Why is the Terrestial Forum more frequented ...

[_marg]

Perhaps it all comes down to the definition of "blatant".

Go back to sleep harmony.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Marg,

The fact of the matter is you are the paragon example of the village atheist, and you prove this with every thread you enter. It is not a matter of you being a small fish, it’s simply a matter that you just happen to suck really bad at critical thinking to such a degree you are just as much an anti-intellectual as the mouth breathers who populate MD&D.

You are the atheist answer to LeSellers.

[_harmony]

Marg,

The fact of the matter is you are the paragon example of the village atheist, and you prove this with every thread you enter. It is not a matter of you being a small fish, it’s simply a matter that you just happen to suck really bad at critical thinking to such a degree you are just as much an anti-intellectual as the mouth breathers who populate MD&D.

You are the atheist answer to LeSellers.

Not blatant.

[_marg]

The Mods have moved several posts/threads from here in the TerrF to the TelF for, among other things, including blatant personal attacks. Shades has explained that a personal zinger, cleverly written and which also makes a point apart from just the personal attack will be allowed to remain. A slam on another poster that is not clever and does not also make any point is moved.

It's a matter of enforcement sensibilities. It is like the highway patrol choosing to allow speeding if it is either just 10 mph or less over the posted limit or is part of the flow of traffic that is going faster. We don't need Mods with the enforcement sensibilities of a Pharisee, like Deputy Barney Fife. I for one would oppose Modhood for anyone who complains about the balance that the Mods here have struck for the TerrF.

I agree entirely with you. But in Stem's thread for an hour 10 posts were made which included calling him a moron, retard, told to shut the “F” up, dumbass and I believe asked to damned leave. None of those posts ever got moved, nothing was ever said. I'm told that I haven't read stem over the year and therefore don't know what others have had to put up with. Granted I didn't read many of his posts. But because people had a bias against him ..based on his past posts, does that mean blatant personal attacks are allowed? I saw nothing wrong with his opening post, there was no reason to be so blatantly disrespectful.

I prefer the level of moderation in the TerrF to that in the CF. You tighten the level of moderation here in the TerrF, traffic will drop off--to the level that it is in the CF.

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting when there is a pile on against a poster, or when a poster's views are not of the majority or a group and that poster is harassed or undermined... ..then greater vigilance by moderation to protect that poster should be done. Stem needed in that thread greater protection than you would if someone insulted you while you were in some sort of heated discussion with them. It was obvious stem didn't appreciate the disrespect and was not returning in kind.

In that case, the rule no blatant personal attacks should be removed. If the rule no blatant personal attacks is to be adhered to, then that would require more vigilance, more reporting of violations..and perhaps even some measure to penalize frequent violators who create excessive work for mods. It's been my impression based on experience that the report button isn't very effective because the few times I've used it ..it was ignored.

Thank God.[/quote]

You have no idea what I'm referring to. It was a serious discussion in the Celestial and one person was really posting to divert and harass. (a lawyer by the way, I got the impression he was using his courtroom tactics) Fortunately over time, the posters involved handled it themselves by flat out pointing out what the poster was doing. And fortunately there weren't lots of people involved to inflame the situation. But none the less I reported and clicked on the button which asks that the mod get back to me, and I got no response.

But maybe things have changed on that.

Let's hope not.

If you only like the way things are in the CF, you are free to exercise the self-discipline to only read and post in the CF. Why complain about a forum others like when there's another one fit for your sensibilities? You don't need to change the rules. You don't need to up the level of enforcement. You need only focus your reading/posting on the CK. But you will probably find it boring or you'd already be doing that. You come here because it is the most interesting, so stop bitching about the very aspect that make the TerrF interesting enough to draw the major traffic--and draws you yourself.

I don't think the Terrestial is all that interesting S.P. I like Bednar though. Look this board is a little different than many. There aren't many people on here, and many know each other off the board. There are some cliques. And there is a majority viewpoint, which comes from an ex-mormon turned atheist perspective. We've got some sub groups such as the philosophy and academic group who think very highly of themselves, then there's the group that are only interested in the board for social purposes not intellectual or serious discussions, then there are some who like the game of insulting others more than they do discussing any issue. From personal experience I know that one individual can be influential in getting others to undermine someone if they wish. Tarski made a comment to me ...that he felt bad(that's not the word he used, I can't remember his exact words) to some extent for going along with the "marg is stupid" campaign without really examining or evaluating it for himself.

