All together now: Don't feed the...

[HRAAB]

Maybe I shouldn't ask, but I'm truly curious. I never saw the thread in question. Was it deleted because of atheistic content or was it deleted because of rude and disrespectful content?

 

I've found this board a breath of fresh air because people seem to freely discuss religion/non-religion. It's meant a lot to me because I'm in a wavering stage right now. I like to be able to read both sides because I feel like I have a foot in both camps.

 

Right now this confused woman needs to get her children to Mass, and she would be willing to take prayers from Christians and positive thoughts from all others.

 

Janet

[Gretchen in NJ]

Honestly I think that person would have quite a few people of faith crawling all over them too. I get just as offended by Christians attacking non-Christians as I do when it goes the other way.

:iagree: with Kelli. I too get just as offended by Christians attacking non-Christians as I do when it goes the other way.

[Michelle in MO]

I think we all normally try to practice. I'm not offended by a post that is labeled "AC" or anything else. I would say that "tone" can not always be clearly translated over the internet.

 

Sometimes, though, it seems like there is an intent in certain posts to provoke, both by words and by "tone", which admittedly can be hard to "read". I'm not saying I'm perfect either; I admittedly get snarky at times, and if I recognize that, I try to apologize.

 

Some of the threads on this forum keep hashing over the same issues repeatedly; same story, different tune, etc. These debates seem to be pointless. It's debate for the sake of debate, not to try to arrive at any level of truth, whatever that may be.

 

And, I agree completely with Colleen here: the reason why some of us post "CC" is to try not to offend members here who believe differently. I've even felt sometimes like some members bend over backwards to avoid offense. It does seem like if we post "CC" it helps avoid offense with certain members on these boards. Yet, I remember reading a thread a few weeks or so ago wherein someone complained about constantly seeing "CC" on all the threads. So, what should Christians do? It seems like the potential to offend is always there, no matter what.

 

Colleen, this was just way too funny! :D

 

Yes, in an ideal world there'd be no need of "CC" or "AC" or "BC" or "IC" or any other "religious content" warning. But people who aren't Christian have in the past complained, "Golly, I feel in the minority here. It bothers me to open a post and feel like it's directed solely toward Christians, praising their God and so on and so forth. I wish there was some kind of warning about that!" So some folks, in an effort to be thoughtful, have labeled their subject lines accordingly.

 

Now we have people asserting that their rights are being diminished by posts that are "specifically" for Christians ~ when in reality, they aren't specifically "for" Christians, but they do contain Christian content. So, woo-hoo! Let's roll out the political correctness carpet and everyone come up with "warning labels" such that we address the right folks, don't offend the wrong ones, yada yada yada. How's this:

 

DC ~ "dairy content" ~ may contain references to dairy products and/or farms where dairy animals are raised

 

MoBO ~ "moms of boys only" ~ the poster does not have experience raising girls

 

n-SBM ~ "non-scrapbooking mom" ~ do not read if Creative Memories weekends are your idea of a heaven-sent getaway

 

The list goes on and on!:)

[PariSarah]

He enjoys debate. One of my best friends and I argue all the time, and we LOVE that we can do that with each other, because there aren't a lot of us out there.

 

I have a few cherished friends with whom I argue the same way. It's wonderful.

 

I am more careful around here. As much as I love debate, I recognize the need to be more circumspect in my expression of my opinions. It's been good for me. :D

 

I appreciate you standing up for the merits of rigorous debate, genie. I also want to stand up for the merits of civil debate. I find your posts to be unfailingly civil. I don't feel the same way about Phred, and I wish I did. He'd be a fascinating person to dialogue with.

[PariSarah]

Maybe I shouldn't ask, but I'm truly curious. I never saw the thread in question. Was it deleted because of atheistic content or was it deleted because of rude and disrespectful content?

 

. . . but when I left school, Phred was being rude about and towards Christians, and some Christians were returning the favor.

