If a GD Religion Thread Were Not Hijacked, What Would It Be Like?

[Sapo]

hah! I never come to the Pit. I just saw the title of this one on the front page and clicked on it. Little did I know. Now that I am present and capable of defending myself, feel free to shit on me as needed (I read a couple posts trying to walk around me, back there)

Apos, rest assured that I do not lump you with DT. As I have said several times already, I have all respect for your ability to carry on an intelligent conversation. I apologize that in the “wounds” thread, I referred to you as a group. Mea culpa. I sincerely regret your decision not to carry on with the intelligent aspect of that thread, now that the impasse has been resolved.

That said, you have insisted several times in pointing at my first post on that thread (about Jesus not needing to walk on water). I think you are being disingenious with that accusation. All threads start with a round of obvious jokes until someone finally picks it up and the thread takes shape. Mine was just a one-liner that did not derail the thread and it was soon followed by serious thoughts on the discussion (and being a Christan, I can make all the Jesus jokes I want, just like Poles can make all the Polish jokes they want). But you knew that, of course.

As an aside, I think the question bears asking: if the OP was not a serious attempt at figuring the Christian explanation for the stigmata, how wasn’t it a troll?

I honestly didn’t see the thread as bait until it was pointed out to me. I was whooshed several times until I woke up. Once I had that figured, well, quite frankly nothing mattered. There is no hijacking a thread on a treadmill.

[Apos]

if the OP was not a serious attempt at figuring the Christian explanation for the stigmata, how wasn’t it a troll?

I think there is a difference between trolling and being provacotive and challenging about a subject, particularly one like theology. Everything isn’t either asking Christians to describe their theology or trolling. And while a joyless cadre of malcontents clearly cry to the heavens everytime believers and non-believers argue with each other, I don’t think it’s always so bad, nor always so predictable.

[The_King_of_Soup]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

… Maybe I should give it another fifty or eighty GD threads before I start inferring a pattern of intemperate moderation (to coin an oxymoron).

Or maybe it’s simply a case of adapting to your environment. An internet forum can mean different things to people depending on their own knowledge of what public discussion and debate should be. I recently apologized for virtual, pixel-sized jabs at moderator tomndebb because I temporarily forgot that a moderator is tasked, not with being always right, but with being always, well moderate. I think I had the right key, to borrow a lyric, but boy did I have the wrong keyhole.

In other words, moderating a message board involves always being on the wrong side of this type of dispute. Some decisions are wronger than others, perhaps, but the nature of the argument defies evenhanded, rigorous analysis.

I’m often bewildered at the willingness of people, who would never shout obscenities or racist or sexist slogans in public, to turn up their car stereos and allow some “artist” to do it for them. I think too many people view the internet as an ephemeral, temporary canvas on which they can turn up the volume on their (or someone’s attractive) opinions without having to hear the aftermath. Well, phooey.

And all that has zip to do with the OP. Except to say that sometimes folks will take even a marginal opportunity to say the things they need or want or have to say. I try to disguise it when I do it, and I’ve rarely been accused of hijacking. Either I’m a master of disguise, or I’m long-winded and dull enough that my hijackings go unnoticed.

Either way, could someone please tell me why, on my previous post, preview didn’t work, my content was erased, why Squink could read and quote me, and how Giraffe fixed it? I mean, “fixed coding” means little to a guy who just types, moves his mouse, and clicks, y’know?

[Squink]

@The King of Soup

could someone please tell me why, on my previous post, preview didn’t work, my content was erased, why Squink could read and quote me, and how Giraffe fixed it? I mean, “fixed coding” means little to a guy who just types, moves his mouse, and clicks, y’know?

I couldn’t read your post until I quoted it. I think you may have had an extra bracket somewhere ala Blank posts in the Brownback GD thread.

[tomndebb]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

You know, you may be right here. It may be that I’ve just had colossally bad luck to have every single one of my last x threads in GD have Tom as the moderator. I literally can’t remember the last time Gaudere or MEBuckner moderated a GD I posted in, so maybe its just my bad luck (or my bad memory) that’s made me so sensitive to participating on a Forum moderated by someone who disagrees with my every thought, and thinks I’m malicious, deliberately obtuse, witless and kind of dim. Maybe I should give it another fifty or eighty GD threads before I start inferring a pattern of intemperate moderation (to coin an oxymoron).

Or, you could stop making false accusations based on a complete and utter lack of evidence.