As Schmo said there is a culture that's evolved on this board in the Terrestial. That culture accepts blatant personal attacks. Between 3 people in an hour there were 10 posts extremely disrespectful to Stem. And it escalated the next day with one egregiously insulting post that I believe didn't get moved until Jersey Girl commented on the lack of moderation going on and used that post as an example.

[_marg]

Marg,

The fact of the matter is you are the paragon example of the village atheist, and you prove this with every thread you enter. It is not a matter of you being a small fish, it’s simply a matter that you just happen to suck really bad at critical thinking to such a degree you are just as much an anti-intellectual as the mouth breathers who populate MD&D.

You are the atheist answer to LeSellers.

Stak I don't read your posts..because I don't find you very intelligent and I'm not impressed by philosophy geeks you focus on using philosophy terms as opposed to good critical thinking. Others may respect and enjoy your insights or perspective...without me interjecting in attempts to harass or undermine you. I've had my experience discussing with you and found that you turn into a juvenile jerk when you feel like it..and shift focus into attack as opposed to honest discussion. That is reason enough to ignore your posts, and for the same reason DCP is well justified to have ignored them..when you wanted his attention. I leave you alone, I don't go on a campaign to undermine you as you have done to me.

Where the bleep.. do you get that every post I write is about atheism...from all your yakking in chat I suppose? My posts have been on abortion, out of africa theory and how that relates to Book of Mormon claims, NDE's/OBE's, Occam's razor, memory studies, can logic prove god, Spalding, scientific method. Those come to mind. You apparently listen to people in private conversations and form your conclusion about others that way...as opposed to direct communication and observation. So much for your critical thinking skills.

What I have done, fyi..is not shyed away from the label atheist just because there are many individuals who perceive that word negatively. Many atheists will not call themselves atheists, They prefer -agnostic, non theist, apatheist ..anything to get away from the term atheist. My view is that the world is composed of 2 groups of people with respect to God belief..theist and atheists..and everybody falls into one of those 2 groups...despite what they prefer to call themselves. I've had discussions on here with respect to this...but certainly not every one of my posts have been about atheism.

(I'm going out to lunch..must leave this fun board)

[_MrStakhanovite]

Where the bleep.. do you get that every post I write is about atheism...from all your yakking in chat I suppose?

See? This is exactly what EA was talking about. There is absolutely no responsible way you could construe my post as saying everything you write about concerns atheism, but this is exactly how you understood it.

Why did you do this? No idea, it’s beyond the ken of anyone on this board. Combine this inability to accurately parse a block of text for main ideas with your supreme confidence in your own abilities, and we have the reason why you clash with so many reasonable posters.

[_marg]

There is absolutely no responsible way you could construe my post as saying everything you write about concerns atheism, but this is exactly how you understood it.

You wrote: "The fact of the matter is you are the paragon example of the village atheist, and you prove this with every thread you enter."

Yes I've made it clear I'm an atheist. Few people have ever asked what my views are..most people make assumptions. Sometimes those assumptions come up and if wrong I correct them. Just as your buddy MsJack recently by making an assumption atheists wouldn't have any "magical beliefs". As I said most of my discussions have had nothing to do with atheism directly.

You see Stak, I don't make assumptions about people like you do, I don't rely on gossip and I don't harass, malign someone when I'm not in a conversation with them. I deal directly with what they say, when they say it and quote them. It's all on the up and up..no games, no misrepresentations and my participation here has never been to play games.

You on the other hand play by a different set of personal rules which I find intellectually dishonest and juvenile. I leave EA to try to set you straight on your poor critical thinking.

[_EAllusion]

I leave EA to try to set you straight on your poor critical thinking.

Stak calling you the village atheist doesn't and isn't meant to imply that everything you write about concerns atheism. He means you are a poster known for atheism that argues so poorly that you function as the "village idiot atheist" on a board. You become a walking straw-man version of a more sensible atheist to be beat up. You misread his post. Sorry.

