Well that's three. Three to go.

[el_bryanto]

But to clarify something - I know that some people in that other room like to pretend that my antipathy towards certain posters who showed up here is due to a generalized hatred of atheists. That is not accurate - I hate those people not because they are atheists but because of how they act. Those individuals are nasty, mean-spirited people, and to imagine that they came here for any other reason than to disrupt is silly.

I did overreact and I should not have done that, though.

But those people I would find objectionable even if they were religious or even if they were of my own faith - granted, being attacked feels differently than watching someone else get attacked, but I would still find it offensive.

The problem is that for a significant percentage of that other room being a good atheist requires attacking believers - and looking at it from their point of view it's easy enough to understand why. But you can't come into a room built on mutual respect for various belief systems when you are well known to have disdain for all views but you own and anticipate that will go well. I speeded up the process with my nastiness (which I shouldn't have done) but it would have happened anyway.

At any rate, that's that. I look forward to finding out on what grounds this post needs to be hidden.

Bryant

[TM99]

1. As a non-theist who would self-identify my

psycho-spiritual path as Buddhist (been involved with the Dharma for over 30 years now), I have found the following to be true for me here at DU.

I know I am not welcome nor do I ever post in the AA group. While there are many good men and women who are non-believers and non-theists on these boards, the anti-theist/anti-religion cabal rules that group and overshadows AA's in general. They may have legitimate grievances from childhood about their experiences with the most literalistic and fundamentalist forms of Christianity in America, however, they still hold that immature mode of thinking as they attempt to psychologically work through these issues with their animosity, venomous, and bluntly raging behavior. I see no reason in frequenting that room for discussion as those are simply not the issues I deal with nor are they the types of individuals that a stimulating or thought-provoking discussion could be held with.

The Religion forum, I choose now to rarely post in. Even after putting most if not all of that cabal on Ignore, that forum and its devolving discussions can simply push my buttons too much especially the lack of scholarship, the insistence on religion=delusion, and 'privilege' theory.

I am choosing more and more to post in Interfaith when I do want to discuss these types of topics. Why?

First, I have not experienced a single bit of bullshit from even one believer or religious person in any discussion on DU. I have never had them call me names. I have never had them disrespect me. I have never had them mock or deride me. I simply can not say the same for at least one very vocal cabal of self-identified Atheists on these boards.

Second, I do feel welcomed here. That same sense of respect and civility exists here in the Interfaith Forum. I served on the Jury the other night in that contentious thread. I fully understand why you lost your temper. I have done so in the past as well.

Someone who constantly derides and is obnoxious towards anyone, believer or not, with an interest in religions should not be welcomed here. If they have shown an unwillingness to converse with respect to differing positions on the topic in the Religion group and spend time in the AA group constantly being combative and well bluntly, assholish, what possible intention other than the continuance of such behavior could they even have in the Interfaith forum? Reading the threads during the issue the other night, it is apparent that those in question (I won't mention names so my post is not sent to a Jury!) had every intention of 'picking a fight'.

Please consider putting these individuals on full Ignore. Then let's police ourselves here. We don't have to 'name names'. We don't have to bicker. We also don't have to put up with bullying or bullshit either. If something like the other night occurs again, alert the hosts, alert the post, and bow out. These individuals have wood to burn on issues that are unresolved for them. Don't become a part of their fire. I had to learn the hard way myself. I had several posts hidden because I just couldn't tolerate the bullshit nor could I keep from having them push my buttons. Spend enough time around toxic and dysfunctional people and it is very easy to begin acting that way yourself.

[Htom Sirveaux]

2. Except now we have a problem.

People were banned from here for their responses to you. But if your statements were themselves out of line, what does fairness dictate? I'm not in charge of anything, but it seems like the remedy needs to be either that they get unbanned and receive apologies, or that you get what they got.

[el_bryanto]

3. I'm unlikely to apologize to them - so yes - I guess I should be banned. nt

[Htom Sirveaux]

12. I wasn't thinking an apology from you specifically.

More of one on behalf of the group as a whole. An "official" apology, as it were. And if that's still asking too much, then as a compromise just unban the person, and let it be done.

[hrmjustin]

14. An apology to who?

[Htom Sirveaux]

16. To whoever was banned from this group as a result of el bryanto's

statements. It seems that only one person was, so then that would be the person.

[hrmjustin]

17. He was banned because of his own actions not anybody else's.

There will be no apology. They knew what they were doing.

