(November 11, 2013 at 5:59 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Intellectual exercise my undescended left nard.

You're likely projecting.

---

(November 11, 2013 at 7:50 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Of course I do. I know you can't help advocating terrible things; your religion insists upon that. What I don't get is why you seem to find it so surprising that some of us are not nice to you when you say them.

Who's surprised?

Quote:Nobody asked you to come here and say them.

As previously noted, the description of the site that comes up on Google does indeed invite theists here for discussion.

---

(November 11, 2013 at 6:07 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You understand that I excluded lurkers (who's religious views I would not know), and only counted those who actually participate in discussion, yes?

Yes, and the point remains - online isn't the same as lively.

---

I haven't been notified of resolution of my report from several days ago. Is this purely a matter of logistics, or is it also evidence that the rules are not clear, as I suggested?

Run with that goal post John, Run!

(November 12, 2013 at 9:15 am)John V Wrote:

(November 11, 2013 at 5:59 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Intellectual exercise my undescended left nard.

You're likely projecting.

---

(November 11, 2013 at 7:50 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Of course I do. I know you can't help advocating terrible things; your religion insists upon that. What I don't get is why you seem to find it so surprising that some of us are not nice to you when you say them.

Who's surprised?

Quote:Nobody asked you to come here and say them.

As previously noted, the description of the site that comes up on Google does indeed invite theists here for discussion.

---

(November 11, 2013 at 6:07 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You understand that I excluded lurkers (who's religious views I would not know), and only counted those who actually participate in discussion, yes?

Yes, and the point remains - online isn't the same as lively.

---

I haven't been notified of resolution of my report from several days ago. Is this purely a matter of logistics, or is it also evidence that the rules are not clear, as I suggested?

Derp. The only 'projecting' I'm doing is putting your own words in the above quote bubble. This 'intellectual excercise' of yours is indistinguishable from someone who is trying to get points across, so why pretend?

(November 12, 2013 at 10:44 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Derp. The only 'projecting' I'm doing is putting your own words in the above quote bubble. This 'intellectual excercise' of yours is indistinguishable from someone who is trying to get points across, so why pretend?

Seems it's a difference in understanding of the term intellectual exercise. Trying to get points across seems to me to be an appropriate part of an intellectual exercise on an internet forum. And you're right that it can be indistinguishable from someone who has an emotional interest in the outcome. It's a matter of motivation more than presentation.

(November 12, 2013 at 10:52 am)John V Wrote: It's a matter of motivation more than presentation.

And exactly what is your motivation Johnny?

(November 12, 2013 at 10:52 am)John V Wrote:

(November 12, 2013 at 10:44 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Derp. The only 'projecting' I'm doing is putting your own words in the above quote bubble. This 'intellectual excercise' of yours is indistinguishable from someone who is trying to get points across, so why pretend?

Seems it's a difference in understanding of the term intellectual exercise. Trying to get points across seems to me to be an appropriate part of an intellectual exercise on an internet forum. And you're right that it can be indistinguishable from someone who has an emotional interest in the outcome. It's a matter of motivation more than presentation.

And when the intellectual exercise can provide outcomes that conveniently affect personal, tangible benefit to yourself/your position? Suddenly, all your claims of aloofness fall flat.

Oh, and I deny projecting here. This is just musing aloud...

(November 12, 2013 at 11:14 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: And when the intellectual exercise can provide outcomes that conveniently affect personal, tangible benefit to yourself/your position?

When that's the case we can discuss it. As I've said before, allowing atheist flaming is good for my positions, as IMO it detracts from the credibility of atheists. From a personal standpoint, when someone gets annoying I simply put them on Ignore for awhile. I stand nothing to gain, and actually stand to lose, from my own rule suggestion.

Is it important for me to read the rules? I never have done. I'm only on this thread because I saw 14 pages of discussions on a rule change, really???

It would seem to me that the new rules actually take some of the chains off the theists yet its the theist(s) that is/are complaining (to be honest I read the first page and then scanned through the rest quickly).

No pleasing some people.

I'll cry for you, John.

(November 12, 2013 at 12:03 pm)max-greece Wrote: Is it important for me to read the rules? I never have done. I'm only on this thread because I saw 14 pages of discussions on a rule change, really???

It would seem to me that the new rules actually take some of the chains off the theists yet its the theist(s) that is/are complaining (to be honest I read the first page and then scanned through the rest quickly).

No pleasing some people.

14 pages?! really?
Good thing I changed that setting... I "only" see 3 pages, each with some 50 posts, but I like it that way.