What Should Be The Rule?

Semi, I made that remark not because you entered in, but because you took it upon yourself to inform readers of how I would possibly feel about the topic. Unless you are psychic, you cannot possibly know how I would feel on any subject. The forum is for all, and I don't mind your entering any discussion I start--just please don't put words in my mouth.

I guess you know what I think. This is a public forum and if people starting threads don't want comments from certain people they need to make a private, invitation only, forum of their own. I think some of them want some people to respond just so they can whine that their threads are being "hijacked" or taken over. I have never posted a thread that was meant only for an atheist to read or comment on. It may be a thread that only an atheist would be interested in but I couldn't care less who reads and responds. IF I did, I would take my own advice and start a private forum.

I don't get bent out of shape if posters drift away from the original theme because that is what people tend to do in real life. "One thing leads to another" so to speak. Sometimes someone will post something so bizarre that someone might ask what that has to do with anything, but other than that I understand how "conversations" go from one thing to another. Now I do think it's silly when bill runs and makes another thread because he thinks the one going is getting too much attention.  Despite what some posters claim, I don't post under all the threads. But that isn't because I don't think I have the right, it's because the subject of the thread doesn't interest me.

Blunt is fine. When you feel a certain way about something it is absolutely fine to say it. You shouldn't feel you have to change the way you think, or think you have to  pretend to be someone you aren't just to please people on a newspaper forum. It's like I tried to tell frog, we are all grownups and when you come to a public forum you are going to be interacting with as many different personalities as there are posters.

bestworking, "Ms. Bentouttashape 2011"

Right on, BW.

 I'd drink to that....if I drank.

I look at it this way- If I walk into a bar and yell out "MAN! I think christian fundies totally suck and here's why....!"  I'd expect every christian in the place to have offered some kinda opinion just as loudly inside of eight seconds-fundy or not.

Oh...wait....I might not FIND any in a bar 'round these parts.....nebbermind.

Then again.....it just might be full of baptists.

I reckon you could ask that a thread be to/for a specific person or group in the title, but that's no guarantee. When you're in public, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy.

If you hang it out there-somebody's gonna say something about it.

PM if ya want privacy-(hence the "P" in PM.)

Oh the christians would be in there all right, after all the bars would go out of business if they had to depend on atheists only to keep them flush.

I find that those who object to others who enter a topic "uninvited" often (though not by any means always) object because they did not expect to get their plows cleaned by some compelling argument posted by the "uninvited" person. Thus, they weasel away in an attempt--usually unsuccessful--to confine the discussion to themselves and those they think they can prevail against.

I agree that those who want to have a private two-person dialogue need to skedaddle away from the open forum and enter a private discussion.  And--they should stop acting as though they have the right to control entry into the former.

best do Christians make up any bulk of your place [business]?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, I agree with contendah, gotta call 911.

LOL!

Goodly point, Contendah.

Hi Chick,

My understanding of what Firenze meant was that when someone specifically addresses a question to a specific person -- we should all allow that person to answer first, before we jump into the middle of the dialogue. 

If I ask, "Chick, what do you think of _______________ ?" -- that question is asking Chick what she thinks of this issue.  It is not asking what Jennifer thinks, or what Crusty thinks, or what anyone else thinks about this particular issue.  It is specifically asking Chick.

Proper etiquette would be to allow Chick to answer first.  And, then others might want to offer their take on the issue -- after Chick has responded to the question asked of her.

This, in my understanding, is the issue that Firenze is addressing -- and I believe her point is valid.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

if you find me giving a **** either way on the issue refer to me as crazy

We can do that already.

So in other words bill, do as YOU say, not as you do? I don't think any of us need you or anyone else for that matter, to tell us how to post in here.

Since Semi didn't copy my full quote, I will now:

Yesterday Semi entered uninvited into a discussion between Bill and me--that is something she often does. I've tried to be civil to the woman, but I will not let her put words in my mouth or state she knows how I will react to any comments from Bill or anyone else.

Firenze, I copied what I meant to copy. And you are trying to prove what by copying the rest of it? It has nothing to do with my topic. You have never tried to be civil to me.

I will say this & then I’m though. Shall I copy the post here that you made to me when you put words in my mouth? There’s really no need for it since one of them can be easily found in the topic “Ultimate wickedness”.

You judged me as being an Atheist as though that's a nasty thing to be. I got news for you. The Atheist here have a much kinder heart than you would ever dream of having.

We’re getting no where with this & I’m sure the others here are getting tired of it.

no no semi carry on

_____________________________

You need to ask permission to enter into this discussion.

b50 licensed me she luvs me