The ban is not permanent on him but will remain until the present hostilities end.

[Htom Sirveaux]

21. I know you said that the SoP does not need to be rewritten

But if someone can be technically in compliance with it and still in danger of being banned, then it would seem that, as written, the SoP is not adequate, that there are unwritten rules in play. They should perhaps be spelled out.

[hrmjustin]

22. You know how to debate someone you disagree with civilly.

Others don't.

People who show scorn to believers are not welcome here. People who show scorn to atheists and agnostics who debate with believers civilly are not welcome here.

[Htom Sirveaux]

23. Those last two sentences could be added to the SoP

with this modification:

People who show scorn to believers in any other venue on DU are not welcome here. People who show scorn (in any other venue on DU) to atheists and agnostics who debate with believers civilly are not welcome here.

That would more accurately reflect the standards being enforced. And I do appreciate the compliment!

[hrmjustin]

24. This is an idea.

[cbayer]

27. I agree with adding the sentiment expressed by justin in his post.

How it is worded can be decided by the hosts, but I think the idea is exactly right.

[rug]

30. Too wordy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12643949#post4

[cbayer]

25. I agree with Thom about adding your last two lines to the SOP.

While I think that is understood by those who post here and those who don't, having it explicit might be very helpful.

This splitting hairs about the SOP benefits not one. Like porn, you know disruption when you see it, but sometimes you have to arbitrarily define it.

People who show scorn to believers are not welcome here. People who show scorn to atheists and agnostics who debate with believers civilly are not welcome here.

[hrmjustin]

26. I sent it to Kentauros to see his opinion on it.

[kentauros]

84. We won't be changing it

because we want to keep it positive. Like attracts like, so why attract the negative to the group with a lower-energy statement about what we don't want? What we want is stated, so what we don't want is clearly implied, and that's all you need.

Your comment about the splitting of hairs is the problem, and no amount of redefining or being as explicit as possible will stop that. For those that love to split hairs, a rewritten SoP will simply become an even more desirable challenge, to see how far they can go before getting warned or banned.

By the way, we do warn a member if they've stepped over the line. It's when they persist in the nastiness that we block.

[cbayer]

86. That's fine. I understand your reasoning.

Your argument is pretty much the same one I would make for keeping meta out of this group. It is profoundly negative and attracts negative, imo.

[LostOne4Ever]

32. So you think goblin's blocking was totally justified and stand by it?

I don't think Bryant most recent hide was justified but I don't think what happened to Goblin was justified either.

[hrmjustin]

34. I personally did it.

Yes I stand by the time out. It is not permanent and I never wanted to do it.


I like him and I hated doing it but it was called for.

[LostOne4Ever]

35. I see

I obviously disagree. But I am not going to argue it.

It is your group and you are free to do what you want.

That said, I would appreciate it if you would block me from this group for as long as Goblin is blocked.

Thank you.

[kdmorris]

60. I think you are going to need a thread for those of us who demand to be blocked

I stand in solidarity with goblinmonger, who did not to be blocked for, and have proven myself hostile to a believer or a believer sympathizer by telling one of you to go the fuck away. That was my only hide ever on DU but I'm pretty sure it qualifies.

Like LostOne4Ever, I request that you also block me for the entirety of goblinmonger's block. I am posting this, my first post here, so that you can do so.

I do note that you posted 17 times in A&A. However, since you self deleted it all, I do not know if you were civil or not. However, I also note that you are NOT blocked from the A&A group because you apparently did NOTHING IN THAT GROUP to warrant a block, so I have to assume that you were civil, JUST LIKE GOBLINMONGER WAS.

It is a dangerous precedent to set to start banning people that you hate because they said something to someone somewhere else on DU.

[hrmjustin]

61. I appreciate your standing with your friend but the answer is no.

I do not hate him and his time out won't be that long.

He has made these decisions himself and understands how these things go.

I did not agree with some of his recent bannings but I did not do as you are diing to contest it.

The AA hosts did what they thought best as we are doing what we think best.

[kdmorris]

66. Maybe you don't hate him

but your actions seem to indicate that you don't like him. You let him be painted as a homophobe and then banned him when you could have said "enough guys".

You let the conversation go on with all kinds of shit thrown at us before you self-deleted. You could have said "enough" long before anyone called us assholes or went all "fuck you, you fucking fucker" on one of us.

You didn't. That's on you.