[_marg]

I leave EA to try to set you straight on your poor critical thinking.

Stak calling you the village atheist doesn't and isn't meant to imply that everything you write about concerns atheism. He means you are a poster known for atheism that argues so poorly that you function as the "village idiot atheist" on a board. You become a walking straw-man version of a more sensible atheist to be beat up. You misread his post. Sorry.

You aren't sorry EA. You have been on a concerted campaign for quite sometime and like I said in the thread in which I was attempting to discuss Dawkin's argument with Stak..your participation in that was to encourage stak in his insults...you added nothing other than that to the discussion.

Again as I said I criticize an individual in discussion at the time of the discussion, by quoting them and addressing what they say. I don't go around harassing as you have done and still do. As Tarski noted there has been a campaign..by a select few. It's been you stak and Gad.

Some time ago there was a discussion on here with regards to something Bob McCue said on the FAIR board..and I disagreed with Gad's assessment. Bob wrote and thanked me for the argument I presented. I also saw on the internet where Gad had a discussion on another message board with Bob, in which Bob explained to Gad that I understood what Bob was saying whereas Gad didn't.

I'm not as stupid as you guys have campaigned on about for years.

[_RayAgostini]

Marg,

The fact of the matter is you are the paragon example of the village atheist, and you prove this with every thread you enter. It is not a matter of you being a small fish, it’s simply a matter that you just happen to suck really bad at critical thinking to such a degree you are just as much an anti-intellectual as the mouth breathers who populate MD&D.

You are the atheist answer to LeSellers.

It’s important to have some context here. Marg has been atheist all her life, and long before she ever got involved in any Mormon-related boards. My understanding is that religion didn’t even interest her initially. Considering that many people become atheist because of childhood religious indoctrination, and in the case of many ex-Mormons because of their bad Mormon experience, and many others “become atheists” for various personal reasons that often have to do more with some ideology or another (or things like “the problem of evil”), marg was what I’d call a “natural atheist”. If you had a glimpse into her childhood and upbringing, it would help. I have to say this really opened my eyes. Here I was dealing with someone who never “adopted atheism” after peripatetic ponderings, it was her natural “state”. Honestly, I’ve only known a handful of such people. Even when I read people like Steve Benson proudly proclaiming himself atheist, it was as if it was designed to shock. Not that I’m saying it was fake, but he was once a true believer. Marg never was. Marg and I have head-butted many times, but once I came to understand her better, I realised I was dealing with someone who is a “DNA atheist”, with zero time for “religious claims”.

I really have to say I’m always kind of sceptical of people who jump the Mormon ship then make sure everyone knows they are atheist now, sometimes almost overnight. Sterling McMurrin, in my view, was also a natural atheist/agnostic, and very probably never believed Mormon doctrine, so he’s not in category I feel a bit sceptical about.

The bottom line, for me anyway, is not whether one is “conversant” with complex atheist arguments against the existence of God, or able to express their atheism with literary finesse and mathematical formulae. Marg, in my estimation, is probably more “true blue” atheist than 99% of posters on this board who claim atheism. I don’t know your background in this regard, and whether you had a “religious upbringing”, so can’t judge there. I know I can sometimes budge or bother (cause to re-think) people who are “borderline atheists”, but with marg it’s like trying to draw blood from a stone. No chance. Don’t even bother wasting your time. So I’ve learned to accept her, and I accept her more thoroughly than, say, someone who left Mormonism six months ago and is now shouting from the rooftops that they are “atheist”. Some time back, I seriously flirted with atheism, because of many posts and threads on this board, but I knew it just was not the real me, because I’ve been theist all my life, and I genuinely can’t get the “God belief”, “out of my system”. Maybe this puzzles marg as much as her thoroughgoing “true blue” atheism puzzles me. So I have to say that I seldom read, or fall for, “atheist arguments” on this board. They just don’t convince me. Marg doesn’t need symbols or “formal logic” to convince me who she really is, or what she does or doesn’t believe. Her kind of atheism, even if some call it “village idiot atheism”, is genuinely something I can give no response to. I have no answer for it, but I never for one moment doubt it’s 100% genuine, and that is actually something I can respect.