Interesting discussion. To quote the Moody Blues, "...and it's only what you say, that can give yourself away." Thanks for the original post which was also "original" is another sense.

(March 21, 2012 at 9:57 am)Tiberius Wrote: Someone praying for you is not preaching. Someone telling you to go pray, is.

I think the majority of us understand what preaching is. I happen to have reported posts myself on several occasion for preaching. Maybe you can show me which one's are not supposedly preaching?

Quote:If things are really bothering you, put people on ignore. This means that their posts will be hidden from you. To put someone on ignore, go to their profile and click "Add to Ignore List".

I disagree with the idea of putting people on ignore. Ignoring people is just like ignoring a problem, it doesn't make it (or them) go away. The disruption is still there.

I'm not too worried about the theists here. Every time they make a lame argument for their god, the more convinced I am that it couldn't possibly exist and that I made the correct choice in rejecting religion. However, the preachy ones can go fuck themselves with a rusty cactus.

I like the idea of theists being here. While I don't care for the preaching either, I also really hate it when they are dishonest about their intentions and when their faith is a source of arrogance.

(March 21, 2012 at 9:57 am)Tiberius Wrote: [*]DO NOT RESPOND. It astounds me when so many people complain about someone trolling or preaching, and yet when I visit the posts in question, I find that the same people have responded again and again to them. Just as you shouldn't feed the trolls, please don't feed the preachers. This should also apply to spam posts, since we often delete them from view, so your posts are made completely irrelevant. If you think a post breaks the rules, report it, and then ignore it.

But I love seeing where thy'll go from there.

Yessir

---

(March 21, 2012 at 12:21 pm)Napoleon Wrote: I disagree with the idea of putting people on ignore. Ignoring people is just like ignoring a problem, it doesn't make it (or them) go away. The disruption is still there.

But it's no longer there for you.

I don't use the ignore button, but then I also skip most posts by with my eyes. Oftentimes I don't notice larger 'issues' people are having.

(March 22, 2012 at 6:55 am)Vaeolet Lilly Blossom Wrote: But it's no longer there for you.

It is when someone comes in and shits on a thread without your knowledge, and then other people respond to it. It still disrupts threads for you.

(March 22, 2012 at 3:05 pm)Napoleon Wrote:

(March 22, 2012 at 6:55 am)Vaeolet Lilly Blossom Wrote: But it's no longer there for you.

It is when someone comes in and shits on a thread without your knowledge, and then other people respond to it. It still disrupts threads for you.

I kind of enjoy the shittyness.

(March 21, 2012 at 7:44 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:

(March 21, 2012 at 7:40 am)frankiej Wrote:

(March 21, 2012 at 7:39 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Let them do their preaching to me.
I'm willing to listen if they want to tell.

If they weren't so preachy about their preaching then all would be fine.

Let them be. I'm sure they are of good will.

So are drunk drivers who kill people,but the people they kill stay fucking dead.


In my society we are judged and we judge others by behaviour not intent

My broad rule of thumb is to respond to such people to see if they are capable of ration discussion. When it turns out they are not. (Eg GC. Undeceived, Logic,Hunter an our latest little treasure, what's his--name) I do my best to restrict myself to sniping indirectly. This tactic is not always a complete success.

Who was it who said, "The path to hell is paved with good intentions?"

(March 23, 2012 at 11:03 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Who was it who said, "The path to hell is paved with good intentions?"

A priest who had very naughty intentions towards the altar boys.