[hrmjustin]

67. I think you should leave this alone now.

Your making this more difficult than it needs to be.

He decided to come in here and he is responsible for his own actions.

Don't try to put this crap on me.

He will be unblocked soon but the more you post in here you make this more difficult.

Leave it be.

[cbayer]

87. Justin, please consider ignoring all of this. Please.

[rug]

64. Will you all be singing kumbaya?

Or do you prefer this?

As to this,

It is a dangerous precedent to set to start banning people that you hate because they said something to someone somewhere else on DU.

you should really, really look into the history of the blocks in your group.

[cbayer]

15. You have got to be kidding…. or something.

[cbayer]

4. I wasn't going to participate in this thread, but this post is utter hogwash.

People weren't banned for their responses to this member. People were banned because of their own behavior in this group. They had no business in there to begin with, as they have made it clear what they think of this group and it's usual participants.

El bryanto's reponses were out of line, and a jury ruled correctly. His buttons were pushed, but that's no one else's responsibility but his.

He's been bullied out of religion and this is his safe haven. No one is entitled to an apology and banning el bryanto is completely uncalled for.

What is your deal?

[okasha]

6. I agree with every syllable of this.

including tbe two in "hogwash."

[Htom Sirveaux]

7. The nub of the disagreement seems to be whether

behavior in other groups should be taken into account when deciding if behavior in here violates the SoP. I tend to think that it should not be taken into account, because to do so would be to extend the Interfaith SoP into said other groups where different rules govern. There are lots of things said in other groups on both sides that would violate this group's SoP, that's the whole point of having this group. It would be too hard to police everyone else's behavior to determine who is worthy before even coming in, and it raises the possibility of biased decisions. So decisions should be made purely on the basis of what is contained within the actual posts in this forum, not on overall character judgments. The SoP says nothing about what goes on in other forums, just that interactions here should be positive and civil. It's a good thing if people who are provocative in other places can come in here and tone it down without being pre-judged.

[cbayer]

8. Of course it should be taken into account.

Any available data should be taken into account when making a decision such as this.

It's not just about technically being in compliance with the SOP, it's about whether someone's aim is to be disruptive.

Although I think this group was set up as a ghetto, I think it can serve a purpose of protecting those that want to discuss religion without being subjected to bullying and harassment. IMO, the role of the hosts is to make sure that is what happens.

If a person who has shown overt hostility towards this group and it's usual participants steps foot into this group, there is no reason to think that their motives are anything but hostile.

This really isn't that complicated. I get that you want to make nice, nice with everyone, but that's just not always possible.

[Htom Sirveaux]

10. When is that aim determined?

I don't think we can presume that anyone with a history of provocation necessarily intends to continue when they knowingly come into a place with more restrictive rules. In fact, the opposite should be assumed: that they know the rules, and by virtue of coming in, intend to comply with them. Their aim might change while they are in here, especially in response to overt hostility (which in their minds they have not earned because they intended no disruption and are conforming to the SoP). But if that happens, the person who initiated hostilities has baited them in the forum, and THAT should prevent a ban of the person baited unless a stalking situation develops in this group as a response.

[cbayer]

13. I really don't get you at all at this point.

And I really have nothing else to say to you.

[Htom Sirveaux]

19. That's unfortunate.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to be fair.

[cbayer]

20. I don't think you are being fair at all.

[okasha]

33. I'm also having a wotthehell response to your post.

Perhaps you're unaware that the exchange between bryanto and the blocked poster was the latter's second, not first, attempt to inject himself into an internal matter here.

The first occurred the evening before, when he attempted to defend a homophobic post and its poster. That doesn't go over well here. Neither does the tag-team baiting he involved himself in the following day. We've seen way, way to much of that in Religion to believe it's anything but malicious.

Frankly, I'm amazed that you're not only attempting to defend that behavior but are insisting that bryanto should be more severely punished than the person who created the disruption. I don't think that's warranted. And I don't understand your line of thought at all.

[Htom Sirveaux]

36. Ok, here's how I would have judged the situation:

Did El bryanto bait the atheists? Yes.
Could the atheists have disengaged sooner? Yes.

Therefore, we have a situation of off-setting fouls. Each side should receive the same consequences, if there are any. That's what I've been arguing for.

As I understand everyone else, your position is that for certain atheist posters, their history justifies treating them more harshly than the above outcome. And I disagree with that. I think it is too hard to administer fairly. I think that when people come into this forum, they should be judged solely on the basis of what they post in here. Thus, the off-setting foul judgment rather than adding previous behavior to the atheist side.

