We need to have a discussion about the rules

[okasha]

in this group. We need something that will not exclude non-believers with something productive and/or interesting to offer (stone space,, for example) but will allow us to deal with what has now become serial disruption with some degree of dispatch, before a thread has become completely derailed, as carolinayellowdog's was.

[hrmjustin]

1. I think we do need to rethink a few things in here.

We want this room to be open to all beliefs but we need to make clear that disruption is not permitted.

In the past few weeks we have banned several posters for disruption.

[ColesCountyDem]

2. "...but we need to make clear that disruption is not permitted".

Bingo!

[hrmjustin]

3. i hate banning people but it has become necessary at times.

[ColesCountyDem]

4. I understand, and would dislike doing so, too.

Unfortunately, disruptors are the vandals of the cyberage, and must be dealt with accordingly.

[hrmjustin]

6. Yes this is true.

Sometimes i understand that a person feels the need to respond to something posted here but they need to ask themselves will it cause disruption or get me banned.

I caused a disruption in AA once and will never go in there again because my presence would be disruptive.

I wish some would get that their presence here would be equally disruptive.

[okasha]

9. Vandals.

Nailed it.

[hrmjustin]

5. I think one thing needs to be said.

The hosts of this room take into account the behavior of posters in other rooms when a ban is considered.

If a person makes a point of denigrating religion and believers on DU and come into our room then there will be issues.

The fact is if a person dislikes religion and religious people then this room is not for them.

[TM99]

7. I am going to be very blunt.

The disruption was a damned fine example of 'militant atheism'.

An emotional and over the top response in a safe-haven is the very definition of this kind of militancy. Dare I say, it has been an invasion of militant atheists?

Plain and simple, just ban the individual and do so with any others that do the same kind of behavior. Rules are boundaries. Not enforcing them emboldens others to violate those boundaries.

[okasha]

10. I agree.

This particular poster has also repeatedly declared that she "will never post in Interfaith again," and demanded to banned along with another disruptor. I think her wish should be granted.

That's apart from the fact that anyone who believes that a dictionary is dispositive evidence of anything is arguing at fifth-grade level I think we can do better than that in this group.

[LostOne4Ever]

11. You are mistaking Religion with interfaith

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]I was under the impression that interfaith was a safehaven in which belief and nonbelief would not be criticized. A place both parties were to be safe. [/font]


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Though I have become annoyed with some posters I quite like Justin and some others here and post occasionally.

When I asked Justin to ban me, it was for as long as goblin was banned. Justin refused and Goblin is no longer banned.

When debating the meaning of words, I think dictionaries matter. It is not debating at a fifth grade level. It is giving evidence. It is citing authoritative sources.

Thank you for your concern.[/font]

[LostOne4Ever]

13. Was anyone hurt or threatened with acts of violence?

Last edited Tue Dec 9, 2014, 07:17 PM - Edit history (1)

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Then it is not [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT',''Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=5 color=crimson]"militant atheism."[/font]

So a slur is used and I simply explain how why I consider it a slur and that is emotional or over the top? I ask you to reread my statement. It was not emotional or over the top. I feel I was fairly neutral in my response.

Does objecting, even if emotional, to a slur now count as extremism (using this word because I object to the other)? So are the LGBT group extremeist when they get upset about someone using a slur against them? The feminist groups? The various ethnic groups?

What rules did I break? Meanwhile the OP of the thread in question criticizes a type of non-belief (which is against the SOP) calling it authoritarian and a reptilian brain (dehumanizing an entire group) and for the act of speaking on my own behalf, calmly and rationally I deserve to be banned?



I was attacked for simply commenting on a post and I am the offending party? One of the hosts responds to my post with a hostile tone and I respond back calmly and it is me who is the problem?

Interfaith is supposed to be people of different religious traditions coming together and working for a bigger goal than themselves. Part of that is talking to each other and acknowledging our differences. Discussing things and trying not to offend each other. My comment was in that tradition.

But again, I am breaking the rules by following them?[/font]

[TM99]

15. Come on.

You are smarter than this and we both know it. Words have meaning besides the 'literal' ones you keep quoting out of the dictionary.

One can be militant without literally perpetrating violence. One can score points in a relationship without literally having a score board. One can fight for their beliefs without literally throwing a punch. You get the point.

Also please stop playing the victim, and definitely stop comparing the current new atheist persecution complex with being a person of color or an LGBT.

