Ah, it does sound familiar.
I’m afraid that people mistook the [ecumenical thread] tag for the [barroom brawl] tag.
Alas!
Not used to ecumenical threads. Apparently taking issue with peoples stance is “antagonism” rather than just “personal antagonism” which is verboten on open threads.
Allowed on open but not on ecumenical because it is antagonistic: “Your position is ignorant because...”
Not allowed on open: “You are ignorant because...”
I like FR threads because I don't go for the personal attacks, but enjoy thrashing out (even with “gasp!” antagonism!) peoples positions and why they believe what they believe.
If FR makes Science threads ecumenical what is acceptable?
“I respect your position that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but I do not believe that there is any Scientific evidence for it, so saying that a young Earth is supported by Science would, in my opinion, be incorrect.”
Would that be acceptable? Or is that antagonistic?
an·tag·o·nism (n-tg-nzm)
n.
1. Hostility that results in active resistance, opposition, or contentiousness. See Synonyms at enmity.
2. The condition of being an opposing principle, force, or factor: the inherent antagonism of capitalism and socialism.
3. Biochemistry Interference in the physiological action of a chemical substance by another having a similar structure.
According to Deff #1 any opposition that results in hostility (deserved or not) would be antagonistic. So people can only agree with each other?