[okasha]

37. Did you miss the first part of my post?

The exchange between bryanto and the blocked poster was the blocked poster's second "foul," not his first. There was no penalty for the first. How many freebies do you think a disruptive poster should get, even after he's begun to establish a pattern.?

[Htom Sirveaux]

39. All I want is consistency.

If we expect people to disengage when they are being baited, that expectation should go for both sides. If we expect people not to bait, that too should go for both sides. As it stands, history in other forums is being brought in to justify inconsistent treatment, and I don't think that is a workable or fair system.

[okasha]

42. Let me repeat this, since it apparently isn't clear.

The blocked poster was blocked for his behavior right here in Interfaith. He was not blocked for anything he said or did anywhere else. I f that were the policy, two others would have been blocked. They weren't. There is no inconsistency.

[el_bryanto]

43. His point is that I should be blocked too. For my behavior in Interfaith

Or that's my understanding.

Bryant

[Htom Sirveaux]

45. Each of you has one instance of baiting that I've seen.

He the first of the two threads under discussion, you in the second. Therefore, as I said in the very beginning, either you both should be blocked, or neither. Skip the apology since that's not even in the same room, much less on the table.

[el_bryanto]

53. How about if I self block - just agree not to post here anymore. Would that satisfy you? nt

[Htom Sirveaux]

56. I've been out-voted.

I'm not a host in this forum, so it's not my decision. I've failed to convince, so it would be procedurally wrong for you to leave just because I said so. I'm satisfied to have had a full hearing.

[okasha]

59. It would be morally wrong

for you to be run out of this group by persons who seem to be making a concerted attempt to get you temporarily or permanently banned.

[Htom Sirveaux]

62. Who are the other persons?

As far as I know, it was only me, and I have conceded on this issue.

[okasha]

63. You're not any of them.

[rug]

54. What you are ignoring is that he came into the room to bait and to disrupt.

Neither Bryant nor anyone else should be subjected to that in this room.

[okasha]

50. Mine too.

My problem is that he's basically excusing the blocked poster's other offensive behavior.

[Htom Sirveaux]

44. Ok, and what I'm saying is that in my opinion

what he did in interfaith doesn't rise to the level of blocking. The first time I agree that his opening statement about lying being a sin was inappropriate baiting. The second time he was trying to be civil in the beginning, as I saw it. He only got defensive when he was baited.

Seems like we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[okasha]

47. I sincerely hope you're not telling me

that you don't think the blocked poster's defense of a homophobic taunt was offensive. Because you certainly seem to be ignoring it in your calculus of infractions.

[Htom Sirveaux]

55. He should have stopped after being assured that it really was homophobia.

Belaboring that issue just made things worse. And as I've noted, he opened with a taunt about lying that was baiting.

But he did have a part about agreeing that what truebrit71 said was a taunt and that blocking was appropriate, did he not? And that seemed fair enough, don't you think?

[okasha]

57. Yes, he should have.

He didn't.

But thank you for at least recognizing that defense of homophobia should not be acceptable here.

[Htom Sirveaux]

58. I think we're pretty much done here.

I've had a full hearing, and I appreciate that.

[hrmjustin]

38. Do you think I would be welcome in AA?

[Htom Sirveaux]

40. Probably not, but is that the right comparison?

This is Interfaith, not Catholic/Orthodox or Buddhism.

[hrmjustin]

41. My point is that I know I wouldn't and they knew their presence would be equally disruptive.

Pms could have been sent to make a point. If that was done then this whole unfortunate incident would not have happened.

You know there is one poster who I don't get along with who is on a forced vacation who occasionally posted in here.

And while he knew people in here did not get along with him he completely behaved and talked the issues.

Others could have learned from that example. Sadly they did not.

I went in AA and questioned their rules and got my ass handed to me. I look back now and laugh at the gomer pyle comment, it was a classic.

My point is they knew what would happened if they came in questioning our rules.

[Htom Sirveaux]

46. You make a good point about the PMs.

It's clear that nobody in here agrees with me on this. Ah well, it happens.

[hrmjustin]

48. That doesn't mean your opinion doesn't count.

It does.

And we should be challenged.

[Htom Sirveaux]

49. Thanks, I appreciate that.

The fact that you all are willing to spend time engaging me shows that you do think my opinion counts.

