good, in that it leaves small chances that said person will run off claiming "not fair" or similar. Which is bad, if the person takes advantage of that for political gain or in recognizing that the rules might tip in their favor so they'll use advantage to get away with what they can get away with. I don't think you're getting bigger than your britches, so much as you're showing something that looks to others to be tipping the scales against a majority in compensation.
Specifically, I haven't read of _tery since these issues came up. So I can't speak of someone that I haven't read in this specific case - the "clean slate" where she's theoretically trying to stick to the rules. She hasn't been intentionally insultive recently, but I'm also unconvinced that she asks the specific questions she does, to provide good discourse or to learn. It sounds as if she's attempting to ask questions to get people to trip over themselves when trying to answer. To suggest that if there's varying answers, the religion and therefore the deity is falliable and therefore can't exist.
Things like that. The "we need to get non-Christian people in here" thing specifically rubs me the wrong way because it immediately becomes about numbers: "If I can get more people in here that will argue against them I can win" or "I'll have more people to defend me when I attack them."
That's what I see specifically. And I don't like that.
Nor do I really like what sly's trying to do, really. But I can understand why he's doing it - in reaction. That doesn't make it better, no.
hasbeen99
03-30-04, 04:43 PM
I just don't see the point of people having to give detailed explanations of their posts. if they're breaking rules, delete the posts and let them know about it. If they persist, ban them from the forum.
Isn't it better to let someone present their side of the story before deciding whether or not to exile them?
Uh universal love and understanding? And baring that foxy boxing and jello rascling
hasbeen99
03-30-04, 05:00 PM
I think you're erring heavily on the side of not stepping on the toes of specific controversial people, to a point. Which is good, in that it leaves small chances that said person will run off claiming "not fair" or similar.
Exactly.
Which is bad, if the person takes advantage of that for political gain or in recognizing that the rules might tip in their favor so they'll use advantage to get away with what they can get away with.
We've discovered over the past week that the rules are modular. Amendments can be made if necessary. I continue to hope they won't be.
I don't think you're getting bigger than your britches, so much as you're showing something that looks to others to be tipping the scales against a majority in compensation.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. I'm not saying I'm trying to create an Affirmative Action environment for non-Christians, but I am trying to give subscribers of every belief and philosophy an equal chance to be heard and respected. In a Christianity-dominated society, that can look a little lopsided, even if it isn't.
I'm not egotistical enough to assert I've been absolutely fair across the board, but I've tried to be.
Specifically, I haven't read of _tery since these issues came up. So I can't speak of someone that I haven't read in this specific case - the "clean slate" where she's theoretically trying to stick to the rules. She hasn't been intentionally insultive recently...
That's what I was pointing out. We're all so quick to jump on her, and usually she has it coming. But I only thought it fair to point out a positive observation just as quickly, even if it was only my own.
...but I'm also unconvinced that she asks the specific questions she does, to provide good discourse or to learn. It sounds as if she's attempting to ask questions to get people to trip over themselves when trying to answer. To suggest that if there's varying answers, the religion and therefore the deity is falliable and therefore can't exist.
Her motivation is uncertain, which is why I decided to give her this thread to state what they were and eliminate that doubt. As far as the questions she's answering, I've learned as much about my own faith from questions like the ones she's asked than I have reading or sitting in a pew. Fielding questions from people outside one's personal belief society is a good thing in my opinion. But I also realize my motivations may be different than someone else's. I'm interested in truth, not believing something nice to make me feel better when I'm sad.
Things like that. The "we need to get non-Christian people in here" thing specifically rubs me the wrong way because it immediately becomes about numbers: "If I can get more people in here that will argue against them I can win" or "I'll have more people to defend me when I attack them."
That's what I see specifically. And I don't like that.
That sentiment flows from an assumption based on past behavior, which is precisely why I included the "clean slate" rule in this forum's policy. R & R is the place to re-hash old wounds, not here.
gridfaniker
03-30-04, 05:00 PM
Isn't it better to let someone present their side of the story before deciding whether or not to exile them?
I wasn't aware they'd done anything that warranted being exiled. Nonetheless, you should probably interrogate them privately.
ezy ryder
03-30-04, 05:02 PM
zoom around the universe checking up on all the planets that have life. and if so how does she deal with that speed of light thing?
this was just two days ago ... and this is an improvement? :thinking:
slydevl
03-30-04, 05:04 PM
this was just two days ago ... and this is an improvement? :thinking:
Not only that but she refuses to reply when asked for further info. Is this discourse?
hasbeen99
03-30-04, 05:06 PM
I wasn't aware they'd done anything that warranted being exiled. Nonetheless, you should probably interrogate them privately.
