In all honesty (part 2)

The only illuminating element of this thread is the reinforcement of the fact that intolerance is monotonously the same, from whatever corner it arises.

Momma loves being the center of attention.

Debra_Law wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Your assessment is without merit, and my concern is real, not alleged--a topic on which i am qualified to speak and you are not.

What are the qualifications that you're imposing that allow you to speak on the matter and force me to remain silent? I thought you were against silencing criticism.

That's an awfully brainless reply from someone who normally displays intelligence. You are not qualified to speak on whether or not i am genuinely concerned about a matter because you are not me--i didn't say you couldn't speak on the subject, just that you lack any authority in the matter. Duh . . .

What you think about whether or not it should be forgotten, whether or not people should move on, Phoenix, doesn't determine the relevance of this thread. The author of this thread has a valid concern about the activities of people here who have hoped to significantly alter this site to suit their personal imaginary friend superstition--i agree that this is something about which to be concerned.

As long as people like MOAN are here, indulging in special pleading about what offends them in people's remarks about their imaginary friend, we've got a problem which needs to be addressed.

I don't mind that folks like MOAN subscribe to an idiotic superstition--i do mind that they would attempt to silence criticism.

I doubt that you would ever allow yourself to be swayed by Momma Angel's sensitivity to the point of silencing your own voice or curtailing your criticism of her religious beliefs.

Your alleged concern about silencing criticism is without merit.

If MA's posts upset you, employ the scroll-past option.

It is now well-known that MOAN attempted to recruit people from at least one other site to come to this site in the attempt to make it less critical of her imaginary friend superstition. It is perfectly reasonable to object to any attempt to silence dissent, even if a failed attempt.

So what? As someone pointed out, the other site you're so concerned about has 16 members of which only 4 or 5 appear to be active posters. Even if all 16 members from the other site became members here, are you telling us that you can't handle the challenge of bashing their beliefs--something you relish doing?

In the first place, that is the only site about which we have evidence that she recruited. Lash has already pointed out elsewhere that MOAN has an extensive e-mail address book, the evidence for which Lash had when she received an e-mail from MOAN (one presumes in error) the burden of which was to recruit people to come here for the purpose.

I don't "relish" bashing their beliefs--i have too vivid a memory of the destruction of Abuzz by fanatical ranting idiots. When people show up here and begin to rant, and cannot be bothered to even provide a cogent argument for their screed, then i take them on. When people present their points of view in a reasonable manner, then i may still consider their point of view ludicrous and say as much, but i don't "relish" bashing their beliefs. I have absolutely no problem discussing such matters with Neo or Hephzibah--and i am equally as critical of the irrational religious extremism of Moishe or Ali.

How do you suppose a few new members posting in the S&R forum will succeed in silencing dissent?

If people are driven away from here as a result, that would effectively silence dissent. I refer you once again to the demise of Abuzz, which was a cess pit of lunacy literally for years before it imploded. Many people went there, it is true, after the insanity got a grip on the place, and many people continued to enjoy it--but for most of the old timers, its unique and welcoming ambiance was destroyed--i don't want to see that here.

I certainly do not need, nor do i want, your approval to have a point of view.

Nor does Momma Angel or any other member of this discussion group require YOUR APPROVAL to have a point of view. If you're going to cast stones, expect to have a few lobbed back at you.

When you're done picking on MA, which I hope will be soon, I'm sure there are plenty of topics on this discussion board that require your attention.

I don't quibble about having "a few lobbed back"--nor should you if i throw you ill-thrown stones back at you. Your snottiness has a wonderfully puerile character. You should seek out Intrepid, he's known for playground attempts to insult, and you two should get along famously.

Debra_Law wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Your assessment is without merit, and my concern is real, not alleged--a topic on which i am qualified to speak and you are not.

What are the qualifications that you're imposing that allow you to speak on the matter and force me to remain silent? I thought you were against silencing criticism.

That's an awfully brainless reply from someone who normally displays intelligence. You are not qualified to speak on whether or not i am genuinely concerned about a matter because you are not me--i didn't say you couldn't speak on the subject, just that you lack any authority in the matter. Duh . . .

What you think about whether or not it should be forgotten, whether or not people should move on, Phoenix, doesn't determine the relevance of this thread. The author of this thread has a valid concern about the activities of people here who have hoped to significantly alter this site to suit their personal imaginary friend superstition--i agree that this is something about which to be concerned.

As long as people like MOAN are here, indulging in special pleading about what offends them in people's remarks about their imaginary friend, we've got a problem which needs to be addressed.

I don't mind that folks like MOAN subscribe to an idiotic superstition--i do mind that they would attempt to silence criticism.

I doubt that you would ever allow yourself to be swayed by Momma Angel's sensitivity to the point of silencing your own voice or curtailing your criticism of her religious beliefs.

Your alleged concern about silencing criticism is without merit.

If MA's posts upset you, employ the scroll-past option.