[Parabola]

Meaning this with all good intentions and with all sincerity (hopefully, you know I luv ya! ;)), I do have a question. Should a Christian desire to participate in the thread, would they be welcome? Assuming that there was not an intent to inflame, nor a thread hijack going on, would you welcome a dissenting viewpoint on such a thread or would it be no CC wanted, thank you?

 

I think that there is a slippery slope here, both with the CC and the AC labeling. I think that a post like the one in question today that simply was saying "Praise the Lord" is not a place for dissenting debate. Neither would I think that a post simply stating, "you know, I found this interesting site on atheistic thought today" or something similar would be a place for debate. However, if you posted a genuine discussion on why do people feel the need to have a supreme being, I'd kind of think that would be open to all respectful posts from differing positions, KWIM?

 

I guess you could say, "No CC desired," but I guess I don't really like to see that nor would I like to see the opposite on any posts. Just my opinion, and my rambling thoughts as I fix dinner. What say you?

 

Answering in all sincerity, cuz I luv ya right back Twinny, I think that a christian would be welcome to post in a thread labelled AC the same way an atheist would be welcome to post in a CC thread. It would be very disrespectul of an atheist to go to a CC thread and try to undermine, debate or bash the posters OR the posters' beliefs.

Opposite would be true, it would be very disresptful of a person to go to an AC thread and attempt to undermine, debate or bash the posters or the poster's beliefs.

For example, if there was a CC thread contemplating the interpretation of a bible verse, it would disrespectul for anyone to there and bash all over the verse and the people talking about it, or even to raise any trouble. Let the people be.

So if a christian went into this hypothetical thread about the psychological need for a supreme being, and they contributed thoughtfully and respectfully, why heck yes please join. What I think would be disrespectful would be if a christian tried to turn the topic to debate that there is a supreme being. Then it turns into a division of beliefs again.

[Parabola]

And, I agree completely with Colleen here: the reason why some of us post "CC" is to try not to offend members here who believe differently.

 

 

This is exactly what an AC label would be for.

[SheilaZ]

I think this is what I'm trying to get at too. Anyone care to answer?

For me it would depend on why the "AC" designation was used.

I would be ticked off if the AC thread was a thread bashing other religions.I would be equally ticked off if "CC" thread was started to bash any other religion.

 

That's the difference. The AC thread was not a thread to discuss atheism. It was a thread to bash another religion. That's not cool.:glare: No matter what the religion is: Christian, Judism, Islam, Hindu, Buddism, or church of Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[genie]

 

But are you instead saying that AC should mean "non-atheists don't post"? Yes, I would have a problem with that.

 

 

I don't think she meant that. I think she meant, and I KNOW I did, that AC on a post would imply discussion of a topic from an atheistic viewpoint, with the assumption that deities don't exist. Not to debate whether deities exist, nor to insult those who believe that they do. A non-atheist would be welcome to post, but I don't know that many could stay on-topic if they didn't agree with the original premise.

[Twinmom]

Answering in all sincerity, cuz I luv ya right back Twinny, I think that a christian would be welcome to post in a thread labelled AC the same way an atheist would be welcome to post in a CC thread. It would be very disrespectul of an atheist to go to a CC thread and try to undermine, debate or bash the posters OR the posters' beliefs.

Opposite would be true, it would be very disresptful of a person to go to an AC thread and attempt to undermine, debate or bash the posters or the poster's beliefs.

For example, if there was a CC thread contemplating the interpretation of a bible verse, it would disrespectul for anyone to there and bash all over the verse and the people talking about it, or even to raise any trouble. Let the people be.

So if a christian went into this hypothetical thread about the psychological need for a supreme being, and they contributed thoughtfully and respectfully, why heck yes please join. What I think would be disrespectful would be if a christian tried to turn the topic to debate that there is a supreme being. Then it turns into a division of beliefs again.

 

Okey dokey, Para. That's where I thought you were going with this. Sounds ok to me!

 

I'm with Sarah...I do see the CC label being primarily used for those "I'm going all Jesus on you!" posts, so as to steer away others who see reading that as a waste of their time. It was meant to be kind and generous. Should others choose an AC label, used in the same spirit, it's ok by me.

 

Off to dinner now.