I really do not in any way consider you deliberately obtuse, witless, or kind of dim.
I admit that I am puzzled by your insistence that I have ever behaved in an unfair manner to you or anyone else based on their opinions regarding religious belief, (particularly in threads where I have specifically made Mod judgements in your favor), but only you can know why you keep making those claims, (particularly as you never share any evidence with anyone else).

[The_King_of_Soup]

@Squink

I couldn’t read your post until I quoted it. I think you may have had an extra bracket somewhere ala Blank posts in the Brownback GD thread.

I kept umpteen million windows open (my browser logs me out every few seconds) but I didn’t see – never mind, I believe you. I’m still puzzled about why preview failed and why a bum post could still be submitted, but…oh, never mind. Thank you, and I apologize in advance for being so clueless when it happens again.

And Squink: I didn’t know you, I think, but now I do, as the member who spoke for me when I, for whatever reason, had no voice. I’ll remember you now. Thanks.

I wish I’d said something more worth your efforts to save it.

[FriarTed]

@twickster

Oh, sweetie, there’s plenty of people besides tomndebb who think you’re malicious, deliberately obtuse, witless, and kind of dim. Don’t sell yourself short.

Anyone else hear this in Jaime Pressley’s Joy voice?

[Shodan]

@tomndebb

@Shodan

If it were an informative thread about religion, ISTM it would happen in GQ, not GD. Debates about religion happen in GD, and then migrate to the Pit, and are generally not informative - largely because some Dopers find it sincerely impossible not to shit in them.

Actually, very few threads get moved from GD to the Pit. It is much more common that a person will naively ask a legitimate GQ religious question in GQ, only to have any number of posters (religious, non-religious, and anti-religious) begin to submit arguable opinions regarding either the interpretation or facts behind the OP whereupon the GQ Mods send it to GD.

Hmm. Actually, I bet you are right about the number of migrations from GD to the Pit.

Let me change the statement to “Debates about religion happen in GD, and then mutate into what amounts to Pittings of religion and believers, and are generally not informative for that reason”.

Regards,
Shodan

[hawthorne]

tomndebb
Actually, I disagree with this [ie hawthorne’s in post #53] analysis .

What would seem to me to be more likely is that so many threads have been unceremoniously hurled from GQ to GD if they involve religion and include a whiff of disagreement that a lot of posters have come to the belief that all religious threads must be posted to GD. I saw a question looking for answers, not any serious effort to evoke witnessing. The fact that the first few posters were having some fun with it does not change its original intent.

Part of this is my lack of ability to distinguish between witnessing and theological speculation. I don’t see a substantive difference.

But mainly this makes me wonder whether a public commitment to a little firmer moderating in GQ might help here. There was a time when complicated political and religious questions could be asked in GQ without the OP fearing they would get shunted off to GD if someone brought in commentary. manhattan was pretty tits-out on this for a time. It would be nice to have it again - post an appropriately-worded GQ on religion, get only GQ answers on pain of grumpiness.

[Sapo]

@Apos

I think there is a difference between trolling and being provacotive and challenging about a subject, particularly one like theology. Everything isn’t either asking Christians to describe their theology or trolling. And while a joyless cadre of malcontents clearly cry to the heavens everytime believers and non-believers argue with each other, I don’t think it’s always so bad, nor always so predictable.

That is true, and any more than that and we step into the dangerous territory of judging other’s intentions.

[pantom]

I opened this thread because I thought the title was hilarious. I’ve gone into a few religion threads, and wound up just wandering away because of the reason cited here.
Without stating which side of the divide I’m on, I’ll simply say that I find it weird for a non-believer to feel the need to evangelize about that. I have no idea why someone who isn’t a believer would feel the need to engage in the same behavior as a Jehovah’s Witless on a Sunday morning. There are lots of interesting religious questions, because such a large part of the populace is religious, and those who aren’t were still probably brought up to believe in one. So it’s not like it’s an unfamiliar topic to most of us.
Or, to put it more bluntly: yes, we’re impressed with your ability to think independently. Now, kindly get over yourself. Thanks.

[Squink]

@pantom

I’ll simply say that I find it weird for a non-believer to feel the need to evangelize about that.

Some folks like to proclaim their exquisite rationality to the world.

[pantom]

Hmm, trying to be polite doesn’t get you far in these parts.
OK, try this: I find it remarkably boorish for a non-believer to evangelize about it.

Better?

[Squink]

@pantom

Better?

Yeah, the behavior’s just not all that mysterious when you compare it to things like transubstantiation or Quantum.