"The Four Horsemen"

[Excited Penguin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7IHU28aR2E

Additional info

[Excited Penguin]

So... What do you think about these guys? Which ones did you read, watch on youtube or just plain heard about? They are what made me more active as an atheist at least, in recent times. They also taught me a lot about how bad religion really is(but mostly Harris, since I didn't really read the other guys' books much). Hitch is surely to be missed, though, and Dawkins is much regarded as the most famous atheist on the planet. Dennett, I don't know much about, but the fact that he's a philosopher is a definite plus for me.

[Minimalist]

All but Dennett.

[rexbeccarox]

You'd get more traffic if you summarized what the video is about.

Also,

mod hat on: it's against the rules to post a video or link of any sort, especially in the original post of a thread, without adding commentary.  This is a discussion forum.  Please respect that.

[Excited Penguin]

You'd get more traffic if you summarized what the video is about.

Also,

mod hat on: it's against the rules to post a video or link of any sort, especially in the original post of a thread, without adding commentary.  This is a discussion forum.  Please respect that.

User hat on:
As you can see, I got that, albeit a little late. Maybe if you cared to check beyond OP, or if I had the option to edit said OP, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
People do make mistakes. Not allowing them to correct them before beating them over the head about it is kind of unnecessary, I think. But that's just plain old crazy me.

So... What do you think about these guys? Which ones did you read, watch on youtube or just plain heard about? They are what made me more active as an atheist at least, in recent times. They also taught me a lot about how bad religion really is(but mostly Harris, since I didn't really read the other guys' books much). Hitch is surely to be missed, though, and Dawkins is much regarded as the most famous atheist on the planet. Dennett, I don't know much about, but the fact that he's a philosopher is a definite plus for me.

As to the bit about getting more traffic, maybe I'm not as interested as you would like to assume about talking to people who either don't want to commit to watching the video, based on the talking group's reputation alone, or don't even know about the video or about said participants to the discussion within it.

[rexbeccarox]

It's against the rules. If you had bothered reading the rules you agreed to when you signed up, you would have known and I wouldn't have had to speedbump the thread. Would you rather I had reported your thread for official action? A speedbump is nothing.

Why, ep, are you so determined to have a bad time here?

[Excited Penguin]

Also, apparently, 7 out of 10 subforums in the 'Discussion' forum have some form of the word discussion in it, clearly inviting users to discuss certain things in said subforums. Whereas the Media subforum is described as follows: A place to share videos, images, audio clips, and any other interesting media you find online. --- So you might see how and why I got to making this mistake. Thanks for informing/reminding me, though, about how things work around here. Much appreciated.

---

It's against the rules.  If you had bothered reading the rules you agreed to when you signed up, you would have known and I wouldn't have had to speedbump the thread.  Would you rather I had reported your thread for official action?  A speedbump is nothing.

Why, ep, are you so determined to have a bad time here?

I got that it's against the rules, seeing how you can basically interpret them however you want to, being a moderator and all, or at least that's the impression I'm getting on this odd end.

I did read the rules, not upon signing up though, but shortly thereafter, regardless. I'm assuming you're referring to rule #1 of the General Forum Rules located at this url address: https://atheistforums.org/rules.php. I didn't break that rule, at least not exactly, seeing how I did add my own comment to my copy-pasted content, albeit a little too late. Had I not added such a comment at all, I would have agreed with your ruling completely. Furthermore, that rule doesn't mention anything about the timeline in which such an activity should take place. Based on that fact alone, I could have written my comment beyond any given [infinite] amount of time. I didn't do that though, in fact what I did was, I added a comment to go with my posted copy-pasted content, being relevant to the thread, only 4 hours later and, more importantly, 6 hours before you 'speed bumped' me about it, as I am capable of conceding certain minor contradictions between the rules and your[the staff's] expectations about our [mis]conduct, despite my not having to do so(the rules don't mention anything about bending them, in order to follow them, strange as that might be).*

I am not being deliberately obtuse or provocative either, if that's what you think I'm doing. It's an innate ability of mine to respond to perceived unfairness on the part of any given authority. I'm sorry if you don't appreciate this, but I expect far more substantiated pronouncements than that, if I'm to be expected to understand what I did wrong and also to not repeat any similar wrongdoings in the future.

I am not determined to have a bad time here at all, quite the contrary in fact. What gave you that impression anyway?

Also, I don't know what a speedbump is, apparently. Must be some other exotic meaning of a word, that I'm ignorant about and is only known to this forum. Care to explain it though?
But never mind that, why do you constantly feel the need to threaten me? What am I doing exactly, that is so wrong as to require this kind of extreme measures?

---

*In fact let me address the misgivings I have with that particular rule even further. So it[the original] goes like this:
This includes posting links / copy-pasted content / scripture verses repeatedly, without adding your own comments or being relevant to the thread. 

For me to have really comited the mistake you think I made, this part of the rule should sound like this(so as not to sound as ambiguos as it does, in it's present form, while at the same time covering every single meaning the staff wants it to have - I may not know what all of those desired meanings might be, but I am pretty sure about them not covering everything as they are now, as I'm about to show you):

This[the "No Spam" rule] includes posting links / copy-pasted content / scripture verses repeatedly, without immediately adding your own comments to it/them[or simply related or pertaining to aforementioned material] or being relevant to the thread in doing so. Also, one should be especially concerned with following this rule when creating the Original Post of a new thread. Failing to do so might result in speed bumping.

...
...
Speed bumping[description of or hyperlinking to what speed bumping entails]

Everything in bold is added by myself.

[rexbeccarox]

Holy mother eff. I was just letting you know that posting a video without commentary is against the rules, and it's not a very good way of getting people to involve themselves in discussion. You really need to chill.

[rado84]

Never heard about them.

[ignoramus]

start tubing bud ...some very good shit there...