Dear Atheist Forums

[Shell B]

Argumentum ad populum.

[Cinjin]

Argumentum ad populum.

I know

[fr0d0]

To revise my previous position...

I don't think calling a spade a spade does any harm. Of course there's an imbalance. Home team bias. We can dismiss that - it's to be expected/ not a fault. Douchbag ideas are better identified and filed. That helps everyone.

What is a shame I think, is that people with good ideas get steamrollered in the rush. If everyone gets wrapped up in the party, then genuine questions and questioners become collatteral damage.

I don't know how you cure that.

[thesummerqueen]

When it comes down to it, I felt at the time that the bulk of my "letter" was a reminder to people to use more empathy, which doesn't necessarily make you act any nicer or meaner, but can help you realize a person's positions. I had been getting uncomfortable with a few things over time, and irritated at some others, but I'll tell you the last straws were Cox's and Kichi's letters to each other, which I felt were childish and asinine.

This was my opinion. I reacted the way I felt I should. I won't apologize for it. I've already said elsewhere that I prefer compassion, and that is just my "dishrag" (thanks Rhythm) self.

I perv on Shell because she's tall and gorgeous (amongst other things), but also because she's a fierce and unwavering defender of freedom and free speech. She's tough and intelligent and I admire her ability to shrug things off as quickly as she does and fight balls out with humor and grace. I wish I had that. Don't think I don't appreciate the abilities of the people here to say cutting remarks at the right time. Maybe some of us are just over-sensitive, and I'll take on that adjective if it pleases those who aren't, but the way I was reading things included an increase in the amount of sniping for no reason.

It was my opinion. I put it out there. Let the chips fall where they may. [shrugs]

[Shell B]

To revise my previous position...

I don't think calling a spade a spade does any harm.

No, it certainly does not, in either case.

What is a shame I think, is that people with good ideas get steamrollered in the rush. If everyone gets wrapped up in the party, then genuine questions and questioners become collatteral damage.

I don't know how you cure that.

In cases where it looks like that, staff is often communicating with the steam rolled person. It's funny, 9 times out of 10 they have a conversation with one of us about how they intend to let it slide, behave with dignity, etc. then they jump back in the forum and start dropping, "I'm leaving because atheists are idiots" threads. Believe it or not, very few genuine people, if any, are run off.

---

Summer, in all of what I said, I hope you didn't get the impression that my fierce defense of freedom of speech does not extend to you. Perhaps I didn't say it, but I respect the idealistic approach. I love that you want people to be compassionate. I just don't see how any of us can know who is being compassionate and who isn't. We might all be thinking it's too bad this guy is an idiot before we post that he is an idiot. Speaking for myself, I always take into consideration a person's manner of speaking before I reply. If they say something stupid, but are very open and polite, I am not likely to call them stupid. Let them call me ignorant once and they are being called stupid seven different ways. That's how I roll.

[thesummerqueen]

Nah, woman, if you start to make me sweat it only makes me want to be a better...whatever it is at the time.

It's a highly subjective thing. I'm sorry people took it as some sort of policing. I didn't feel like I was expressing that, but in rereading I can see how it came across that way.

And I don't want people to think that I assume you're picking on the theists just because you refuse to let them get away with shit. I absolutely don't expect (or want) anyone to do so, and some of you I've defended by pointing out that you're "being a dick" only by pointing out the flaws in their logic, not because you were attacking them personally. That's actually the part of any science I highly respect - those who are dogged in finding mistakes. Otherwise we never learn.

I go back and reread it from time to time and I would probably change one or two things but for the most part it adequately expresses what I was thinking and feeling right around then. I can't honestly say I've always kept the promise I've made in there, but I hope I haven't done too badly since. [shrugs] I'm human, and I strive to be better and I'll keep trying.

I'd like to write more serious stuff but at 10PM I'd rather keep talking about Cinjin's boxers and what inside them needs to be iced down. I do have to drift off to sleep soon, and I could use the inspiration.

[Violet]

We've had upheavals here that make this last bit of nonsense look like a walk in the park. We survived.

Big ones even

They tell me members come and go, and I'm not sayin it ain't so, but if I'm to lay the lowdown low: plateauing is our status quo.

[Rayaan]

They tell me members come and go, and I'm not sayin it ain't so, but if I'm to lay the lowdown low: plateauing is our status quo.

Wonderful rhymes.

[Violet]

If the rules change to exclude negativity, I will conform.

I might conform. Does this mean I can't post any threads on depression, or be negative at all? If so: I cannot conform. Does this mean I can't completely devalue someone's post and crush it coldly? If so: I cannot conform. Does this mean I cannot any longer call what I see (ie: troll, poe)? If so: I will have severe difficulty conforming. Does this mean I can't return an insult or mocking tone to people who've insulted or mocked me? If so: I will have moderate difficulty conforming. Honestly: any way you slice "excluding negativity": I am strongly (nay: vehemently) opposed to it... and I (still?) like to think I'm mostly a positive person.

Frankly: anyone who finds the forum to be negative needs to pull their ass on out of religion and politics, and play with me in off topic and R'lyeh Only reasons I even glance at open letters like this thread is that I wonder if the posting member is leaving and simple curiosity as to if there was a reason.

[Epimethean]

Fair enough. The internet world is slowly being settled and some modicum of censorship appears to be necessary to make it safe for a mixed demographic element to function in a happy way.

That said, it seems unfortunate that what is required is a higher level of tolerance for what many if not most came here to discuss without having to be kinder or gentler.

Here's part of the problem, and it is something I have seen in other forums in which I have participated: When monotheists arrive here, and fail to use the search feature, or for that matter even essay an attempt to see whether their "challenging " assertions have been asserted and consequently challenged, there has come to be an emphasis on being kind and gentle, though such treatment is in general not reciprocated from websites maintained by the faithful.

I can understand the rationale for the push, but at the same time, it has the net effect of serving as a tacit sort of condonement of illogic, academic laissez faire, and serves to allow more repetition of ideas which have already been run through the mill myriad times.

If I have become one of the offending parties, I will tone down my "vitriol," but I will do it via the most practical method : Simply abstaining from posting in the redundant faith based "investigation " threads so frequently (especially of late, which may have had had a transitive intensifying effect on the reactions of some of us).