[Parabola]

For me it would depend on why the "AC" designation was used.

I would be ticked off if the AC thread was a thread bashing other religions.I would be equally ticked off if "CC" thread was started to bash any other religion.

 

That's the difference. The AC thread was not a thread to discuss atheism. It was a thread to bash another religion. That's not cool.:glare: No matter what the religion is: Christian, Judism, Islam, Hindu, Buddism, or church of Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

Well, THAT AC thread would not be used as a model for future AC threads. Just sayin.

No bashing.

 

I don't think she meant that. I think she meant, and I KNOW I did, that AC on a post would imply discussion of a topic from an atheistic viewpoint, with the assumption that deities don't exist. Not to debate whether deities exist, nor to insult those who believe that they do. A non-atheist would be welcome to post, but I don't know that many could stay on-topic if they didn't agree with the original premise.

Exactly genie.

[Michelle in MO]

This is exactly what an AC label would be for.

 

is not offensive at all. But, if I were to label a thread "CC" and then criticize another entire group of people on this board who held different convictions, wouldn't that group think I was trying to intentionally insult them?

 

The thread that I saw just yesterday started out something like: "God is so good (CC)". To me, it did not seem at all like a group of Christians who were congratulating themselves on their holiness or special favors with God, nor were they trying to criticize or bash others who do not believe in God, or who believe in a different god. It very simply started out by one poster stating how they were in a difficult financial circumstance, how things turned around, and she was thankful to God. Then some other posters joined in with their own stories of times when they believed God helped them out in a certain situation. I can understand how someone who did not believe in God might come to a different conclusion---good luck, fortuitous circumstances, etc. That's fine.

 

But, I don't think on such a mixed forum as this that any of us, myself included, should intentionally try to criticize another group of people that we certainly know and understand frequent these forums.

 

And, I think for the most part, we're pretty successful at that, considering how diverse we are. I remember once, Parabola, you started a post about how much progress these forums had made in accepting each other. You mentioned that one poster even said he disagreed with you but would support your right to free speech. I thought it was a wonderful, positive post that you started!

 

I think we need more of that, and we need to try to keep and maintain that same positive atmosphere. Ultimately, we're all here to educate our kids, and I see the General Forums as a great place for discussion, debate, and just plain having fun.

[2cents]

IMO Phred's opinions do not meet the definition of a troll. Therefore the suggestion that we do not feed it is good general advice in the event we find a real troll on the boards. But not applicable in this instance. I personally find the opinions interesting and not at all offensive.

[5kidsforME]

Can I get that inscribed on my coffee mug?

 

I'm putting it in my sig! Do you care Sarah, I'm giving you props too!

[SheilaZ]

Well, THAT AC thread would not be used as a model for future AC threads. Just sayin.

No bashing.

 

 

Well, that would be all cool with me. (Like my opinion really matters.)

 

I think that an AC, BC, CC, JC, HC, IC, FSMC, and any other content lables are just fine as long as they aren't exclusionary as in "don't come in you lousy (insert religion or group)" or meant to be a hidey-hole for bashing.

Actually, it would be fair across the board since Christians have been asked to add the "CC." Every religion should follow suit.

Makes sense to me.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

. There are some social klutzes, for sure (I can't figure out why everyone was spouting Bible verses at Phred in the deleted thread, for example), but that's grist for the mill. .

 

I'm not denying I may be a social klutz, but I just wanted to say that I mentioned a verse in that thread, not in response to the OP but in response to a very thought provoking post by you.

 

I guess I got sidetracked because there did seem to be more than one conversation going. Half of it was no longer in reply to Phred but more of a discussion of whether or not God actually moved to intervene in situations where people felt the need to pray for intervention.

 

Anyway, in the real world it would have been rude to talk over and around Phred. It is so easy to get off on a tangent here.

[Erica in PA]

.

 

But I am seriously curious, would Christians have a problem with "AC" being used on thread titles as a heads up in similar manner to "CC"? (If the posts were less inflammatory than the one currently being discussed.) I know not everyone (Christian or not) cares for the CC designation, but it seems to be used often enough. Would AC bother people?