My sister is gay. She was beat up as a young child for her sexual orientation. She still lives in a state that will not recognize that she and her partner of 12 years deserve to be married if they so choose. My father is black and my mother is white. You don't know shit about racism. Getting your feelings hurt and running to the defense of atheists everywhere because one poster said some, not all, atheists can be as militant and as reactionary as the fundamentalist religious believers we all despise is no where even close to what real persecution is. And frankly it is damned offensive to suggest it in an emotionally laden post defending your inappropriate actions.

Stop being a hypocrite as well. The Interfaith group is safe haven that just happens to be open to non-believers. The A&A safe haven does not specifically say all are welcome. And it is quite obvious that all are not. Personally and subjectively offensive material about religions and believers is posted there frequently. If a believer came in to the safe-haven and complained, what do you think the response has been? If you guess a shark attack and then banning the poster, you would be correct.

So you think it is offensive. Well bring it up in the Religion forum and let's all have another knock down drag out fight about dictionary definitions, common usage of terms, and reality where it belongs. It does not belong here. Can you not see that it is inappropriate to keep pushing your personal feelings into this safe haven? I object to most of the bullshit you new atheists push in the A&A safe haven, and I respect that it is your space to act, feel, and say what you will. I am a fucking non-believer and I did not find the post offensive. It was your own subjective emotional response. Please go work through that in another forum that is more suited for that.

[LostOne4Ever]

16. You and I have had civil conversations before

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Lets try to have one here. [/font]

You are smarter than this and we both know it. Words have meaning besides the 'literal' ones you keep quoting out of the dictionary.

One can be militant without literally perpetrating violence. One can score points in a relationship without literally having a score board. One can fight for their beliefs without literally throwing a punch. You get the point.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Yes, and slurs against a group often ignore that. The word "Queer" is often used as a slur against anyone from the LGBTQ community. It can also be used positively by people like me. Simple question, is it okay for a straight cis male to use that epitaph as an insult? Is it okay for a white man to call a black woman any racial slur? Does the fact that these words can have a huge number of perfectly fine uses make them any less a slur?[/font]

Also please stop playing the victim, and definitely stop comparing the current new atheist persecution complex with being a person of color or an LGBT.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]What victim card? The only victim card I am playing is that I am receiving personal attacks when I have not attacked or insulted anyone. This is happening currently.

The rest of what I am using are examples and rhetorical questions (my favorite way to make a point).

Why can't we compare? Just because they are of different severities does not make them any less wrong. In LGBTQ issues there are people who oppose comparing what is happening to marriage equality to biracial marriage. What is the usual response from the LGBTQ community? That it is dumb to debate severity. What is wrong is wrong. I think the same applies here.[/font]

My sister is gay. She was beat up as a young child for her sexual orientation. She still lives in a state that will not recognize that she and her partner of 12 years deserve to be married if they so choose. My father is black and my mother is white. You don't know shit about racism. Getting your feelings hurt and running to the defense of atheists everywhere because one poster said some, not all, atheists can be as militant and as reactionary as the fundamentalist religious believers we all despise is no where even close to what real persecution is. And frankly it is damned offensive to suggest it in an emotionally laden post defending your inappropriate actions.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Other than knowing I am an asexual atheist what else do you know about me? Do you know my race? Do you know my gender? Do you know my sex? Maybe my last name is Jewish? Cause other than a single mentioning that I have issues with conforming with my gender that was assigned at birth (in the LGBT group) I am pretty sure I have never mentioned any of that. In fact, I have intentionally kept quiet about all those things so as to have people debate my ideas and not who I am on DU.

How do you know I don't know shit about racism?

And how does any of that make using a slur less wrong?

And did I not agree with said poster that some atheists could be militant? But I was explaining why it was a slur:[/font]

Yes there are militant jews, and militant atheists, but in both of these cases they are distorting the word in a hateful bigoted way against activists for both groups instead of just those that advocate or resort to violence.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Right there. Again words can have legitimate uses but they can also be used as slurs[/font]

Stop being a hypocrite as well. The Interfaith group is safe haven that just happens to be open to non-believers. The A&A safe haven does not specifically say all are welcome. And it is quite obvious that all are not. Personally and subjectively offensive material about religions and believers is posted there frequently. If a believer came in to the safe-haven and complained, what do you think the response has been? If you guess a shark attack and then banning the poster, you would be correct.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]How am I being a hypocrite? When Justin long ago said he didn't like being called a certain word, I told him I believed in respect and would never use it against him. I have kept my oath.

