-
i was and am quite disappointed in the turn-out of the 'unknown god' thread. it is disappointing that individuals come to this board and spred useless banter that becomes so personal in nature. i am disgusted.
even on the religion board (the truth according to everyone)--this type of behavior is not displayed. i am not guiltless. i fell into the god-debate trap as well. after i had posted the other day, i realized what i had done and told myself that i would not allow myself to go further into it. as i can see, the thread continued.
if i read pplaverita's post correctly, it seems that we should not attempt to rationalize the 'existence' of god--by science or otherwise. it is a useless issue. by this, i agree.
what is important is to show/discuss the effects of such a belief.
this includes the 'suffering as a virtue' discussion currently going on in another thread.
let me reiterate something that apparently has failed to seem obvious-- this is a philosophy board. not only that, this is a public forum.
i am not gonna sit here and see this shit again. i should not have to be closing threads OR writing my reasons thereof in new threads as this.
grow up.
as a side message, might i suggest that in the future, if an individual decides he (or she *rolls eyes*) wants to take thier post into a personal attack...
well, i have no problem with that. just as long as that poster understands two things:
1) they can take reciprical posts.
and
2) they understand thier post may be manipulated or deleted.
that is all.
if you happen to take offence in a particular post, that is your problem. you can handle is the way you see it. as long as you also agree to the above two conditions (should you decide to reply).
i am tired of trying to organize this 3-ringed circus...this 'philosophy' forum.
make note that i am one of two moderators of GP. because of this, i have (limited) responsibility to stand on my home turf and defend it, if i feel it necessary.
i say limited because i, too, surrender my posts to the discretion of the alternate moderator.
had i not felt that pplaverita was of foul judgment, this would not be the case.
so, be that as it may, i end this post.
p.s.
*to whom it may concern*
(foul-fowl he he he)
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
-
I'm right behind you.
------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.
-
I was disappointed to see the closing of the "Unknown God" thread. Shat, you're certainly within your rights to do so, but having just read through the thread again, it seemed a bit premature to me.
I've been posting on web forums since around 1990, and have seen some real flamewars in my time. This thread did not strike me as out of hand, though I thought some comments were, well, unfortunate.
I hope I didn't seem to be causing any offense to anyone (my apologies in advance, if anyone was offended by anything I posted). I don't particularly care for arguments and debates, but I do enjoy conversations.
I try not to give offense to others, and I try not to take offense when others are hostile toward me. I prefer to try to find out what I said that was either poorly stated or misinterpreted, and to correct the misimpression.
One person in the "Unknown God" thread said to me,
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>i understand that your endless self-promotion (which is very capitalistic...uh..i mean, christian, by the way) prevents you from answering all of the questions i posted. i understand, though. every time i ask a christian those questions, they are avoided.
dodging questions is the christian's only line of defense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, that certainly sounds hostile, but I'm not offended, nor am I inclined to flame in response. Rather, I'm trying to find out why I'm perceived as being engaged in "endless self-promotion" (I presume it's my sig--I've posted a question about that perception on my own forum).
As to this poster's claim that I was "dodging questions," I tried to make it clear in my original post that I affirmed his/her questioning and was only responding to a representative sampling of questions--I was not making an exhaustive reply because to do so would be, well, exhausting! http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
I initially said:
"Some of your questions are truly difficult, but others seem (to me at least) to be mere distortions or falsely premised (though I'm sure you state them with genuine sincerity); such as..." My intention was to impute good motives to the poster and to say that, yes, many of those questions are good questions and difficult to answer. It's disappointing to have that portrayed as "dodging" the questions, because I don't think it is.
But I do have a life outside of Hostboard, and a lot of work to do, so I try not to post at too exhaustive/exhausting a length. That's why I chose only a representative sampling of questions to respond to.
Net-net--I thought it was an interesting discussion, developing in interesting directions, with only a few flashes of (tolerable) heat. Sorry to see it end.
Cordially--
--jd
------------------
Author of ANSWERS TO SATISFY THE SOUL
Website at Denneybooks.com
Moderator of the ANSWERS TO SATISFY THE SOUL Forum
-
I want to hasten to add, SHATOUSHKA, that I do not mean to criticise your decision to close the thread. As moderator, you have to exercise your own judgment as you see fit. I was expressing my own disappointment, not faultfinding with your decision.
Best,
--jd
-
I think it's absolute BS to just close a thread.
It wreaks of what is wrong with forums.
At least offer everyone one final say...and demand that it recap ones views, not bash others.
------------------
Alex
-
The only real comment that I could offer on this is that I didn't have the time to read all of what whas written there, it was way to much for the limited time I have on computers.
Debate is good, as it is educational, it helps you to learn about yourself.
Abasing that into arguement where only emotions are now being thrown around, ends the educational facit of the debate, ends the enjoyment for many. (Yes, I realise, it is educational if you would wish to learn how to insult others, pseudo-intellectual!education)
For me, Shatoushka is moderator and deserves support in whatever her choices actually are, so the closure is appropriate in the fact that it is her right to close it! (and everyone elses right to protest that, if they wish, how eles will anyone get to know anyone if there is that?)
------------------
Ignorance may be bliss, maybe that's why I'm such a happy guy!
-
from what i can remember, at least one poster expressed their dislike of the movement of the thread. this poster also attempted to correct the line by trying to get it back on topic (well, at least off emotions).
i allowed the thread to continue after that post. i know gnosis and his passion to eat any and all god-fearing individuals to shreds, as that is what he enjoys. during conversation with gnosis, i asked him to quit prodding emotional challenges to individuals and to (basically) fight fair. his response was that he will post as he wished.
fine.
what would you have a moderator do?
it amazes me that every other person demands a moderator perform this way, and everyone else wants a mod to act that way.
i gave perfectly legitimate reasons for closing the thread. there is no point discussing it further as there is nothing i can do to re-open it.
unfortunately, there are (or were) forums on hostboard that made it common practice to close all freakin threads that the mod felt was 'crampy'. i think that after having this damned forum for 9 months, and closing about 5 threads (if that), i am running this forum rather nicely in comparison.
there is nothing stopping a poster in creating a new thread if he or she still wants to discuss pertinent things from a thread once closed. i don't care if they do.
my practices as a mod are legitimate.
individual practices as a poster are legitimate.
there is no point in discussing this further.
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
