Proposed Alteration to Forum Rules

[Existentialist]

threads where you attempted to get rid of adjectives

That's hyperbole.

you changed the definition of eugenics to make damn sure anyone espousing it was a Nazi.

that's wrong. I absolutely did not change the 'definition' of eugenics. The debate was about the way the idea of eugenics had become inextricably entwined, in my view, with nazism. I think you should be more reasonable. This does not mean I have made it "damn sure" that anyone espousing it is a nazi. It simply implies that there might be a failure to recognise the strength of cultural consensus that there is about the links between eugenics and nazism. In my opinion you have displayed this failure on several occasions. It's an opinion I'm entitled to express.

Baseless allegations? Nope. By some standards, you've posted worse stuff here than some of the trolls we've had in the past.

I see, so rather than supply a base to your allegations you start painting another picture of what I have said as being "worse than ... trolls". You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But you don't seem to be very good at supplying actual evidence, whenever I ask for it you either make me re-read a whole 5-page thread or you come out with more baseless allegations, they're always very lacking in the specifics to support your case.

The only recognizable difference (and the reason you aren't banned) is because you actually believe the crap that you preach.

A misrepresentation. First of all, 'preach' is not a word I would use. My image of a preacher is someone who stands in front of an audience talking at them, and not tolerating interventions or debate. On the contrary, I welcome debate. It's a pity you don't - the way you talk it's like you don't want people discussing things, exploring subjects, disagreeing, discussing differences. I think rather than 'preach' a more appropriate word might be 'post'.

Secondly, your argument does rather leave you with the power to summarily judge the point at which I no longer "believe" what I'm saying. That's up to you; it's your site I suppose, but I don't have much confidence in your judgement at the moment. On the other hand I do have quite some confidence in my own ability to decide what I believe. Perhaps if it comes to that, you should just ask me what I believe rather than deciding for yourself.

I do agree that a statement should be in the rules though, so I've added one, and included a bit about not diverging from dictionary definitions of words.

You added a statement to the rules? Oh great. Thanks for that insight into the democratic values of this website. I never realised changing the rules would be so easy. I still think my proposal is better.

I never said you "constantly" redefined words

I never accused you of it. I said you were painting a picture of me constantly redefining words. You tried to paint the picture using the brushwork of "constantly berating" me for it. In other words, guilt by association. In your latest post you simply added to this little piece of misrepresentational artwork by saying "the number of times we've had to call you on it does strike us as high". It's up to you if you want the reality to be clouded by more personal reactions, but I do think there are major factors at work in some of your reactions other than rationality.

I do think it would be a good idea to re-open the debate at some point about common definitions of atheism "which have long been accepted". I sense there are a number of differences about how we experience the concept of atheism which a dictionary can only begin to address. I would have thought this would be a reasonable subject for debate on an atheist forum. My views have developed since the previous thread, the last thing I want is for people to feel they must hold a fixed, concrete position that never changes. If you don't disagree, I'd be willing to start a new thread over the next couple of weeks when I get some time. If I still feel like it.

You, however, are the guy who suggested that a "theistic atheist" is a valid non-contradictory stance someone could hold [Citation], and you still can't see how we may have mistaken you for a troll? Jebus...

I think you massively over-reacted. As I recall the debate was about the etymology and acquired meanings of the word atheist and the word theist. If you read my arguments there they are rational. This doesn't mean they are indisputable or intrinsically right, I welcome counter-arguments. I was exploring concepts, I don't see why that has to be met with such angry impatience. Basically my argument was, and still would be that I see it as a common misperception that the meaning of the word atheist has evolved simply from sticking a negative prefix a- on the front of the word theist. This view that theist is simply the opposite of atheist is one people are entitled to have, but one I'm also entitled to discuss, as I don't think it's anywhere near that simple when you research the evolution of both words.

Feelings have been expressed by others about these forums recently. If I can be specific about my own feelings without pushing the drama button, I do think that frequent appearances of the words "crap" and "shit" as in this thread, accusations of trolling and then talking about someone "pulling lies out of your ass" may not break the rules, but it doesn't lay particularly brilliant foundations for a friendly forum where ideas can be debated to the full. The way I see it at the moment, I do wonder if the psychological dynamics of the forum are to invite people into a conversation and then once they engage in conversation attack, berate, swear at and use bad language towards selected individuals in order to reinforce an essentially patriarchal structure of behaviour, like it's some kind of military training camp or something similar. All I can say is that that's not really the kind of community I wanted to take part in, obviously it's entirely up to me how I react to this growing perception, but I do think it's appropriate at this stage for me to say how I feel and describe my present impression of what goes on here.