What does A&A have to do with this? This is not A&A and I did not bring over a single grudge from there or religion because its against the rules here. This is not the anti-A&A or else it would say non-believers are welcome here. This is interfaith. We are supposed to work together and tolerate each other. I did not attack anyone, I defended myself. Against something that IS against the SOP.

And wouldn't the OPPOSITE of AA be the progressive persons of faith? I thought Interfaith was supposed to be "religion" but without all the snark and attacks because it was a safehaven group?[/font]

So you think it is offensive. Well bring it up in the Religion forum and let's all have another knock down drag out fight about dictionary definitions, common usage of terms, and reality where it belongs. It does not belong here. Can you not see that it is inappropriate to keep pushing your personal feelings into this safe haven? I object to most of the bullshit you new atheists push in the A&A safe haven, and I respect that it is your space to act, feel, and say what you will. I am a fucking non-believer and I did not find the post offensive. It was your own subjective emotional response. Please go work through that in another forum that is more suited for that.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]No I don't see how it is inappropriate to be honest.

This is a safehaven, and I have not attacked anyone or violated the SoP or anything? What is it I have violated other than having an unpopular opinion? Is there a rule about no disagreeing that I don't know about? Is there a rule that attacks against atheists are okay even though it specifically says no criticizing non-belief and non-believers? Can I not even try and EXPLAIN my view on the subject?

Again, reread my post. Even though I was offended by the post...I never attacked him/her. I explained why I thought it was offensive and why many other atheists consider it a slur. That all, that it, and I have been attacked repeatedly for it and my font. The latter in particular I am perplexed by.

Yes you are a non-believer. But sometimes members of a group don't take offense at the same thing. Some african americans hate the n-word and never want it to be used again. Then there is the boondocks. Does that make it less of a slur?

I just don't see the rule I broke, I don't the offense I caused, and I don't see what I did wrong other than hold an unpopular opinion. And to be honest, I don't see why the OP of the original post did not get called out for actually breaking the SoP.

If you don't like what I am doing change the SoP/Rules and I will abide by them. But again I don't see where I did that.

However, I have been attacked over and over. I have been called a ninny who just discovered colors. I have been accused of bullying when I have not bullied anyone. I ask you, reread what I wrote. Then reread what they wrote. Who is the real disrupt-or here? I attacked nobody.

Ill be back later:



PS: I am not a "new" atheist. Most of my emotion comes defensively and not in an offensive effort to get people to give up religion.

PPS: The OP deleted their original message but through the miracle of Google Cache I was able to find it again:[/font]
[center] http://imgur.com/RubpC3V [/center]

[TM99]

17. We have, however, I am not going back and forth with you.

No one was making offensive statements about atheists in general. You came in to a Safe Haven to defend something that was not there. You are tilting at a windmill of your own creation.

Others here, believers and not, as a community are saying that what you are doing is simply not OK. And you are not listening. You are justifying and rationalizing instead of simply ending it. You want to continue the conflict presumably because you are feeling defensive. These actions are combative. They can make you appear as a militant.

You have asked others in various forums to respect you, to respect atheists, to not define you, etc. And yet here you are doing those very things in this Safe Haven.

Do I want to see you banned? No. I think good conversations can be had. But you are not acting on good faith by fighting against something that didn't even exist to begin with.

[LostOne4Ever]

18. Then lets not go back and forth

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]I obviously disagree about the contents of the post but lets skipped that entirely and lets just make this a learning experience. Quote me where in my original post in that thread I am being combative before I was accused of bullying.

Quote it and lets analyze it, discuss why it feels combative to you. Where was I defining others? Quote me so I can see how my comments were redefining people. Again, I don't see it. Help me. My comments were to why I and many others see the term militant atheist as a slur. Show me how that was redefining or disrespecting others.

Show me how my comments were more offensive than a person who is saying that all the self-identifying militant {insert label}s in Interfaith "cannot see nuances" and how they all have in that poster's own words..."a reptilian mind."

If we do that, even if I disagree, we can at least avoid such situations in the future. Isn't that a positive? You listened to me, my turn to listen to you. This is interfaith, lets work together.[/font]

[rug]

8. I don't think it's a matter of belief or nonbelief.

Disruption is very easy to spot. and clicking the block button is even easier.

