Character attacking thread titles

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Your three examples there all share a common theme.

AND, it seems, they have particularly pricked at your skin?

Let's see...they WERE in the "Origins and Creations" forum? Therefore, they seemed to be valid thread titles. Titles not directly attacking anyONE, but an IDEA. At least, that seems to be how they were intended.

Even if a little "prickly" in their wording, seems they were meant to invoke discussion, spur conversation.

Surely, there are similar instance where those on a different "side" of the "creationism debate" have been equally....ummmm...suggestive or seemingly antagonistic, in their titles?

Just sayin'......if you have been here long enough, you will understand the diversity that is reflected in the "staff", and their own personal...I hate to say "biases", but that's the best word...because, like it or not, WE ALL HAVE THEM!

It is when, as "Mods", they set aside their personal beliefs, no matter how much they may "disagree" with something posted. or even the nature of a thread title. I say this knowing, from experience, that a number of staff DO profess to certain "beliefs" of various religious doctrines...some that YOU may even be inclined to believe in too.

If they can bear to stomach those thread titles, even if designed specifically to annoy, then we all can, right?

(Do you know how many thread titles I see, that annoy the heck out of me???)

reply to post by weedwhacker


Well it depends - I agree with you but you have to allow all sides in your inflammatory titles..

Example - two totally made up thread titles below..

Should liberal views be considered a sign of mental illness??
Can we prove conservative views may be a sign of criminal tendencies??

Now I could make up the similar with evolution / creationism or most any opposite ideology. However, if you routinely close one side but leave the other side open. Well its one of those things that makes you go "....Hmmmmm..." when considering how evenly rules are applied to topics.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

A mod actually told you it's a "dictatorship"?

Well, that explains a lot.

yes I will send you the u2u's if you wish... also I made 3 posts on the topic and was banned for discussing freedom of speech then all 3 threads were trashed after I submitted to being under rule (since it is someones site you know)

none the less it was an interesting conversation and situation after not posting for just maybe a week.

you see I registered months ago but just started to use the account and I am not a returning banned person either, I am totally new here.

reply to post by Frogs


equality ! my sentiments exactly...

the posters do not need to be equal with the lords of the manner since it is their house but 'titles' should be unbiased and any attacking (in a nice way of course) should be done in thread.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It is when, as "Mods", they set aside their personal beliefs, no matter how much they may "disagree" with something posted. or even the nature of a thread title. I say this knowing, from experience, that a number of staff DO profess to certain "beliefs" of various religious doctrines...some that YOU may even be inclined to believe in too.

If they can bear to stomach those thread titles, even if designed specifically to annoy, then we all can, right?

(Do you know how many thread titles I see, that annoy the heck out of me???)

good point, I guess this just then proves the Kid theory and also that the subscribers of a certain belief are not nearly as nasty as another. Some are just looking for good conversation which is hard to find when every title of every section is swinging a certain way.

better balance is all we need...

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
the posters do not need to be equal with the lords of the manner...

Oh here we go again. I've been doing this long enough to know these types of topics.

1) I'm right and everything out there that slightly disagrees with me is wrong AND AN ATTACK!!!

2) A returning banned member that wants to paint ATS in a poor light. REALLY common.

3) A person that can't accept that ATS IS unbiased. They have to have their soapbox. Damn the T&C.

Guess what? Ats is going to be neutral people. I'm talking about the atheists and religious. The alien believers and the skeptics. The conservatives and the liberals. Pick your poison. The point remains the same. The "lords" as this is labeled are made up of about 75 MEMBERS, volunteers I might add, that are made up of christians and nonchristians. liberals and conservatives. Hell we've got a few socialists. We call them Canadians. I could go on but I think the point is made.

The paradigm works. FOR MOST PEOPLE. If it isn't working for you, you may be a person that is in 1, 2 or 3 above.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
the posters do not need to be equal with the lords of the manner...

Oh here we go again. I've been doing this long enough to know these types of topics.

1) I'm right and everything out there that slightly disagrees with me is wrong AND AN ATTACK!!!

