RE: My vorpal blade goes snicker snack!
July 5, 2009 at 9:27 am
(July 4, 2009 at 8:04 am)Arcanus Wrote: I think you were taking me a little too seriously, Adrian. I found Dotard's remark amusing; the "blackmail" remark was tongue-in-cheek, underscored by the tantrum reference. Not exactly serious, there. But if atheists are allowed to mock theists yet not vice-versa (whether an actual rule or an unspoken policy), I will keep that in mind. I've seen stranger rules on other forums but I abide by them.
It is absurd to think that you can extract a person's attitude successfully without using emoticons (
) unless you actually know the person well enough. Staff take both threats and accusations seriously, so next time make sure your humourous intentions are known. There is no rule that says theists cannot mock atheists; such a rule would be ridiculous.
Quote:Because my comment addressed a topic, not a person. If there is something wrong with me addressing the Genetic Fallacy in Rhizomorph's thread, is there something wrong with padraic addressing the 'tu quoque' fallacy in my thread? However, for Dotard to address me and my beliefs in Rhizomorph's thread seems rather inappropriate because (i) it's a thread about Rhizomorph, not me; moreover, (ii) a thread about me exists.
Any thoughts?
It's irrelevant if your comment is addressing a topic or a person, it is still off topic. We don't mind threads getting off topic, it happens anyway. Sometimes we split the topic if a conversation simply shifts to something new, but small things like this do not matter. Dotard was actually responding to your point, and at the end he asked you about your beliefs. Given that you were the one who started the offshoot (by mentioning the genetic fallacy in response to fr0d0's comment on atheists being ex-christians), you are to blame, but we don't blame you since in these forums we don't mind if things go a little off topic.
