I was not trying to argue the merits of Colibri’s decision to move the thread, I was trying to explain the point that you seemed not to understand, about “the negotiation” to close the thread.
I doubt I can cite any examples, and don’t feel like looking for any. To me, this is just common sense. If the OP is about some personal topic, or the thread gets dramatically hijacked and the original question is answered, then certainly it makes sense to close a thread if the OP requests it. But if the conversation is going along on topic and the OP just no longer wishes to participate, I see no reason why the thread must be closed. Let the people who wish to continue discussion do so, and anyone who does not wish to participate can ignore the thread - and that includes the OP.
And no, I do not think this question was hijacked by moving it to GD.
To give a non-christian example, it would be like asking “So do Buddhists believe in reincarnation?” The answers include “yes”, “no”, and “somewhat, but not really”, and are very likely to lead to a debate over what Buddhism says and what it means to seek enlightenment, etc.
Sorry I don’t use exclusively declarative sentences, it does tend to raise the necessary level of reader involvement towards maintaining comprehension when that happens.
Except for that last sentence, I’d recommend this post as a model for the mods to study. Nothing any of them wrote or didn’t write, here or via PM in any way individually or collectively resembled this.
Nonetheless, I am not screaming “Stop”, I am asked for the thread to be closed, to be shown the same courtesy that I have seen others receive. when that wasn’t forthcoming, I simply wondered why I didn’t receive the same courtesy. I still wonder that.
I also notice the thread’s content as of this writing, is still suitable for GQ after several days.
And the thread itself does not ask if some Christians don’t see Jesus as love, which is indeed a yes or no question as you note, it asks what those who believe Jesus is something other than love believe Jesus is. That is more of a list building exercise. Having written a mostly very good post, I trust you see the difference.
We can agree to disagree on that last point. And you can’t say how the conversation was going before the thread was moved, because there wasn’t any. Not one single posts.
I would also consider the possibility of making the case that the issue was personal - for Colibri. In this forum alone he was deliberately ignoring questions, closing threads, making personal insinuations about me, and in general stage managing my questions in ATMB about his behavior in order to minimize accountability.
Note I am not saying he has a hardon for me, but he does seem to have a bee floating in his bonnet when I am around lately (not just this), and he feels free to comment on its progression all the while creating the progression himself instead of being straightforward as he usually is in my experience. So I don’t know why this is all difficult for him, nor are the questions I ask so hard to answer in concept - Marley23 and jayjay did just that, although in each case it took a while to get to it.
If I had asked a yes/no question, I would agree with that.
GQ is for questions which have factual answers. The question you asked does not have a factual answer. Religious questions generally don’t, unless they are about a point of terminology or ritual, as Jayjay already said. Therefore, your question does not belong in GQ. At best, if it had been phrased better, it could have gone in IMHO.
Well it does actually. The answer could be in the form of Christians believe this or Christians believe that.
Those can well be stated, as the thread attests, without back and forth about if this or that are true or not. That Christians believe it is not really disputed.
Just as I could ask in GQ, How many Gods do Jews believe in? the answer is clearly 1. Whether their belief is supportable is another matter, but the answer to the question is clearly 1.
In that same regard, my question is easily answered by those in the know.
I suggested somewhere in this discussion (not sure where at this point, sorry) that I would be open to it being moved to IMHO, it having been suggested to me via PM by a Actual Forum User, and I was promptly and fairly told that was a no-go.
I said nothing about how the thread was going before it was moved. I was speaking about closing the thread, now, as it is currently going, in the forum in which it currently is located.
Wait, you agree my example belongs in GD, yet you asked a question that wasn’t yes/no about theology, and you wonder why it was less suited to GQ than my example?
Your hypothetical example said that it could lead to debate, while my actual instance clearly asked for no debate, to stick to the question itself. If your example were to be modified to add that specification, then I would think at first swag they could be considered parallel, but not until then.
I have faith that SDMB folks would stick to the question I guess (see, I am not faithless! ) , so far that seems to be justified despite Colibri and the 3 GD mods, who apparently decided a debate was the more likely outcome.
Of course that still might happen, but given how far it has gone without one *IN GD *, it seems like it would have been fine in GQ in retrospect.
In the end it is much ado about nothing, as everyone’s point is made - mine that the thread wouldn’t turn immediately into a free for all, and the mods that that possibility will never be considered.
