GOOD NEWS - BAD NEWS (Don't Say You Weren't Warned)

Self | 1-22-04 | Sidebar Moderator

[Sidebar Moderator]

Are the "Abuse" button abusers a large part of the problem?

When individual posters go overboard on the abuse button, they are dealt with one way or another. Usually without any bloodletting.

[Unam Sanctam]

Thanks for the explanation!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

LOL. I've gotten my share of Harry Potter-abuse. There's more to that "I-Was-Just-An-Unwed-Mum-When-My-Ship_Came-In" story than people will ever know.

And I guess I can understand people arguing in favor of drugging their kids, mostly young boys, into somnambulent zombies.

But the Disney thing has me really puzzled. I thought that would be a breeze. Why do conservatives and/or Christians defend the rodent?

[drstevej]

***somnambulent zombies***

Save that for the Calvinist-Arminian threads. :-)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It's getting worse!

You've read my stuff, huh?

Everyone's a critic...

[Lead Moderator]

But sometimes with.

There have been suspensions and bans for Abuse abuse. But those people really went out of their way for it (posting hundreds of abuse reports in a minute, all the same, just to annoy the staff-- and foolishly doing so when Jim was the staff on at the time).

[Sidebar Moderator]

I am led to believe that an edit feature is in the works, but I have no idea when it might come to pass.

[drstevej]

That would really be great.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

All due respect, but you're going to exhaust yourself if you question every quasi-hot word that's written.

There are a lot of words, and even more meanings for all those words. And many freepers. And a multitude of intentions behind those freepers...

Do you have kids?

[Corin Stormhands]

Heh...you don't wanna get me started on any of those three. I fear we'd be on opposite sides on all three.

Another thread, another time.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Your #385 is largely correct, barring unforeseen examples events.

[Corin Stormhands]

Play nice!

[Sidebar Moderator]

I would hope that you would agree that personal attacks against freeper are unwarranted, but questioning the validity of specific doctrines and church history and politics is legitimate in order to further the purpose of a free and open discussion of all things religious. Would you not agree?

I would agree, as long as the questions aren't phrased something like, "Hey, are you so stupid to really believe that?"

[Dr. Eckleburg]

LOL. Mine probably stayed and argued.

"Just a few more questions. It's not like an Inquisition, after all..."

[P-Marlowe]

"Hey, are you so stupid to really believe that?"

Yup :-)

[Corin Stormhands]

Mine went and fought in England, then got land out of the deal.

[polemikos]

And since you personally decided on the 90% and the 3,000, that makes it so much better than the 13 found in the text.

I freely acknowledged that it was "arbitrary". You did read the post, right? Also, your use of "13" is unsupported.

Or maybe 13 jumped to 3,000. Eh? Is that what you say?

I say: (a) your "13" is unsupported versus my supported number (just arguing for the sake of argument here ;-), (b) any reasonable final tally works for the purposes of my main argument, and (c) the "analysis" you're relying on is severely flawed.

How about if you go read the book for actual content rather than aha! statistics?

I'll freely acknowledge the stats aren't as important as the underlying principle. Nevertheless, my point still stands (as I stated in my previous post).

Next week I might be about to check myself what the new edition says.

The book is thousands of pages of statistical listings. Have fun. (Was that another use of an aha! statistic?)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Opposite sides of ritalin?

Are you in favor of the satanic drug of the 21st century, I politely inquire?

[Sidebar Moderator]

Do you have kids?

Yes. And I questioned quasi-hot words until I quit hearing them. :)

Granted, this is an adult forum, or its supposed to be, at any rate, and I might have worded my question in a better way. I've already admitted that I'm a sinful human being, though, way back in the announcement.

Hey, maybe you got a quasi-prude moderator.