But if there's a public perception that was wrong, wouldn't it be better to clear the air for everyone, rather than only one person (me) knowing the truth and letting everyone else continue to get frustrated?
hasbeen99
03-30-04, 05:07 PM
this was just two days ago ... and this is an improvement? :thinking:
What's wrong with that?
hasbeen99
03-30-04, 05:09 PM
Not only that but she refuses to reply when asked for further info. Is this discourse?
No.
Not only that but she refuses to reply when asked for further info. Is this discourse?
That's the bummer with terry. just trying to start a sqabble, then she buggers off when she has to be more than skin deep. One thing to call someone stupid another to prove your accusation. She has to learn to stand and fight it out or shut up.
ezy ryder
03-30-04, 05:20 PM
What's wrong with that?
You think she asked a sincere question? As sly said, she didn't stick around to discuss her question. Also, please tell my you can see the condescending tone of "zooming around" and asking about the speed of light problem.
hasbeen99
03-30-04, 05:21 PM
That's the bummer with terry. just trying to start a sqabble, then she buggers off when she has to be more than skin deep. One thing to call someone stupid another to prove your accusation. She has to learn to stand and fight it out or shut up.
I would certainly prefer her to defend her position and rebut appropriately. I've wished that on a number of occasions. But her assertions are her own, and it is her choice whether or not to defend them. It's frustrating for me, too, but I'm not prepared to lay down a law that says you must be willing to go the full 15 rounds if you want to post something.
How come Baptist's don't have sex standing up... Somebody might think they are dancing.
Ban sly to the Pond.
And get off my case, I'm Rick James, BITCH !
Delete this post and you will burn in hell.
slydevl
03-30-04, 05:27 PM
I would certainly prefer her to defend her position and rebut appropriately. I've wished that on a number of occasions. But her assertions are her own, and it is her choice whether or not to defend them. It's frustrating for me, too, but I'm not prepared to lay down a law that says you must be willing to go the full 15 rounds if you want to post something.
Don't you think if someone sincerely wanted to learn about other points of view they would stick around to participate in the discussion?
hasbeen99
03-30-04, 05:41 PM
You think she asked a sincere question? As sly said, she didn't stick around to discuss her question. Also, please tell my you can see the condescending tone of "zooming around" and asking about the speed of light problem.
People like tery who have personally ruled out the existence of the supernatural have only left themselves the option of thinking in physical terms. It creates logistical problems when you try to confine God to the physical realm. It can make things seem a little nonsensical to someone who hasn't thought in those terms before.
As far as the motivation behind her question goes, I made a mistake with Sly's "Do atheists have souls" thread. I assumed he was being snide and threatened to delete his thread, but his question was legitimate and he didn't intend it in the way I assumed. From that I learned that what I assume the motivations to be aren't necessarily correct. So it's better if I give people the benefit of the doubt.
hasbeen99
03-30-04, 05:45 PM
Don't you think if someone sincerely wanted to learn about other points of view they would stick around to participate in the discussion?
Probably. But sometimes I think it's possible to post something just to see what others think, not necessarily to win them over. I've also learned that the value of posts isn't exclusive to the poster. Even if a question means little to the one posting it, lurkers may appreciate it, and appreciate the responses even more without saying so.
El Bastardo
03-30-04, 05:52 PM
Does anyone know if Miss Tery's hot? :vfingers:
hasbeen99
03-30-04, 06:04 PM
Does anyone know if Miss Tery's hot? :vfingers:
All I know is that she's armed. :hasta:
ezy ryder
03-30-04, 06:22 PM
Does anyone know if Miss Tery's hot? :vfingers:
Depends if you're picky...
vpkozel
03-30-04, 06:44 PM
As far as my intentions go, I intend to continue to be a gadfly, and pose questions that I do not think are answerable.
I don't think that anyone would have it otherwise, but if you expect to be taken seriously, then I would expect that you answer when people question your beliefs. In general, all I have ever gotten when questioning you is a correction on my spelling or have you tell me to do my own research.
Pick one, you can't have it both ways.
Superfluous_Nut
03-30-04, 07:16 PM
I don't think that anyone would have it otherwise, but if you expect to be taken seriously, then I would expect that you answer when people question your beliefs. In general, all I have ever gotten when questioning you is a correction on my spelling or have you tell me to do my own research.
Pick one, you can't have it both ways.
i'm guessing she'll pick the spelling errors over the research.
there's a place for miss_tery's posts and i don't think this is it. given the tenor of her posts, i find it ironic that she complains about hypocritical christians wearing the religion on their sleeves...
hasbeen99
03-30-04, 07:24 PM
As far as my intentions go, I intend to continue to be a gadfly, and pose questions that I do not think are answerable.
from dictionary.com...
gad·fly n.