2) A returning banned member that wants to paint ATS in a poor light. REALLY common.

3) A person that can't accept that ATS IS unbiased. They have to have their soapbox. Damn the T&C.

1. I am open to suggestion

2. I am not a return ban

3. ATS is not unbiased it is a dictatorship as started by one of the mods.

why don't you pull out my topic in the trash section from the last time this happened and post it here for all to see ?

I always go off when treated unfairly, My posts get deleted and ones I complain about remain, which are way more derogatory.

I am not dissing ATS just some of it's management.

Originally posted by intrepid
The "lords" as this is labeled are made up of about 75 MEMBERS, volunteers I might add, that are made up of christians and nonchristians. liberals and conservatives.

the seats of these volunteers need to be more balanced imo kind of like a mini congress, there should be an equal amount of all sides and they should be dispersed into managing sections in the equal amount of numbers 4x4 or whatever it takes to get more neutral stance and a fair and unbiased board.

how about the users vote the Mods ? but am I forgetting this is not a democracy...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Those threads are about:

1: Creationism correlating to a complete rejection of reality.
2: Creationists, including yourself, routinely displaying ignorance of science in general and evolutionary biology specifically.
3: The impossible nature of the flood mythos as demonstrated by evidence and argumentation.

These aren't threads attacking people for the color of their skin, the nation of their birth, or any other thing that they have no control over. It is attacking a position and the incredible levels of self-deceit and willful ignorance implied.

Of course, instead of addressing the threads in question, you complain to the mods to get them shut down. If there is something false in the premises of those threads (two of which are mine), demonstrate it.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact



How come I cant star your thread?

Maybe the people of ATs should set up a non bias web site? Iv had comments removed my self that in my opinion less harmfull than some full threads iv seen around here.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Yes, it's insane how...oh wait, I can't think of a single example. I mean, it's obvious that both creationism and evolution are up for critique. Hell, O&C even has a thread which I started and is found in my sig that allows people to critique evolution. I even opened a thread allowing creationists to try to prove their point.

In most of the forums it's ok to address pretty much all viewpoints. Though it is a bit harder to voice skeptical or liberal view points in certain realms of ATS as I've found out.

reply to post by Frogs


Your example is a bit fallacious as the thread about creationism correlating with insanity actually had an argument to back it up and it's quite easy to demonstrate that creationism requires a rejection of many aspects of verified reality.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Huh? When did I say critique is uncalled for on ATS? I stay completely out of the O&C forum, it's a pointless argument to get into. No one will ever say: "Yes, you made a good point, I now change my beliefs..." Creationists and Evolutionists have the exact same degrees from the exact same institutions and the exact same data to look at, but their presuppositions determine their beliefs.

To me it's pointless. But I was never referring to the O&C forum.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I'm not going to argue with your statements here. It's not the place for bickering.

Check your private messages.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
I find these to not be neutral at all, very biased and to top it off... if you call one of these authors "ignorant" but even in a nice way, your post will be removed.

threads
Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?
The Ignorance of Creationists
"The Whole Silly Flood Story"

to start...

either these guys are master trolls or they are the mods themselves ?

Sweet, my thread made the top of your hate list

Creationism is a theory. it is a insane theory in my opinion in the same way that reptilian or hollow earth theories are insane.

Would you object to "Are reptilian overlord theories" a sign of insanity? or "Are Dogs being secret NWO agents theories a sign of insanity?"

I never made it personal to any subset. choosing a religion, a political party, or a outlook on aliens/ghosts/etc are simply that...choices you make. you can change it tomorrow if you cant take the debate about that particular topic...or you can debate back honestly. Supressing discussion about a topic will get you nothing here"

"These are not the trolls you are looking for" -Trollbi Wan Kanobi

the seats of these volunteers need to be more balanced imo kind of like a mini congress, there should be an equal amount of all sides and they should be dispersed into managing sections in the equal amount of numbers 4x4 or whatever it takes to get more neutral stance and a fair and unbiased board.

how about the users vote the Mods ? but am I forgetting this is not a democracy...