I suggest any host reading feel free to use it first, discuss it second.

Assholes can be assholes elsewhere.

[LostOne4Ever]

12. Are we talking about the most recent post?

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I did not disrupt that post at all. I commented on what the OP posted. He discussed militant atheism and how some atheists champion the word and others use it as a slur.

My comments were related to that. If the OP wanted to focus on something else he/she could have simply said so instead of attacking me and my font choice (seriously?).

Would it have been so hard to simply say:[/font]

"you misunderstand, I mentioned X but I want to focus on Y?"

[LostOne4Ever]

14. Could there also be a discussion on personal attacks?

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]I have been repeatedly attacked without provocation here in interfaith. And it seems to go against the SOP[/font]


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]How are personal attacks in line with positive and civil discussion? Why is my font choice being attacked? How does it hurt anyone? I have received nothing but positive comments on it before now, and have been using it for months. Are these type of fonts not allowed here?

How is defending the use of slurs against a group an emphasis on tolerance? Don't I get to at the very least explain why such "adjectives" are offensive?

That is all I have done and there is talk about banning me for it? How is that tolerance? How is that fair? Doesn't that violate the spirit of a safehaven? I have no history of attacking believers who have not insulted me first. In no thread in this group have I initiated a single attack against anyone else.

I have been posting here off and on for over a year. Shouldn't I be afforded a smidgen of respsect?[/font]

[rug]

19. Don't take it personally. Comic Sans has that effect on people.

[LostOne4Ever]

20. Actually its papyrus

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Though, tbh....comic sans is my fall back font on the CSS.

My apologies to those of you who whose computer does not support papyrus.

I am open to suggestions for alternate fantasy fonts to replace it as my fall back.[/font]

[rug]

21. How about Infidel?

[LostOne4Ever]

22. I like that, might have to download it (nt)

[el_bryanto]

23. I think it goes deeper than a discussion of the rules to what the purpose of this forum is

If the purpose is to create a safe haven where we can complain about atheists than there's no real reason to allow atheists into the room, unless they largely share our complaints.

If the purpose is to create a religion forum where various belief systems are discussed with respect, than I think we should look to not banning so many atheists, but accepting that they look at things substantially different than us. The down side to this approach is that it is harder on the moderators and increases the possibility that we will get disruptors.

I have been on both sides of this coin I have to admit.

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

24. I have used it as both myself.

I have had to learn to bite my tongue when wanting to start an op on what someond said in religion.

[okasha]

26. No one has been banned because s/he is an atheist.

The people who have been banned have been banned because their behavior and their posts were disruptive. In some instances, there have been what were obviously coordinated intrusions for the purpose of harrassment.

This group was started in order to have a place where believers and non-believers could have respectful conversations without having to deal with the kind of crap that is the steady diet of the Religion group. There's no problem with accepting that atheists see things from a substantially different viewpoint. The problem, when it occurs, is that some--not all; some--atheists are either unwilling or unable to have a respectful conversation with a believer on a religious topic.

The hosts have been extremely patient in dealing with these people, far more so than A/A hosts when believers blunder into their group. They've gone beyond the extra mile. What I think we need is a clear line that says, "Cross over this defined level of obnoxiousness, and you will be banned as a troll, whether on your first post or your hundredth."

[el_bryanto]

27. I don't agree that they have been patient enough. I think that people have been banned for

relatively trivial comments, but those comments are added to all the things they say in the Religion Forum and, in some cases, the AA forum.

I think also that you need to define what you mean by respectful - it's unreasonable to expect Atheists to feign a respect in the supernatural or the divine, since their stance suggests that those things are unworthy of respect.

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

28. Well i can say all bans were done with all in agreement.

Also it has been my and some others opinions in this room that the disruptions were coordinated.

While I don't wish to get into every case because the can't defend themselves here I will say that i respect your opinion that you think we might have been too quick to ban. We ha e given the option for members to request in three months after their ban to request it be removed.

[TreasonousBastard]

29. I don't buy that...

Agreed that some atheists (militant or not) are antagonistic toward belief, but that is not what defines atheism. At least not here.

It's my understanding that this is place where Roman Catholics can ask about Buddhist thought and Muslims can ask about Mormon magic underwear without getting into a fight or insulting each other. That being the case, atheists should be as welcome as anyone else as long as they don't come here to disparage belief.