1) A persistent irritating critic; a nuisance.
2) One that acts as a provocative stimulus; a goad.
================================================== =======
Definition #1 is not welcome in this forum. That's what R & R is for.
Definition #2 is welcome in this forum, provided the 'provocation' is to meaningful and/or insightful discussion. If not, take it to R & R.
The choice is yours.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. I'm not saying I'm trying to create an Affirmative Action environment for non-Christians, but I am trying to give subscribers of every belief and philosophy an equal chance to be heard and respected. In a Christianity-dominated society, that can look a little lopsided, even if it isn't.
I'm not egotistical enough to assert I've been absolutely fair across the board, but I've tried to be.I know you've tried. But when you have people on either side basically keeping score, and you're leaning toward one side, the other side will complain. That's natural. I personally don't want to be chided and asked irrelevant questions that are going to be attempted to be used against me. But that's all I've seen. That and an attempt to recruit so that a viewpoint won't be "outnumbered". Which I personally find distasteful as hell.
Her motivation is uncertain, which is why I decided to give her this thread to state what they were and eliminate that doubt. As far as the questions she's answering, I've learned as much about my own faith from questions like the ones she's asked than I have reading or sitting in a pew. Fielding questions from people outside one's personal belief society is a good thing in my opinion. But I also realize my motivations may be different than someone else's. I'm interested in truth, not believing something nice to make me feel better when I'm sad.agree, and in basic theory that's fine. It's the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" type thing. But I don't think that people in general just want to sit there and defend their Christian, non-Christian, or other views all day, either. And that's the environment I'm seeing somewhat.
And you know what it reminds me of, to a point? NOTD. I don't want it to be where this place gets censored by its own people because they're afraid to say what they think because of retribution.
>>That sentiment flows from an assumption based on past behavior, which is precisely why I included the "clean slate" rule in this forum's policy. R & R is the place to re-hash old wounds, not here.
Agreed. I've just not seen anything to suggest otherwise, yet. I would like to see growth there.
And just for the record :D I'd had gadfly in my profile for a couple weeks now.
BigVito
03-31-04, 09:58 AM
Just a note that currently, 10 out ot the top 20 topics listed on this board involve atheism directly or indirectly and several of those are jokes. Not one of those topics was started by anyone who has identified themselves as a non-believer. Yep, I would certainly say the balance is a bit off in this forum at the moment.
vpkozel
03-31-04, 10:01 AM
Just a note that currently, 10 out ot the top 20 topics listed on this board involve atheism directly or indirectly and several of those are jokes.
But each of these was started in direct response to derogatory statements or threads by someone claiming to be an atheist. It's not like they started in a vacuum.
BigVito
03-31-04, 10:34 AM
But each of these was started in direct response to derogatory statements or threads by someone claiming to be an atheist. It's not like they started in a vacuum. You are correct and I do understand that fully. I also believe that some good discussion has come out of those threads. However, I do think the redundant nature of the "point making" is a detriment to the forum. Hey, I'm probably in the minority on that idea, too. :)
I actually agree with that. I don't like it when there's someone attempting to teach a lesson to everyone else, i.e. imposing that person's will on everyone else. We've dealt with that more this year in R&R than ever, obviously.
So I can't really be down with the action it's caused. It's very reactive. But my arguments support the ideals behind it, all the same.
Allowing a strong amount of atheistic attack that's largely just someone's entertainment for a person or two, that's detrimental to those that want to honestly exchange ideas. That causes such reactive threads.
vpkozel
03-31-04, 10:59 AM
I also believe that some good discussion has come out of those threads. However, I do think the redundant nature of the "point making" is a detriment to the forum.
I agree with you on both counts.
But each of these was started in direct response to derogatory statements or threads by someone claiming to be an atheist. It's not like they started in a vacuum.
Thessalonians 5:15
hasbeen99
03-31-04, 02:49 PM
Thessalonians 5:15
Actually, it's 1 Thessalonians 5:15, and you can add Matthew 5:11 to that, too. :)
hasbeen99
03-31-04, 03:36 PM
I personally don't want to be chided and asked irrelevant questions that are going to be attempted to be used against me. But that's all I've seen.
'Irrelevant' is in the eye of the beholder, IMO. And so what if the questions are irrelevant? Does that hurt anyone? If anyone feels a question isn't worth answering, don't answer it. If said question is 'used against' someone, that's when I'll step in.
That and an attempt to recruit so that a viewpoint won't be "outnumbered". Which I personally find distasteful as hell.
Why? This isn't a Christian board, or even a Christian forum. Why shouldn't there be a better representation of all beliefs here?
It's the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" type thing.