Also, I will add that no one has refuted that the original factoid did in fact meet all of the criteria for a factoid, which is what set all this off, only that some hypothetical sensitivities might be hurt in the wrong forum.
A lot of things that might have happened but didn’t are what this is all about.
C’est la vie. I am bored with this meta discussion. It seems to have reached a tit-for-tat level, and I am not that invested in it.
“Jesus loves you” isn’t a factoid. It’s pretty obvious on the surface that it’s not verifiable.
Also, “Jesus loves you” is not the same as “Jesus is love”. What does it even mean for something to be “love”? Your GQ has interpretation problems before the OP is even done.
The thread in question asked for “factoids” which appear on the surface to be true, but which on closer inspection turn out to not be. Paraphrasing. The unverifiable part was “the bit”. When people say “Jesus loves you”, they very much say it as though they believe it to be true, as true as “the sun will come up tomorrow”.
That is a good point. Maybe we need another thread. Good thing I didn’t agree to not open another one
heckifiknow what "love means in the context. But I don’t doubt Colibri’s assertion, and I am sure there are Christians while are wiling to tell me - some witnessing inappropriately via PM btw - what “love” means.
Christians apparently know what I mean enough, it being one of their or their brethren’s core tenets of faith after all. I think it is sorta like a Yiddish word like that - insiders know the nuance, and can answer the question, which is not about love, but rather about not-love, see the difference?
I haven’t seen any real misinterpretation in the thread itself. So far, cross my fingers.
So, the only way you could think “Jesus loves you” is a factoid, is if you thought it were true on the surface.
But, you claimed ignorance on the subject, so either you don’t think it’s a factoid, or you are confused, or you were incorrect when you claimed ignorance on the subject.
Which is it?
(I’m looking forward to your answer because I think you just painted yourself into a corner, not that I really care one way or another, but it is an entertaining turn of events given your multiple threads on the topic).
When you have a parade of people over your entire life, many of whom you otherwise respect their judgment, repeating the words and insisting it is true, then the truth of the phrase is a fair topic to consider. There are many things we all believe or consider true on no more evidence than trusted sources told us so.
Ignorance comes in degrees. Other than the identical claims of various trusted and untrusted people, I have not been able to find any supporting evidence whatsoever for the claim itself. so I can be charitable and, for the purposes of discussion, say the veracity of the claim is still an open question, or perhaps that the claim is correct but I am ignorant as to the reason it is so. Either way there is room for ignorance on my part.
Neither. Note that the thread was about “factoids that appear to be true at first glance and then turn out not to be” (paraphrasing from memory), not “factoids”. That is what we are discussing.
In case it is not clear, the noun phrase up there refers to claims in the form of a factoid, not a factoid itself, otherwise it would be talking about true things that aren’t true.
Hope it was entertaining to learn that there is no corner nearby
No, I said the thread was about factoids that appear to be true at first glance but aren’t. It was an invitation to play a little word game. The degree to which any particularly proffered response appears to be true to a group of readers will vary with each reader’s own personal experience no doubt. That’s what happens with games like that, it is part of the fun.
If you have a point to make, can you get to it please? I was bored with this thread a long time ago, and if you want to interview me regarding the factoid thread, please ask and I will consider it.
Ok. But shouldn’t a factoid at least start with something within the “fact” realm as opposed to the “completely unknowable both immediately on the surface and with any amount of further examination”.
It didn’t even get out of the starting gate.
The game wasn’t called “Unverifiable Opinions About Stuff”
Well, I was bored for the first few threads, up until a few posts ago, so we are almost even
Ok, here goes:
[Larry King]
What first attracted you to the now infamous “factoid” thread?
Now that you’ve come through this experience, any tips for our listeners?
[/Larry King]
It is proffered as fact by about a billion or so of the world’s people, and as Colibri acknoledge, is the core tenet of their faith, to the point that they assert it as fact. That is far more support than most if not all of the other results had, IIRC.
OK, so if your point is made, thanks for bringing it up, glad you are no longer bored, and see ya 'round!
Sorry, I would never agree to be interviewed by Larry King.
) , so far that seems to be justified despite Colibri and the 3 GD mods, who apparently decided a debate was the more likely outcome.