Atheism is often quite spiritual in its own way, and when it is there are many things we can share.

I'm open to the idea that what is said on other forums should have little or no effect on this one-- as long as there's no spillover of insults or another forum is used to attack this one..

[el_bryanto]

30. I'm not sure what part of my statement you don't buy. It seems we are on the same page

I mean using the phrase "Mormon Magic Underwear" isn't the most respectful, but I can let it go.

Bryant

[TreasonousBastard]

31. I don't buy that atheists are automatically antagonistic toward religion...

many are, and even more are troubled by religious influences barging in on their lives. But, atheists should not be treated with suspicion.

Since Mormon "magic underwear" was a topic of discussion around here and other places a while back, I would assume anyone knowing little of the LDS might have picked that up and be curious about it.

[el_bryanto]

32. OK

Well I agree that they shouldn't be treated with suspicion - but I also don't think we need to wear rose colored glasses. Oftentimes we do disagree, and papering over those disagreements isn't a worthwhile pursuit.

You understand that Mormons don't call it "magic underwear" right?

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

25. kicking. the discussion is important.

[okasha]

33. Since Pinto has resigned as host in Religion,

and the outbreak of another host war will likely ensue, I think we'd do well to take steps to ensure that this remains a truly safe haven for discussion. We need to have a firm criterion for dealing with the kind of out-of-control, harassing behavior that derailed carolinayellowdog's thread. I would like to suggest the following:

Direct violation of the SOP: immediate ban for 90 days.

Any ensuing direct violation of the SOP: immediate permanent ban.

First disruptive post: warning.

Second disruptive post: ban.for 90 days.

First disruptive post following timeout: permanent ban.

This would involve defining "disruption" more clearly and would probably be best pinned as a "Read First" post.

[hrmjustin]

34. Hopefully the nominstion process will go smoothly. i nominated TexasTowlie.

Hopefully these issues won't spill in here and we will deal with them as quickly as we can.

The ones I recently banned I told them they can asked to have their banned reviewed in three months but that does not mean the hosts will unban.

Your proposals are interesting and I hope to hear the other host and posters views on them.

[MADem]

51. We don't need to be discussing what happens in the RELIGION group here. Period.

I say that as a host and the person who dreamed up the idea for this group way back in DU2. I will say seeing this kind of stuff here is perturbing to me, and I think it violates the spirit of this group.

This isn't the locker room for the Religion Group cheerleading squad or the A/A wrecking crew. We shouldn't be planning, worrying, or demonstrating any concern for what happens in the Religion group. That's THEM, we're a different thing altogether. We welcome everyone who isn't an asshole--that, in essence, is our charge.

This group is a safe haven, not a staging area for attacks or strategies taking place in other groups. It's supposed to be a place where people can have a polite, friendly, decent, civil conversation, where people won't be snarking and shitting on one another, and where everyone behaves as if they're at grandma's house for Sunday supper.

I don't think we need to worry so much about "bad behavior," either. If people can't behave, show them the door. If they want to come back, THEY need to ask--we shouldn't be "bookkeeping" and worrying about thirty or ninety day bans and inviting them to return.

Disruptors are gonna disrupt, but we don't need to put up with that shit. JMO and YMMV. I will say what I'm seeing here, the shit-stirring and referencing, is not making me happy.

[kentauros]

53. Good points all, and thank you for voicing them.

I've refrained from speaking up in this thread because I never really had much to say one way or another. Except for one:

"Safe-haven" does not mean "private room" where people are invited to join and then only those people are "members" of the group. We're just as open as the rest of DU, with the stipulation in the SOP that we're a safe-haven.

What MADem pointed out above is a good enough description of what we expect of those that post here. If you post in ways counter to the SOP, then expect to be called on it.

Now what I do find so fucking perplexing is why the concept of "civil discussion" is so difficult for people to figure out around here ("here" being pretty much all of DU.) I sometimes feel like a parent dealing with unruly children, even though I'm child-free!

[TM99]

57. I agree, and the only way to keep

the Religion Group from bleeding into Interfaith is to keep those from there and elsewhere who want to disrupt out of Interfaith. Period.

So I concur with your suggestions here.

[eomer]

35. Are you proposing that this group should begin to follow its SOP?

If it did I might post here at times. In its current state this group is just a safe haven for making hostile remarks against non-believers. There isn't much discussion here other than that.

Edit to include the SOP:

A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.