Not exactly. It's a matter of stepping outside a situation to get a different perspective.
But I don't think that people in general just want to sit there and defend their Christian, non-Christian, or other views all day, either. And that's the environment I'm seeing somewhat.
I stand by my belief that an exchange of different ideas is a good mechanism to get people to examine both their own beliefs and keep their minds open to other possibilities. No one is being forced to respond.
And you know what it reminds me of, to a point? NOTD. I don't want it to be where this place gets censored by its own people because they're afraid to say what they think because of retribution.
I don't either, and that's precisely what I'm trying to keep from happening. The success of this forum is based on a high comfort level across the board.
>>'Irrelevant' is in the eye of the beholder, IMO. And so what if the questions are irrelevant? Does that hurt anyone? If anyone feels a question isn't worth answering, don't answer it. If said question is 'used against' someone, that's when I'll step in.
Agreed, there's a subjectivity to irrelevance. But it's not constructive, IMO. I don't find worth in a forum overall having to bend backwards to answer questions intended to be "unanswerable."
I think once you get to "used against", you're on to "too late", IMO. Of course, the only remedy is the would-be attacker having good intentions, and that's not in your hands.
>>Why? This isn't a Christian board, or even a Christian forum. Why shouldn't there be a better representation of all beliefs here?
I agree. But that's not what's at hand. When I basically said "you just want to have some numbers on your side" so that she can feel more at ease about sniping, her response was basically "so what?"
I'd feel better about it if she were doing it to get more viewpoints. It's not, from her own words. It's that she doesn't want to keep getting ganged up on when she trolls.
Certainly, in theory I'd agree. I may be easier to judge, but I also haven't seen any "new leaf" or "clean slate" in action with this
>>I stand by my belief that an exchange of different ideas is a good mechanism to get people to examine both their own beliefs and keep their minds open to other possibilities. No one is being forced to respond.
I don't think people will want to respond if they're simply being chased. That's not discourse, that's running around in circles with one on the attack and the other on the defensive. No one gets anything from that, anymore than two old members sitting there rehashing old fights.
Just my opinion.
>>I don't either, and that's precisely what I'm trying to keep from happening. The success of this forum is based on a high comfort level across the board.
I'm seeing uncomfortability. I'm somewhat uncomfortable, more since things broke down than when it was jsut a couple people openly trolling. I don't think it's your job exclusively to furnish that comfort level, but I also know that if people are uncomfortable they will let you know.
hasbeen99
03-31-04, 05:31 PM
I don't think people will want to respond if they're simply being chased. That's not discourse, that's running around in circles with one on the attack and the other on the defensive. No one gets anything from that, anymore than two old members sitting there rehashing old fights.
Just my opinion.
I can't disagree, but it looks as though it's over. Last night MT deleted all her threads (except the "Religion" thread, which I locked). I don't think she'll be participating again anytime soon.
I still think it's unfortunate the way it turned out, but so be it. Onward and upward. It's in the past now -- I'd just as soon be done with it and move on having learned some important lessons.
vpkozel
03-31-04, 06:04 PM
I can't disagree, but it looks as though it's over. Last night MT deleted all her threads (except the "Religion" thread, which I locked). I don't think she'll be participating again anytime soon.
I still think it's unfortunate the way it turned out, but so be it. Onward and upward. It's in the past now -- I'd just as soon be done with it and move on having learned some important lessons.
I would say that it was unfortuneate if she had been trying to participate and add to the discussion. Posting, "your a dummy becaue you believe in God" and "can God go really fast" is not contributing, IMO.
Actually, it's 1 Thessalonians 5:15, and you can add Matthew 5:11 to that, too. :)
I could add a whole more than that if I wanted, but I figured that 1 was enough to get the point across.
I can't disagree, but it looks as though it's over. Last night MT deleted all her threads (except the "Religion" thread, which I locked). I don't think she'll be participating again anytime soon.
I still think it's unfortunate the way it turned out, but so be it. Onward and upward. It's in the past now -- I'd just as soon be done with it and move on having learned some important lessons.
Unfortunately, I think she got what she wanted.
I've often tried to get her into actual talk about beliefs - not attack - which I would've welcomed and I know she would've had "an upper hand" in, since I'm neither a strong Christian compared to those more willing to take a stand (or more versed with better answers) nor as willing to argue over a basic opinion such as belief in the realm of right/wrong (may need suspension of disbelief on that one - but this isn't football).
if she wants to discourse then I'm sure we'd all appreciate that. But I think the forum as a whole kinda lurched at the idea of facing a Christian v/s Atheist "holy war" not unlike NOTD faces daily.
hasbeen99
04-01-04, 02:08 PM
I think we've about analyzed this to death. It's time to move on. :)
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.