So 47 children just got murdered by an Islamist suicide bomber in Nigeria. According to the local forum police, this does not deserve its own thread, but has to be hidden in one generic "Islam" thread. Stupid.
Christ, you tough guy conservatives are such pansies. Stop your whining. I go out of my way to say ATW should not be banned or controlled, and I give evidence from previous years why the D&D would be less cluttered and easier to read if articles of a similar theme (especially when posted by the some OP) are grouped together in a thread. It's a suggestion. I'm not a mod; I can't 'police' this place any more than you. Don't be such a diva. Translation: my pet issue is more important than everybody else's pet issue. My pet issue must have tons of threads cause it's more important. Blah blah blah. You think we couldn't cook up three dozen threads for Obamacare? The 2012 elections could have easily spawned 100 theads, with hundreds of events, articles, media gotchas, and predictions happening? Yet in both cases numerous posters stick to a main thread for an extended period of time, posting numerous articles covering completely different angles from completely different areas in the nation. The difference is those posters don't need to attention-w**** their pet issue to the top of the forum every damn time a new article comes out. Wrong. It's much easier to go through because it's not spread out in a dozen locations. And it immensely reduces the amount of repetition in the arguments. It gets a good amount of repetition. The same crap gets rehashed over and over and over by the usual suspects. It's telling that you reference "condensed" above as if it's a bad thing. Enough with the attention whoring. Your pet issue isn't so much more important than the other numerous global crises that are debated here that it must have a new thread for every single happenstance.
Facepalm. Bumping a thread to the top of the forum with a new article means that article is hidden?? Seriously??
Just because you are tired of hearing about it (we all are, the problem is not that these things get reported and discussed, the problem is that they keep happening) doesn't mean it's not newsworthy and worthy of its own discussion. Nobody is forcing you to read it. The problem is that it keeps happening. 50 children getting murdered in the name of Islam in Nigeria is a separate incident worthy of separate discussion from a ban on full veils in France. And so on.
Enough with the attention whoring. Your pet issue isn't so much more important than the other numerous global crises that are debated here that it must have a new thread for every single happenstance.
Again: 1) Nobody is forcing you to read the threads. 2) The threads are getting plenty of responses, so apparently people want to discuss the issues 3) It's not a "pet issue". You are desperately trying to suppress discussion. Fail. 4) The majority of threads regarding the issue are not created by me. 5) If we were to create a new thread for "every single happenstance", there would be a whole lot more threads. Just because you don't like discussion of the issues and would like to suppress it doesn't mean that others should not be allowed to discuss them. Which they do. Deal with it.
Wait...... All the time posters claim every event, and every situation concerning Islam is different, that as a GROUP Muslims should not be viewed as a single entity. Yet we should have a single thread for Islam or Islamic terrorists?
Yes, exactly...it's a clear contradiction. Same as with this: - When a (perceived) injustice happens to any Muslim anywhere else in the world or to "Islam as a whole", other Muslims in completely different places in the world are outraged (see: cartoons, Palestinians, etc.) - When other Muslims commit outrageous and heinous acts (see: ISIS, Boko Haram, Taliban, Al Qaeda, shoe bomber, 9/11, beheadings and murders in USA and Canada very recently, etc. etc.): "There is no such thing as 'one' Islam. So I don't feel responsible for these people." or "These people are not Muslims. Muslims would not do something like this. It is forbidden by Islam. So I do not feel responsible for these people."
2 of the fighters are in serious training <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/6fQc95Javag" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You know what, you're right. And I knew nothing would really change, and the mods understandably left this place to rot a long time ago. It doesn't really change things that much to have similar posts in one thread vs. many. As another poster has already gone at length and with very reasonable tone to show, 24 out of 25 threads in four months, ALL on the topic Islam=teh evilz. This is SO your issue, dude, and you know what? That's fine. The fact that you so defensively try to run away from your own posting history is hilarious. Just own it, dude. It's the D&D. I'm just talking about BBS etiquette over here. Stop your whining, diva, you post often enough about real suppression to know better than this. A poster on a basketball BBS suggests that you group similarly themed posts into one thread, and you cry "Suppression!!!" That might fly when discussing glynch who started this thread on banning you, but not me. You and downbytheriver need to grow a pair if you think that a poster suggesting grouping threads together is "policing" or "suppression." Jesus. Pick yourself up and wipe away the tears, you poor, suppressed thing.
It obviously is - but it's not a "pet issue". It actually is an important issue. Fair enough. I didn't say you are oppressing anyone, I said you are trying to suppress discussion. Trying to force separate topics into one thread could be interpreted as such. But fine, it's not a big deal to me.
As for the subject matter, it is disturbing that these events are happening in different places. I'm not sure if that distorts people's views on Islam in general as being in some of those places is a totally different experience than one would like to think. I do have the feeling that Islamism and secularism can't co-exist by definition and by nature as Islamism is one of the debated solutions on how Islam can modernize itself and exist in today's realities. I don't think it's a predominant de-facto course for Islam as some people would like to assume, though it's by far the best authoritarian excuse to oppress its people and have an external non-governmental outlet (anti-Intellectualism, anti-Westernism, "traditional" mysogonistic attitudes) for public's frustrations over the lack of progress, standard of living, and general freedom to pursue personal goals. That'd be a pretty big debate as it alludes to a Clash of Civilizations predicted a few decades ago that hasn't necessarily withstood the test of time but had been a central focus during the Dubya years. It just means we can't sweep and bury the problem that Iraq II was halfassedly trying to solve. downsbytheriver is a troll incarnation of Honeybear/Ronny/Nomar. He's like a stink you can't get rid of. Engaging him allows the stink to cling onto you. I think you're not being serious. If you are though, CF history doesn't tend to favor these kind of postings I would encourage meeting up for drinks to talk about the Rockets. Hell, TJ and BJ did it before. Just my one-off nanny post about this being a stupid message board.
