Appropriate Communication for a Spirituality Forum

@secondson said
Things are not as good as they could be if you weren't so cleverly disguised, along with your sidekick divister.

But surely you back my freedom to express myself as I see fit and wouldn't want me to scrimp on my candour and tenacity, or dumb what I have to say down, even if you do disagree with many of the things I believe?

@secondson said
Not entirely true.

FMF: Grampy Bobby left the forums because of the illness that eventually took his life.

SecondSon: Not entirely true.

But you didn't start posting until after Grampy Bobby had stopped posting.

@fmf said
But isn't the point more about seeking to be popular or seeking approval on a forum where debates and discussion obviously lead to disagreements and unpopular stances?

No, that's not the point. The point is the manner in which you post.

We've been arguing about it for years. The observations and points have been made many times, but still you don't get it.

Yours and divegeester's posting style and methods are divisive and disruptive to civil discourse and debate. You both give Christians posting here a bad rap while cozying up to the rest.

@fmf said
FMF: Grampy Bobby left the forums because of the illness that eventually took his life.

SecondSon: Not entirely true.

But you didn't start posting until after Grampy Bobby had stopped posting.

So you're admitting to drumming GB out of the forum with your incessant haranguing?

@secondson said
Your posting style and methods are divisive and disruptive to civil discourse and debate.

I disagree. I think my contributions to the debates here are principled and substantial but they are very often met with a lack of civil discourse and people waving their arms in the air about things being "divisive and disruptive" because that is the way they process thoughtful and robust dissent and disagreement.

@petewxyz said
That's a whole other issue. This is me saying to @divegeester and @FMF that instead of being relentless in their certainty that they know what other people mean, I think they should be respectfully curious about what the other is trying to say.

If you want a thread on what is appropriate censorship start one, but that is certainly not what I am raising here.

I think censorship is indeed your goal. You seem to have backed off of it after encountering resistance.

So good, we're getting to the heart of the issue, which is that you don't approve of how two specific people post. Fine.

Let's say they don't, in fact have that kind of curiosity towards certain posters. How will your telling them that they SHOULD have it, help anyone, in that case?

@secondson said
So you're admitting to drumming GB out of the forum with your incessant haranguing?

No. Not at all. I am saying that Grampy Bobby left the forums because of the illness that eventually took his life.

Great Big Stees, as good a friend as Grampy Bobby had, revealed in public that, right up to the end, Grampy Bobby thoroughly enjoyed the cut and thrust of forum exchanges and often gave more than what he got.

If you can find any examples of me "drumming Grampy Bobby out of the forum" before you started posting here, go for it.

@fmf said
FMF: Grampy Bobby left the forums because of the illness that eventually took his life.

SecondSon: Not entirely true.

But you didn't start posting until after Grampy Bobby had stopped posting.

Has someone been manipulating you in private with their opinions about events on the forums prior to when you started posting?

@secondson said
The point is the manner in which you post.

I have no intention of posting on a debate and discussion forum in any manner other than my own. Do you think petewxyz's OP has, at its core, a desire for censorship and the deleting/moderation of posts?

@secondson said
No, that's not the point. The point is the manner in which you post.

We've been arguing about it for years. The observations and points have been made many times, but still you don't get it.

Yours and divegeester's posting style and methods are divisive and disruptive to civil discourse and debate. You both give Christians posting here a bad rap while cozying up to the rest.

No, it IS the point. My bringing Jesus into the topic was to point out that spirituality is not a popularity contest, so your brininging up the number of thumbs down on a post is not indicative of spiritual content.

Try to stay on point, Count.

@secondson said
No, that's not the point. The point is the manner in which you post.

We've been arguing about it for years. The observations and points have been made many times, but still you don't get it.

Yours and divegeester's posting style and methods are divisive and disruptive to civil discourse and debate. You both give Christians posting here a bad rap while cozying up to the rest.

We could all join hands and sing, “Kumbaya”

@ghost-of-a-duke said
@FMF
Earlier on in that thread when asked to give a definition of "true atheist" he answered:
"I think that admittedly badly worded sentence is being taken out of context of the post it was in. - In that context I am using it to mean somebody who truly believes there is nothing more to come after death. Somebody who truly believes that all there is now is to cope wi ...[text shortened]... ation that I was willing to accept. Why wasn't that the end of that particular line of questioning?

And yet, your advice to him - about his mistake on page 1 - that he should admit his error and stop doubling-down - came on page 7 of an 8-page thread. It seems to me that you saw it the same way as I did almost up to the very end of that thread.

@secondson said
So you're admitting to drumming GB out of the forum with your incessant haranguing?

Grammy Bobby left the forums because he was sick.

@secondson said
So you're admitting to drumming GB out of the forum with your incessant haranguing?

Here's another poster attempting to do what you are doing.

Thread 178958

Your comment on page 2 is interesting in light of the various posts that precede it.

@fmf said
And yet, your advice to him - about his mistake on page 1 - that he should admit his error and stop doubling-down - came on page 7 of an 8-page thread. It seems to me that you saw it the same way as I did almost up to the very end of that thread.

How do you figure that? Was I posting continuously throughout those 8 pages?

No. I posted on the first page and then left the thread. I re-joined on page 7 when I Immediately gave the advice you keep religiously regurgitating.