 

No, using AC as a content label wouldn't bother me. That would be fine if people would want to title their posts in that way, out of consideration for those who would like to skip such threads (which is how the "cc" thing came about). But at the same time, simply adding those two letters to a thread title would not give license to those posting in that thread to slam other perspectives, which it seems Phred was aiming for in his post. You can't just say, "If you're going to be offended by my mockery, don't read this" and go on to mock people, and expect no repercussions. It doesn't work that way, for any of us.

 

Erica

[Georgie]

I tried to do a search under his name and nothing came up.

[Peek a Boo]

It would be nice if the opposite could be true as well. Yeah Phred could probably benefit not only himself but his causes, if he were a little less inflammatory,but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. Phred has great things to say...could you please be a little less in your face about it Phred, please? Its hurting your fight.

 

Anyway, it would be nice if an atheists could discuss things from AN ATHEIST POINT OF VIEW without having to defend that point of view, or their right to discuss it. A good discussion is rarely gotten to because first we have to debate like we're doing now. It rarely happens that the content, the issue of a CC thread is not gotten to because non-believers jump in and try to shut it down or call the OP of a CC thread a troll.

 

I see the double standard, its there.

 

The thing is, we can't ever get to NEW TERRITORY because of the SAME OLD DEBATE. I want to discuss certain topics from an atheist point of view but I've never been able to get there because THIS SAME OLD DEBATE rears its ugly head.

 

 

The really funny thing about trying to discuss a topic w/ Phred is that HE is the one that is always bringing up religion. Do you know how difficult it is to convince him to LEAVE religion out of a topic so it can be discussed on its own merits?? Try reviewing some of the threads about life issues. The irony of a Christian telling an atheist to leave religion out of a topic is hilarious to me.

 

I don't mind discussing a topic from an atheistic POV -- i think we've shown that it CAN be done, even w/ Christians and atheists involved. The problem here is w/ one poster who APPEARS to be not sincerely atheist but more "angry at God." My best friend is an atheist and she certainly doesn't feel the need to mock those w/ religious beliefs. Our joint motto is "my faith or lack thereof is not dependent on how another perceives it." Every time Phred posts mocking or whining about religion he indicts hmself not just to Christians, but to other atheists [as has already been noted].

 

It is easy enough to have a non-religious discussion. It is NOT so easy to get away w/ being rude and inconsiderate, religious or no.

 

So if we want to discuss a topic from an atheist POV, I think that would be great!

 

and i do agree that I appreciate it when people label their posts clearly and specifically. I avoid the running posts, the scrapbooking posts, and many other topics that i just don't wanna take the time to open.

[Ashleen]

I tried to do a search under his name and nothing came up.

 

I found him on the member list, but when you click to see his posts or threads, it says there are no matches. :001_huh:

[Tammy]

Not to mention....it has all been said before.....more than once!

[Camy-7 boybarians 1 lady]

LOL, Sarah!

[Parabola]

I found him on the member list, but when you click to see his posts or threads, it says there are no matches. :001_huh:

 

Phred had a post in this thread, where did it go?

[Tammy]

I think all of his posts have been deleted....

[Ashleen]

Phred had a post in this thread, where did it go?

 

It looks like it's gone. I see it quoted a few times but the posts are numbered and nothing is "missing" and I didn't see one that said it had been deleted. But I don't see his post.:confused:

[genie]

I think all of his posts have been deleted....

 

More than deleted, completely removed.

[Ashleen]

I think all of his posts have been deleted....

 

All of them ever? Wow.

[genie]

Not to mention....it has all been said before.....more than once!

 

 

That could be said about almost every thread here, though, couldn't it? ;)

[genie]

All of them ever? Wow.

 

Seems that way.

[Tammy]

I was talking about the derogatory comments about Phred....we have all heard it before. It is getting old.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I found him on the member list, but when you click to see his posts or threads, it says there are no matches. :001_huh:

 

Here you go.

[Michelle in MO]

and I can see his posts still there. Am I missing something?