It is now well-known that MOAN attempted to recruit people from at least one other site to come to this site in the attempt to make it less critical of her imaginary friend superstition. It is perfectly reasonable to object to any attempt to silence dissent, even if a failed attempt.

So what? As someone pointed out, the other site you're so concerned about has 16 members of which only 4 or 5 appear to be active posters. Even if all 16 members from the other site became members here, are you telling us that you can't handle the challenge of bashing their beliefs--something you relish doing?

In the first place, that is the only site about which we have evidence that she recruited. Lash has already pointed out elsewhere that MOAN has an extensive e-mail address book, the evidence for which Lash had when she received an e-mail from MOAN (one presumes in error) the burden of which was to recruit people to come here for the purpose.

I don't "relish" bashing their beliefs--i have too vivid a memory of the destruction of Abuzz by fanatical ranting idiots. When people show up here and begin to rant, and cannot be bothered to even provide a cogent argument for their screed, then i take them on. When people present their points of view in a reasonable manner, then i may still consider their point of view ludicrous and say as much, but i don't "relish" bashing their beliefs. I have absolutely no problem discussing such matters with Neo or Hephzibah--and i am equally as critical of the irrational religious extremism of Moishe or Ali.

How do you suppose a few new members posting in the S&R forum will succeed in silencing dissent?

If people are driven away from here as a result, that would effectively silence dissent. I refer you once again to the demise of Abuzz, which was a cess pit of lunacy literally for years before it imploded. Many people went there, it is true, after the insanity got a grip on the place, and many people continued to enjoy it--but for most of the old timers, its unique and welcoming ambiance was destroyed--i don't want to see that here.

I certainly do not need, nor do i want, your approval to have a point of view.

Nor does Momma Angel or any other member of this discussion group require YOUR APPROVAL to have a point of view. If you're going to cast stones, expect to have a few lobbed back at you.

When you're done picking on MA, which I hope will be soon, I'm sure there are plenty of topics on this discussion board that require your attention.

I don't quibble about having "a few lobbed back"--nor should you if i throw you ill-thrown stones back at you. Your snottiness has a wonderfully puerile character. You should seek out Intrepid, he's known for playground attempts to insult, and you two should get along famously.

Again, you identified your alleged concern as VALID.

You stated that we've (not just you) got a problem that needs to be addressed.

You identified the alleged problem that causes your alleged concern as people like Momma Angel who allegedly attempts to silence criticism by claiming you hurt her feelings.

Wow. Even if MA has claimed that she is offended by your criticism, how does that equate to this HUGE problem that threatens to ruin this entire discussion forum by silencing criticism? You protest too much.

I addressed you allegations of having a VALID concern. I addressed your allegation that we've got a problem that needs to be addressed:

Debra Law wrote:

I doubt that you would ever allow yourself to be swayed by Momma Angel's sensitivity to the point of silencing your own voice or curtailing your criticism of her religious beliefs.

Your alleged concern about silencing criticism is without merit.

If MA's posts upset you, employ the scroll-past option.

Which is not the same as describing my concerned as alleged--i did not allege that i have a concern. Being uniquely qualified to speak to the issue, i asserted that i was concerned. That you don't agree there is a basis for a concern is not a justification for using the term "alleged concerned," unless you mean to suggest that i'm hiding an ulterior motive. If that is so, have the courage and the honesty to make the accusation outright.

I have pointed out that if the site were overrun by fantatics with an agenda to impose their view of what is acceptable content for debate and what is not, it could ruin the site. I have pointed out that i've seen this happen before. It is immaterial to me if you do not see this as a threat--i do. As in matters regarding what points of view i hold, i also do not consult your opinions in determining what may constitute a threat to the tenor of discussion at this site.

Quote:

Again, your alleged concern about silencing criticism is without merit.

Again, my concern is not something i allege, it is something i state. Have the guts to accuse me of lying if that is what you mean, but drop the idiocy of referring to my concern as alleged. I do not allege that i am concerned, i state that i am concerned.

Quote:

You have no valid concern; there is no problem. You possess adequate debating skills to address an appeal to emotion without being forced to silence your voice or abandon this discussion forum.

This is merely your opinion, and, based upon my experience elsewhere and elsewhen, it is an opinion with which i do not agree.

Quote:

Inasmuch as you continuously describe MA as having a "personal imaginary friend superstition," there is nothing wrong with me stating that your alleged concerns are IMAGINARY.

Certainly, if you wished to make statements so witless, you are free to do so. I do not allege that i am concerned, i state that i am concern. In a spirit of fairness, i have consulted my internal register of concerns over time, and am confident in making the statement that i am concerned, and not simply alleging that i am concerned, and that i have not imagined this concern--it is real.

Quote:

Did I offend you by stating your alleged concerns have no merit?[/qujote]

Of course, not--there's no need to say silly things such as that. That you continue to use the term alleged, however, when i state i have a concern, and don't simply allege it, continues to imply that you don't believe that i actually have a concern. Once again, if that is so, have the courage to say as much, and to say what you believe is actually motivating my remarks.