[hrmjustin]

51. Absolutely.

[LostOne4Ever]

65. However, you were also treated fairly by the hosts in AA

When you got in trouble was when you disagreed with a hosting decision. Even then, you were not blocked or told never to post there again.

The hosts even put a lock on that thread and had a discussion on its appropriateness when you brought up your concerns. You also posted multiple times before that and were not ever given any trouble. No one said that your mere presence there was a disruption. No one objected simply because they had arguments with you from religion.

Most of all, you were given a fair shake. Can you really say that Goblin was given a fair shake here?

Lets go over what happened here.

You posted a very controversial thread about Dawkins and even remarked you hardly ever post about atheists. This in turn sent red flags up over at AA who were already POd about several Dawkins threads. Some of us were even warned not to respond as the post was flamebait. I didn't give it much thought as I thought you posted it for simple discussion.

However, truebrit saw it and responded angrily and accused you in a very insulting manner of flamebaiting. This was the first disruption and he knew he would get hidden and blocked and that is exactly what happened. Nobody is disputing that his punishment was deserved. It was very deserved.

THEN the second disruption occured when rug accused truebrit of being homophobic (even though truebrit has posted supportively of gay rights in the LBGT forum in the past). Goblin replied to that because he knew the accusation was unfair.

THEN Goblin started a conversation with you on labels when Bryant attacked Goblin totally unprovoked (sorry provoked by his history in Religion...though I had no such history and that did not stop him from attack me as well). They had an exchange till bryant got a hide. Then for 2 and a half hours the thread didn't have a single post. I will get back to this.

Meanwhile, back at the Dawkin's thread Rug and Goblin responds in an increasingly angry tone to each other. This is when Bryant comes in (after being locked out of the other thread) and brings his grudge against Goblin thus disrupting the disruption. The thread is locked by your co-host who makes it sound like Goblin was the source of the disruption when it was actually rug.

Then 2 1/2 hours after the conversation ended in the Labels thread, rug picks it back up and brings up the stuff from the other thread. Goblin is publicly chastised and accused of disrupting while rug and bryant don't get a word to them. The explanation? His very presence is a disruption.

Which means Bryan is bringing in a grudge from religion! Something your co-host specifically says is not allowed! but apparently when Bryant does it not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times...he then gets pat on the head told his unprovoked attacks were a plan to get him banned.



Then posters continue arguing in that thread for several posts long after Goblin left about truebrit's post and not a word from the hosts. I like to add that those posters were accusing truebrit's post of being a come on to you when one can simply see that is not the case or else he would have used the term "my" in relation to the comments about a worm and hook (an obvious allusion to baiting....or to be more percise flamebaiting). He accused you of "baiting" a fishing hook. Do I really need to link hundreds of other people making the same allusion all over DU to prove this when other people in this very thread have mentioned "baiting" already?

Finally, Goblin does disrupt after having been baited for two threads and you block him. Not so much as a call out against Bryant or Rug for their part in the affair. Not only that, he got all the blame for their actions. Yet, you think the blocking was justified.

I think that is not in the slightest bit fair, and I think you know it was not fair or you would not be saying Goblin's blocking is temporary.

And for the record, I don't want Bryant or rug blocked. Believe it or not i USED to like Bryant. I thought his posts in religion were well thought out and he was one of the few truly fair posters. I didn't blame him at all when he was so mad that he trashed religion and was sympathetic to him. Then he went off on me, and now on Goblin when neither of us where being hostile to him. I also used to like rug, but that has nothing to do with what is happening in here.

What I do want is for you to unblock Goblin and treat people fairly in here. I want people to be treated fairly in every group and what I REALLY REALLY want is for both groups to be civil to each other or failing that to JUST LEAVE EACH OTHER ALONE. If you can't be nice stay out. No more alert trolling, no more flame posts. But after the double standards I have seen here, the victim blaming that has been going on...I don't think that is going to happen.

I can understand your hostility to Warren but until he does something deserving of being blocked or told never to post again, you are in the wrong in going after him. This is INTERfaith not liberal Christians and progressive people of faith. You can not say non-believers are welcome here and then say their very presence is a disruption.

If people have problems with people from other rooms, then use ignore. After putting about 8 people on ignore I can now view the religion room without turning into a fiery ball of rage. It works wonders and this whole mess could have been avoided.

But as I said above its your group, you can do what you want. But if you are going to block Goblin I want you to block me too.

