New Donation Groups

[Napoléon]

Actually the 'thread' was only a link, which is a lazy cop-out as far as I'm concerned. I don't respond to links. There is also a comment that comes up if a thread hasn't been commented on for more than a specified time, which suggests starting a new thread. This is clearly a cliquey little in-group of people who belong in a chatroom, not a site that purports to be an 'atheist forum'. If a certain self-proclaimed 'highly spiritual', yet confusingly popular poster who appears to have no life except on here would shut up for once, I'm sure the forum would improve about 60 per cent. That's not likely to happen. I get paid to write in the 'real' world. I also have a friend who writes brilliantly on a multitude of topics and has degrees in both physics and law who wanted to write on here too, but all the juvenile crap put him off. Clearly this 'chatroom' isn't for me, and it's obvious you don't welcome outsiders. @Violet Your response didn't disappoint. Entirely expected lol.

Are you always this pretentious, or do you genuinely believe you are better than everyone else?

If internet forums were filled with miserable cunts like you I doubt I'd have 6 posts yet alone 6000. Just because we have a sense of humour, and don't take things too seriously, in no way means we are incapable of reasoned or rational discussion. There's plenty of that to be had on here, and I don't think you've looked very far if you reckon there ain't.

But here's an idea if you think this place fails so bad to meet your high standards...

Fuck off.

[Kayenneh]

Unfortunately everyone can't be pleased. Though I'd like to see Joy start her own forums to truly appreciate how much work that is behind it. If she did, she would at least be justified in complaining if she didn't like what the members were doing.

[Jackalope]

I thought drama was scheduled for Thursdays?

[Violet]

I thought drama was scheduled for Thursdays?

What would the weekend be without a spontaneous Sunday drama?

But you know Lil, passive-aggressiveness is so chic and intelligent, we juvenile idiots just don't get it.

I may not get it, but I'll be damned if I don't know something chic when I see it.

[Tiberius]

Actually the 'thread' was only a link, which is a lazy cop-out as far as I'm concerned. I don't respond to links.

A thread can't be a link. The first post in it can, but the rest of the thread was made up of thoughtful and thought-provoking posts made by our members on the subject of Atheism+. You don't need to respond to the first post of a thread; you can respond to any of the posts within it. The thread itself is merely a container for the discussion.

There is also a comment that comes up if a thread hasn't been commented on for more than a specified time, which suggests starting a new thread.

Yes, and this shows up after a thread has not had any comments for 30 days...at which time it is considered to be "dead", and a new discussion is probably going to be more appropriate. There was no such message on the original Atheism+ thread, because the thread was still being actively posted in (the last post was on 17th January, which was only a couple of days before you posted your thread). 2 days is not 30 days, hence why you were informed of the older thread. Note that your thread wasn't closed; we were just pointing out that a more active thread already existed, and your comment would likely get more attention in it.

This is clearly a cliquey little in-group of people who belong in a chatroom, not a site that purports to be an 'atheist forum'.

Nonsense. We don't generally allow threads to go off-topic, so we aren't a chatroom. We have a number of very specific forums for topic-related discussions. The fact that you don't like being informed of similar threads to your own isn't something I can help, sorry. Most people are grateful for the help.

If a certain self-proclaimed 'highly spiritual', yet confusingly popular poster who appears to have no life except on here would shut up for once, I'm sure the forum would improve about 60 per cent.

She's popular because she makes us laugh. Are you opposed to fun?

That's not likely to happen. I get paid to write in the 'real' world. I also have a friend who writes brilliantly on a multitude of topics and has degrees in both physics and law who wanted to write on here too, but all the juvenile crap put him off.

We have people who write professionally on here as well, and they don't seem to have any problems. Perhaps you spent too much time in the "Off Topic" forum, because we really can't do anything about juvenile stuff in there (nor would we want to).

Clearly this 'chatroom' isn't for me, and it's obvious you don't welcome outsiders.

We welcome outsiders all the time; it's why we've grown so much over the last few years. What we don't like are people coming into our community, being rude when offered help, and then whining because they don't seem to understand why people are allowed to express their opinion.

[Shell B]

Writers hate conversations, apparently. Fuck you, assholey boring people.

[Cyberman]

Shakespeare, right? Richard The Fuckin' Third, act 12 scene 94 (late kickoff).

[Cinjin]

I'm still trying to figure out why the hell this bloke is so mad? Did anyone do or say ANYTHING to him??? Which one of you cliquey-bastards pissed in his cheerios?


His statements are very odd to me since there is ample evidence of our friendliness towards new comers in the Introductions thread.

(oh that's right, you didn't introduce yourself, you just came here spewing out ridiculous generalizations about nonsense. Bu-Bye now)

[Napoléon]

Which one of you cliquey-bastards pissed in his cheerios?

It was me, I'm intimidating don'tcha know.

[Shell B]

It's probably an old member come back to rant and rave like a big fat used douche or someone one of us knows who is pissy for some reason or another. I can't see any reason why this person should be mad already, so it must be an old butthurt.