[genie]

I was talking about the derogatory comments about Phred....we have all heard it before. It is getting old.

 

:D It follows him wherever he goes. He's apparently quite irresistible. :D

[genie]

Here you go.

 

That link tells me, "Sorry, no matches"

[Peek a Boo]

More than deleted, completely removed.

 

 

yeah-- i was noticing that when i went to reference a thread! aw man!!

 

i do wish they would leave the posts that really offered something to the discussion. Now those threads don't seem to make any sense, lol! Glad I quoted as much as possible ;)

[Ashleen]

Here you go.

 

I clicked the link and it said, "Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."

[genie]

and I can see his posts still there. Am I missing something?

 

I see his post COUNT still being there, but even threads that he started, his posts are completely missing (even though it will list Phred as the author). Can you actually click and see some of his posts? This is strange! :confused:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I clicked the link and it said, "Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."

 

That's weird.

[genie]

yeah-- i was noticing that when i went to reference a thread! aw man!!

 

i do wish they would leave the posts that really offered something to the discussion. Now those threads don't seem to make any sense, lol! Glad I quoted as much as possible ;)

 

Indeed! :iagree:

[genie]

That's weird.

 

So that link gave you a list of posts? Have we entered the Twilight Zone? :lol:

[Parabola]

Well that appears to be the case. I just searched and found his posts all listed, even tho the 2 former searches I did this morning told me there were no matches.

 

Velly odd.

[Tammy]

They seem to all be back now....I know they weren't a bit ago.....weird is right!

[genie]

They seem to all be back now....I know they weren't a bit ago.....weird is right!

 

They are! Even the ones in this thread! Okay. I think I need more coffee!

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

They are! Even the ones in this thread! Okay. I think I need more coffee!

 

Well, when I type "Phred" into the search box, I get Phred posts or threads.

 

Is Phred (or whoever "he" is) suddenly imaginary and I'm the only one who can see him now?

[Ashleen]

Ok, now post #28 in this thread is Phred, but earlier it was not. I checked. Really. And I've had my coffee.:confused:

 

{Edited to add: but the link still says no matches}

[genie]

Well, when I type "Phred" into the search box, I get Phred posts or threads.

 

Is Phred (or whoever "he" is) suddenly imaginary and I'm the only one who can see him now?

 

No apparently we can all once again see him. But you were quite possibly one of the privileged few who could still see him while he was otherwise invisible to the rest of us.

 

So now that makes me wonder exactly how special you are! :tongue_smilie:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

No apparently we can all once again see him. But you were quite possibly one of the privileged few who could still see him while he was otherwise invisible to the rest of us.

 

So now that makes me wonder exactly how special you are! :tongue_smilie:

 

Hmmm. Hmmm.

 

A part of the privileged few, eh? And here I figured I was skating on thin ice on this board most of the time.

 

I need my Church Lady voice for this one. "Well. Aren't I SPECIAL!"

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[genie]

Hmmm. Hmmm.

 

A part of the privileged few, eh? And here I figured I was skating on thin ice on this board most of the time.

 

I need my Church Lady voice for this one. "Well. Aren't I SPECIAL!"

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

You ARE special, just like everyone else! ;)

 

And apparently in a few ways unlike everyone else. :D

[Peek a Boo]

You guys don't get it. You live by a double standard. You're free to praise your god and pat each other on the back and spend page after page after page going on about how wonderful he is... but when I decline to post within that thread and rather start my own, with a disclaimer right off the top, that suggests such posts are nonsense... I'm a troll and starting trouble.

 

If you can praise your god I can not praise it. And I can seek to not praise it with others who think like I do. I know they're here, they've just been bashed into silence.

 

One person thinking something weird... that's a nut. A whole bunch of people thinking something weird, that's a church...

 

aha! Now i see him ;)

 

and fwiw, I don't really have a problem w/ anyone NOT praising God; it's when it turns into an attack that [as others have rightly deduced] it crosses a basic line of common courtesy. back to my first post on this issue above.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

You ARE special, just like everyone else! ;)

 

Yes, darling. You betcha.