Quote:

Apparently so given your sob story that your concerns are real to you and I have no right to say your concerns have no merit! Boo hoo. It seems to escape your comprehension that you attempted to silence my criticism of your imaginary concern/problem in the very same way that you allege MA attempts to silence criticism of her "imaginary friend superstition."

No such thing is apparent. There is not sob story, and i have not said you cannot say that my concerns have no merit. I have continued to point out that you are not in a position to know if i have a concern, or simply allege that i have a concern. You are either incapable of understanding the distinction, or are unwilling to acknowlege that aspect of your foolish response. You have a perfect right to say that my concerns have not merit. You are in no position to state that my concerns are alleged so long as i state that i do have those concerns. You can question the basis for the concerns, but you haven't any basis for asserting that you know for a fact that i allege a concern which i do not in fact have. I have not imagined my concern--i have stated that it exists and described it. Your attempt to conflate that with MOAN's imaginary friend superstition are bootless.

Quote:

Accordingly, there is NO PROBLEM that needs to be addressed because you are capable of taking on the "fanatical ranting idiots" and criticizing their point of view. Again, your alleged concern is without merit.

It is your opinion that there is not problem which needs to be addressed. It might be worth your while to explore this entire thread, and its predecessor. Certainly i can deal with the fanatics. So can the others here who object to the invasion of imaginary friend crowd. But there is a point at which people will feel that it is no longer worth the effort, and then they would begin to drop away. The reasons to come here based upon the companionable ambiance would evaporate. That is the problem. That was the problem to which the author of this thread was referring in this thread, and in the first thread on this topic.

I hardly consider your ignorance of that history with regard to a thread for which the problem was identified by the author in the original thread in the series is an adequate basis for you jumping in to take issue with my posts, while ignoring the theme of this and the original thread.

Your opinion is that the concern has no merit--obviously, i do not concur.

Quote:

The only lunacy that is apparent is your unfounded fear that the presence of Christians on this discussion forum who post in the S&R forum might drive other non-Christian members away and destroy the "unique and welcoming ambiance" of A2K.

Once again, you assert an opinion with which i do not agree. The lunacy here is your blithe rejection of the feelings of those, including me and the author of this and the first thread, based upon a previously share experience. I suggest that the lunacy is in your inability to appreciate and understand that experience, and why it gives rise to this apprehension in me and in others. But, your lack of comprehension and lack of sensitivity to how others react to share experiences is a matter of no real moment to me.

Quote:

I have an idea. Perhaps the Christian members and the non-Christian members on A2K may also co-exist and "get along famously."

That happens already. The problem lies with a handful of fanatical pushing religionists (not simply christians) and not with the majority of the members here.

Quote:

However, if you want to characterize the Christian members as "fanatical ranting idiots" and have them banned before they ruin the "unique and welcoming ambiance" of A2K, then you will have to convince the owner of this site to restrict membership in a manner that suits your meritless concerns.

I have not characterized the christian members in such a manner, nor have you anything to authorize such a contention, other than a desire to portray my position in as unfavorable a light a possible, to the extent on peddling lies. I have characterized no one as an idiot. Putting the expression "fanatical ranting idiots" in quotes, and then attempting to suggest that i have so characterized every member of this site who is a self-professed christian is a lie on your part--i have not done so. I have referred to only a few members, and have named them, and referred to one in a particular, and have named here.

You don't even get a nice try on this one--a high school debate team would reject you for such transparent and feeble strawmen.

ehBeth...

In terms of the mental transformation, that's fair. The main point I was making is that for many of us it is not the narrow issue of the recruitment per se, but the dichotomy that was exposed and how she reacted to that exposure. Some kind of ownership of it would have helped, rather than variations of "I stand by what I said..."

And now we're in the meta phase -- hopefully that means the whole thing is almost over.

Stages of forum drama:

1.) The event.
2.) Did the event really happen?
3.) Various proofs and specifics and quotes and dates.
4.) Indignation.
5.) Indignation pile-on.
6.) People who haven't been following along getting indignant at the indignation pile-on.
7.) Original participants getting indignant at the ones who are indignant at the pile-on.
8.) Meta discussions of how it's all discussed.
9.) Denouement.

Actually I guess we're more at 7...

Debra_Law wrote:

Again, you identified your alleged concern as VALID.

You're doing it again. I am the only one qualified in this discussion to say whether or not i have a concern. Your use of the modifier "alleged" with regard to what i say is a concern to me is simply silly--you have no basis upon which to judge whether or not i have a concern. Therefore, using the term "alleged concern" is an absurdity. I assert that i have a concern. You may assert that i am not jutified in the being concerned, but you are in no position to determine whether or not i am in fact concerned.

But, you're not going to convince me (and a whole lot of other members) that your alleged concerns have any validity.

How idiotic is that? We preserve our "welcoming ambience" by removing the welcome mat?