[hrmjustin]

36. Did you come in here just to complain about us? Really?

[eomer]

37. I came here to ask whether this group is considering following its SOP.

If so I'd probably participate.

[hrmjustin]

38. We do enforce our sop and you are welcome.

[eomer]

41. Thanks for the warm welcome.

Will see if I can participate in a way that's constructive, as per the SOP.

[hrmjustin]

42. Enjoy.

[okasha]

39. I think our SOP is just fine.

The hosts have been more than patient even with disruptive posters.

Yes, people occasionally vent here. We don't have "several off-site chat rooms" for the purpose of trash-talking other DU'ers. Oddly enough, we don't seem to need them.

[hrmjustin]

40. Well said okasha! Well said!

[eomer]

46. I think the SOP is fine too, will try to live up to it when posting here.

And I've never seen or been to any off-site chat room where DUers talk about other members, wouldn't want to do that and don't think it's good for others to do it either. I'm sure there are plenty others, believers and non-believers, who like me participate in Religion and don't do that.

[okasha]

49. Welcome back, eomer.

Last edited Sun Dec 21, 2014, 11:40 PM - Edit history (1)

I seem to remember you've posted here before.

[rug]

43. You must have been reading another group. I think it starts with "A".

Check the thread titles on the front page here. You're mistaken.

[eomer]

45. No, I was definitely reading this group.

Not the thread titles but rather individual posts in threads that are on the first page.

But maybe we should move on from that and see if we can take a constructive approach.

[rug]

48. That's a good plan.

Talking about them adds as little in here as talking to them.

[carolinayellowdog]

44. "friendly and respectful" would be far better than "tolerant" and "civil" and "positive" because

people who relentlessly attack others in pseudonymous Internet forums can come up with a million justifications for why that is positive-- because it's a good thing to attack people who are wrong-- and civil-- as long as they don't resort to name-calling. I've seen a dozen Interfaith discussion groups be destroyed over the years-- back in the early to mid 90s in Usenet, and in the early 2000s in Yahoo groups. In every case, a friendly and respectful majority at the start got disrupted by unfriendly and disrespectful individuals, a minority but a vociferous bunch of fanatics that destroyed the group. In every case, waffling and well-meaning moderators tolerated escalating levels of abuse in the name of free speech, until the bad people drove out all the good people.

[okasha]

47. Good to see you back, carolinayellowdog.

Please feel free to speak your mind in here. You mentioned to me that you have some writing projects in hand. I'd like to hear about those.

[carolinayellowdog]

55. Interfaith dialogue, 1880s style

Last edited Fri Dec 26, 2014, 12:28 PM - Edit history (1)

I have a couple of projects that are purely writing-- chapters for multi-author collections-- but those are done and await only editing by others. What's engaging me currently is a couple of editorial projects; right now completing the co-editing of a large recently discovered cache of late 19th century correspondence. 48 writers, all writing letters to the same man, from very diverse perspectives. Mostly Americans in the heartland, but some Brits, Indians, and Greeks. Spiritualists, Rosicrucians, Unitarians, Hermeticists, Transcendentalists, Christian Scientists, Theosophists, a Sufi, a Hindu Yogi, almost a United Nations of "alternative" spirituality at the time Americans were first embracing non-Christian traditions.

And all friendly and respectful!

[hrmjustin]

50. Good to see you back my friend!

[MADem]

52. Then they need to be shown the door.

Look, we know them when we see them. They're easy to spot. Everyone should be given the courtesy of being reminded where they are (it's easy to stumble into a safe-haven and not know it) but if they persist in playing the jerk, they need to be invited to seek stimulation elsewhere. The old "Don't go away mad, just go away" works a treat. I am not a fan of coddling.

[TM99]

56. I completely agree.

I, too, have watched discussion groups destroyed in just such a manner. One group simply will not let up. They are aggressive, invasive, inappropriate, and unyielding. The other side wants to take the high ground, not stoop to such argumentativeness, and cops a laissez-faire attitude. Serious posters on topics of discussion simply stop posting. The conflicts continue, and ultimately, what was once possible becomes impossible.

I have said it once, and I will say it again. Boundaries need to be elucidated and then followed. Warnings must follow up with action if bad behavior continues. And hosts must not be afraid to ban disruptors.

[el_bryanto]

54. It sounds like the religion forum is falling apart.

I'm glad I am not putting up with it anymore.

Bryant