An interesting idea, but there are many things that get considered when picking a mod nominee. Putting it to a vote would make it into a popularity contest, and likely wouldn't get you a good result.

Things like, does the member show a knowledge of the terms and conditions? Does the member keep their cool in arguments? Can the member demonstrate non-bias? Is the member generally respected by the membership? Does the member sincerely want to help others?, etc., etc.

I doubt all of this would be considered in a vote format.

While EVERY site is a dictatorship (i.e. ultimate authority rests with admins)...(shocking, no?) The admins of this site certainly value the opinion of the membership and volunteer staff, and certainly do everything they can to please the membership at large, while still holding to the ideals the site was founded upon.

That said, if you really do have an issue with a mod action, or mod actions, by all means, use the channels available to all members, involve other mods, etc. However, as stated in this thread, criticism of groups is NOT a personal attack as it relates to the T&C. The only exception is hate speech, and granted, this is a somewhat murky area where mods must exercise their own judgement, but we all strive to provide an unbiased forum for discussion.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Ah, but I disagree. I'm sure plenty of people won't change there mind, but if one or two people come to understand science and the wonder of nature just a bit better, I've done my job.

And there have been people I know who have accepted evolution after being creationists. One of them is my best friend growing up. He was very religious, I clearly wasn't. We'd talk about evolution sometimes, but one day out of the blue he said "You know, evolution really does make sense."

And that was that. He's still a very devout Christian, but he does accept evolution.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


After looking at your post history, it seems to me you are posting about the same topic over an over again. Bubble Gum posts where if your name is on it, it's another thread about the same thing.

You can go to another site where only people who agree with you post, but what would be the point in that if you are trying to win people over to you idea's?

All I'm getting from this thread is you are intolerant of people who don't agree with you and your methodology is to insult them and call people names. Instead of turning the other cheek, your response is to hit them in the face. Instead of attracting people to your side by making good arguments, you drive them away.

There is a thin line between a devout follower and a fanatic. Now your here trying to harm ATS, it's Owners and the wonderful people here who Moderate at no pay to help keep this place viable. We've all seen the other sites and they are either out of control madhouses that allow profanity and personal attacks or they are just a bunch of people sitting around patting each other on the back for sharing the same beliefs.

They may not be the most popular threads, but amongst all the madness there is actual debate and sharing of ideas going on here. Inflammatory titles are almost always a sign that you are entering a thread with a person who is there to preach, not to teach or debate and share idea's.

Also if you are expecting the Moderators to keep up with the number of posts this site receives you are being very unfair. You must know that a complete vetting of all posts and threads would be impossible? Just say thank you to these nice folks for all the hard work they do to keep this place up and running for us and to those who volunteer to Moderate and leave themselves open to the abuse seen in threads like these.

Soften you heart, it won't hurt and it feels quite nice in fact. We all have bad days and overreact at times when a topic brings out strong emotion in us. The crew at ATS is very tolerant of that also.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


SIr you just need eloquence and manners... even the way you reply to others post is very rude.

get off your high horse

Originally posted by ThePeopleParty
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

How come I cant star your thread?

Maybe the people of ATs should set up a non bias web site? Iv had comments removed my self that in my opinion less harmfull than some full threads iv seen around here.

edit on 15-12-2010 by ThePeopleParty because: (no reason given)

yes there is bias going on, though of course none of the mods will admit it... I can smell a Canadian from miles away and I am quite sure a majority of the mods and the users (specially the ones who do not post their location) are from Canada... There are tons of sites set up right here on US soil but are owned by outsiders, that is our freedom of speech for you... we give these people a fair and unbiased voice and look what they turn around an use it for. You see no one likes Canadians because they are more pompous than the Brits and they absolutely hate Americans because they are jealous, they are embarrassed that is why they do not post their location... They all speak the same way too, this is how you can sniff them out... see not having variety and living in a socialist state kind of makes everyone 'sing the same tune' if you know what I mean.

I put $20 bucks that this site is owned by a Canadian !