[hrmjustin]

68. I thank you for your standing with him but it is time to stop posting about this.

I am not perfect nor are the other hosts.

My block of him was right and he knew it.

He did not contest it and he knows I did not want to do it.

You are doing a great job defending him and you should be commended for it.

But continuing this makes it more difficult to unban him.

Please drop the matter and let a few days pass.

Goblin is a good poster and he knows I did not want to do it. But he was asked to stop and he came back a second day.

I did not do that in AA.

Pleaee leave this alone now and let a few days pass.

[LostOne4Ever]

70. If it is just going to be a few days then just block KD and I

You bear no responsibility or guilt for our blocking. We literally asked for it.

As for AA, you were also not told not to post again or blamed for the actions of others. These situations are not equivalent.

I know you are a good person who tries and do what he thinks is right. The fact that you find this difficult is proof of that. However, we are also doing the same here.

Please block us until Goblin is unblocked. Then you won't have to deal with the two of us.

Otherwise you will have to block us for wanting to be blocked and not taking no for an answer, and that is just confusing @_@

[hrmjustin]

72. You know that is not going to happen.

You are a good person as is Goblin.

[LostOne4Ever]

74. Then at the very least, please take our complaints under advisement.

Thank you,

And I truly am sorry that this situation had to happen.

[hrmjustin]

76. You are a worthy advocate and always welcome here.

[rug]

69. TL;DR and what does your post have to do with this Group's SoP?

If they don't block you, sign up as Spartacus and try again.

[LostOne4Ever]

71. I prefer to be Octavious (nt)

[rug]

73. You're acting more like the subject of a piece by Juvenal.

[stone space]

88. Ok, I'm confused.

Maybe you can explain this in a way that even an atheist can understand it?

You posted a very controversial thread about Dawkins and even remarked you hardly ever post about atheists. This in turn sent red flags up over at AA who were already POd about several Dawkins threads. Some of us were even warned not to respond as the post was flamebait.

Why would a thread about some biologist send red flags all over the place?

Is it because the biologist is an atheist or something?

[okasha]

89. Good question.

[LostOne4Ever]

90. Too bad I don't think it is a sincere question

Better question is why that specific poster is replying to me long after I made it clear I would not respond back to him.

Further, why they don't have me on ignore seeing as that poster has accused me of stalking them despite the fact that I have only engaged them in conversation a grand total of two times. Once to correct them (with a bunch of links) in our first ever meeting on an old thread he "necroed", and the second ended with me saying I would never respond to them again.

On the other hand this poster has tried to engage me multiple times. Even engaging me on discussionist and then accusing me of stalking them (again when they are the one who started up a conversation with me).



Needless to say, I am not particularly fond of that poster.

But if you want to know, it has to do with politics and the matter of perception vs reality. He is perceived as the leader of atheists everywhere by the public and media despite many of us saying time and again that is not true.

Now I think its time to let this thread die.

[okasha]

91. Ask him.

I have no interest in any feud you may have with another member. This is a safe haven, not a place to pursue your personal grudges.

[LostOne4Ever]

92. Why? All that will do is cause a fight.

I am not pursuing a grudge. I am just not responding to him. That is the definition of not pursuing a grudge.

If others would have pursued a similar course of action this OP would not be here.

I responded to you because you said that was a good question. My participation in this thread was over till you said that. So I gave you an answer. And hopefully this thread end with this post.

Take care

[stone space]

93. Seriously?

He is perceived as the leader of atheists everywhere by the public and media despite many of us saying time and again that is not true.

I don't know anybody who thinks of Dawkins as a leader of atheists everywhere.

[el_bryanto]

94. Leader might be stretching it - but he is held up as the "representative" atheist by some believers

who want to attack atheists. If he says something unwise or unclear, some believers hold him and say "Look he's just as bad as our religious leaders."

If Dawkins had started freethought or atheist societies, and if many atheists had joined these societies than this argument might make sense; as it is, he's just a guy who has written influential books on atheist matters. He's not representatives of Atheists as a whole. If you want to attack him for foolish statements, fair enough, but you can't extend that argument to either an attack on atheism as a whole or a defense of believers.

Bryant

[stone space]

95. It's only reciently that...

...I even remember the guy's name.

As it turns out, I actually read a book by him back in the 1970s, but didn't remember the name of the author.

I've never read any of his later stuff on atheism, and as a mathematician, I doubt that I would understand much of his academic and scientific work in biology. (The book of his that I read back in the 1970s was just a popular account for the general audience, titled "The Selfish Gene".)

