The thread was not a debate and didn’t belong in GD.
The title didn’t need fixing, since it had all of the requisite elements in it. It was obvious from a glance that it was about the RCC and someone who didn’t feel like reading about the RCC would stay out. The edit was sneering and dismissive.
See, that’s the problem. You changed the title to address the responses. You did not change the title to clarify the original post.
How is that a problem? I had no intention of telling other posters what to discuss; I simply wanted passersby to know what the thread was discussing.
So we can see about 3/4ths of the political threads renamed to “Republicans=Suck” and the other 1/4th to “Dems=suck”
And the religious threads: “God=Fake” or “God=Real. Repent!” ?
I agree with Dex that if it HAD to be renamed a “RCC=Evil?” with the question mark would have been better, but I don’t think it needed to be renamed. Passersby can figure out what a thread is without a title change perfectly well (NSFW or blatently misleading titles (Titling a thread about the grossest slasher flicks ever as “Aaaw! See the cute fuzzy bunnies!” excluded)
I remember when the circus came to town, back in 67 or 68. They had horses, in tutus. That was some dancing skills.This just looks like someone trying to cover a blunder instead of admitting it, and moving on a little bit wiser.
Do you honestly not see the problem?
By changing the thread title you are changing the OP itself.
Anybody skimming through the list of threads is going to see your editorial change and assume that is the the poster’s position. You are putting words in the poor guys mouth. Don’t do that.
Seriously not cool, Tom.
I agree that the question mark would have been a better option.
I still think that posting assertions is more common than questions in GD titles, but I can see where there would have been less confusion with the question mark.
OK. You have finally pointed out an error that I can recognize. All the claims of “bias” make no sense to me since I have no strong feelings on the topic and I really do not care whether there are anti-RCC screeds in GD.
However, the way I changed the title does make it look as though the OP had deliberately chosen to use a “false flag” title to draw in users. I readily admit (and have done so, above), that there was no deliberate effort on the part of Hari Seldon to mislead, and it was not appropriate for me to make it look as though I was “correcting” the title in that way.
I apologize.
I notice that you haven’t undone the change, or made a more appropriate one.
How about the following title: Will Catholics now consider ordaining women?
That’s not an accurate title - specifically because nobody thinks they are considering it at all. There is debate about whether they should consider it, or how evil they are for not considering it, or how evil they are for equating women priests with child molesters, but no debate that the church is actually considering ordaining women priests. Title fail.
I recommend Skald’s words I quoted above: “The RCC’s priorities are fucked up”. Or some variant of that. Because that was the OP’s point, and that is the basis of most of the debate in the thread.
The biggest problem I have with tomndebb’s wording is not bias, it’s just too broad. The “evil” being debated in this thread is sexism vs pedophilia, not everything anyone feels is evil about the RCC. Of course, I only read about the first page, so maybe people started bringing that up later.
When you put in “RCC=Evil”, it sounds like you are rolling your eyes at the whole discussion. That you are so stunningly tone deaf is a little sad, but it’s pretty inexcusable for it to still “make no sense”.
Actually, I misspoke, there is not really debate on whether they should consider it, only on how evil they are for not considering it.
Criticism of a moderator’s actions is acceptable, and discussable. Criticism of a moderator’s personality is NOT. Please rein this kind of comment down. The whole point of discussion of mod actions being in ATMB rather than the Pit is exactly to avoid this kind of thing.
Good for you. (Not snark.)
While “tone deaf” is perhaps overly harsh, do you disagree that it’s a pretty valid summation of the main objections here? Perhaps because **tomndebb *is Catholic, he literally *could not figure out *why his edit was so objectionable until almost the whole way down the first page of this thread.
*Or maybe it’s just one of those blind spots–is that too harsh, too?–that people develop to their own reasoning. Something makes sense in *your *head, so you assume that it will make the same kind of sense to everyone else.
Given this acknowledgment and apology, which i applaud, i’m wondering why you haven’t yet edited the title of the other thread to something more appropriate?
Because that thread had already died 33 hours before this one was started and I have not gotten around to searching out a four day dead thread to make the change. I saw A Monkey With a Gun’s post, considered it, replied, and left for work. I’ll get around to changing the title after dinner.
Fine by me. 
“Tone deaf” is now a personality criticism? Really? Really really?
There has always been a difference between statements about a PERSON and statements about a POST. Really.
Yes. You have to say something like, “that particular post indicates a tone deafness.”