Miss tery, Slydevl, and VOR -- what are your intentions in this forum?

The reason I ask you three is because going back over the turmoil this forum has had over the past week, you three have been in the center of it. Here are the impressions I'm getting from your posts/threads thusfar:

Miss tery: You've spoken your mind in the past, but you seem to be making an effort to conform to the rules of this forum. You've started more threads than anyone else here, and your questions are getting better. I see a significant drop in sarcasm and unflattering generalizations. The impression I get is that you're actually interested in seeing what religious people have to say about God.

Slydevl: Every thread you've started in this forum has been directed toward atheists in general or Miss tery personally. Of the four threads you've started, one was in direct retaliation to an assertion Miss tery made about atheists having higher IQ's than religious people. Another started out benign enough but quickly became a challenge to all atheists who argue against Christianity, calling into question the knowledge base from which they're arguing. The impression I'm getting is that your sole intention in this forum is to call out all atheists, and Miss tery in particular, for the purpose of debate/argument.

VOR: The reason I've included you in this list is because other than the two above, I've had to edit or delete more of your posts than anyone else. It seems to me that you're bored and this forum is not much more than a new toy for you to play with.


I'm posting this rather than PMing you all about it because I want this out in the open. These are my perceptions, and they may be way off. I'm giving you all this opportunity to set me straight. All I ask is that you be honest. Thanks.

 

The purpose of this forum should be intelligent debate. I feel the knowledge base from which anyone argues anything is certainly valid when participating in a debate. Anything which I say I will always hang around to defend or discuss and I will always attempt to answer any question anyone poses to me about anything dealing with the subject of religion and my background, educational or otherwise, as it pertains to religion in an honest manner.

If my responses have overwhelmingly been directed at MT it is only because she is the only member of the forum who continually fires salvos at anyone and the refuses to hang around and discuss or defend them.

 

Thessalonians 5:15

 

Thank you Reznor. You were absolutely correct in pointing that out to me.

 

Hey, I'm certainly not trying to be an ass, and I do honestly respect your beliefs. I just feel that you can be a little overbearing, even if your intentions are probably good. I don't have any hard feelings or anything about that topic you started. I was unaware of the motive, and I would have said the same things in MT's thread stating the opposite.

 

Is that the sound of the seams in hasbeen's britches coming apart?

 

Trying to tell me something, Grid? Am I getting too big for my britches?

 

I just don't see the point of people having to give detailed explanations of their posts. if they're breaking rules, delete the posts and let them know about it. If they persist, ban them from the forum.

 

I think you're erring heavily on the side of not stepping on the toes of specific controversial people, to a point. Which is good, in that it leaves small chances that said person will run off claiming "not fair" or similar. Which is bad, if the person takes advantage of that for political gain or in recognizing that the rules might tip in their favor so they'll use advantage to get away with what they can get away with. I don't think you're getting bigger than your britches, so much as you're showing something that looks to others to be tipping the scales against a majority in compensation.

Specifically, I haven't read of _tery since these issues came up. So I can't speak of someone that I haven't read in this specific case - the "clean slate" where she's theoretically trying to stick to the rules. She hasn't been intentionally insultive recently, but I'm also unconvinced that she asks the specific questions she does, to provide good discourse or to learn. It sounds as if she's attempting to ask questions to get people to trip over themselves when trying to answer. To suggest that if there's varying answers, the religion and therefore the deity is falliable and therefore can't exist.

Things like that. The "we need to get non-Christian people in here" thing specifically rubs me the wrong way because it immediately becomes about numbers: "If I can get more people in here that will argue against them I can win" or "I'll have more people to defend me when I attack them."
That's what I see specifically. And I don't like that.

Nor do I really like what sly's trying to do, really. But I can understand why he's doing it - in reaction. That doesn't make it better, no.

 

Isn't it better to let someone present their side of the story before deciding whether or not to exile them?