I suspect that I am like many old-school atheists in this.

Except for seeing his name on the internet these last few years, many of us would not even know who he is, even if by chance we happened to read one of his books at some point in our lives.

[hrmjustin]

96. My introduction to Dawkins was from DU and Bill Maher.

Dawkins is a smart man but arrogant and insulting, but a lot of people are like that.

[rug]

52. Atheism is not a faith.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. A "ghetto", eh? Perhaps you're right...

but I was thinking more of a sanctuary.

We're all well aware of the attitudes of some of our favorite disruptors but I like the experiment of leaving it outside the door when you come in here. Someone can rant and rave about the idiocies of belief and the evils of the Popes all they want, but if they come in with a real question or civil comment all that is left outside.

As a Quaker, I've worked with outspoken atheists on peace and hunger projects, and that is the sort of experience I'd like to see here.

We're all human, though, and it doesn't work that way enough times. I suppose is means we should all work harder to make it work, but a discussion board isn't as urgent as a food program in the real world.

[kentauros]

83. I didn't know you were a Quaker.

Shows what I know! Nice post, by the way

[cbayer]

85. I say ghetto because this group was suggested and promoted by the very people

that are now disrupting it. There is an interesting history here.

At any rate, a ghetto can be turned into a sanctuary, and I am in favor of doing just that.

I'm ok with giving people a chance and a warning. If someone can truly leave it outside, then they deserve that.

OTOH, if someone has openly and repeatedly trashed specific members who frequent this room, I think the rope should be extremely short.

Outspoken is fine. Outspoken is even good. Harassing and bullying is not.

I was thinking last night about why this site is or is not important both in the big scheme of things and to me personally. I agree that it is not as urgent as a food program in the real world.

[TM99]

11. Agreed.

This was a boundary violation of the safe-haven.

I do not agree with any suggestion of banning El Bryanto. He lost his temper. He expressed himself poorly. He suffered the immediate consequences of a hidden post and blocking from the thread. Period. It is done in my book.

[kentauros]

5. Only one member was blocked,

for uncivil behavior, i.e., violating the SoP. That decision is also still under advisement.

[Htom Sirveaux]

9. Then that person should be unblocked.

Yes, he reacted defensively, but it was in response to statements that were admittedly out of line. To block him for that would create a "baiting" situation, and unequal results.

[rug]

29. How about you go there and ask if they want an apology?

The results will be spectacular.

[cbayer]

18. Actually, you only get 2 more before you get banned from the site.

Take a break. Put some members on ignore. Do whatever you have to do, but don't get yourself banned unless that is what you really want.

It's just not worth it.

[No Vested Interest]

28. El Bryanto, friend. I hope you can get beyond

the hate you expressed.

It's not worth the energy.

You may have good reason, I don't doubt that, but it's better to not let any individual stand in your way to peace and tranquility.
We come to DU to be informed and to share with others, who may be like us or not.

Beyond that, it's not worth the time we spend here.

I wish the best for you.

[hrmjustin]

75. I want to make something clear.

This group will from time to time discuss Dawkins and non belief from time to time.

For those who are not regular posters you will havd to understand we are allowed to discuss these things.

AA has posts that I want to respond to BUT I DON'T.

I understand there are boundaries and somd posters who can not play nice should respect our boundaries here.

You can always argue the issue out in religion.

[rug]

77. Gee, I don't know.

You posted a very controversial thread about Dawkins and even remarked you hardly ever post about atheists. This in turn sent red flags up over at AA who were already POd about several Dawkins threads.

Someone somewhere may be offended.

[LostOne4Ever]

78. I prefer fruit for my bait

Insects don't appeal to this fish

[rug]

79. No offense.

[LostOne4Ever]

80. None taken (nt)

[hrmjustin]

81. Well I think it was honestly said but the members of AA have to realize we can discuss him

Here without their permission.

I understand it might have gotten the attention of some but cartoons are posted in AA that either infuriate me or make me laugh.

But I don't respond. Some of the members of AA need to honestly knowwe can discuss him here without their aid.

If a poster makes a civil point disagreeing with us that is fine.

Rug it does seem that in the end the room that so many members of AA who say they do not pay attention to is being watched.

On that account they were being dishonest.

I freely admit I read AA because it interests me.

[hrmjustin]

82. consensus of the hosts is to leave the SOP alone.