BBS etiquette (what you would like to see eliminated)

I would like to think that we could just agree to disagree sometimes but it doesn't seem to happen very often. My least favorite thing to see is posters coming up with what they believe to be the most lucid arguement EVER to back up their side of a debate and then typing "CASE CLOSED" in twenty foot high letters. Especially when they KNOW that the bizarro version of them is going to flame it, shoot mac truck size holes in it, and then end their own post with CASE CLOSED in said twenty foot high letters. sheesh.
The "CASE" is NOT "CLOSED" and never will be, thankyouverymuch.

 

I think the hot chick threads need to make a comeback.

and all these "favorite poster" threads all are meaningless. we all know the Clutch Awards are the real deal. (4th annual Clutch Awards coming in July)

 

Talk to me when you are ready to start closing cases. You have a lot of work to do. Keep studying.

 

This place DEFINITELY needs more pics of Mrs. JB in a cheerleader outfit...

 

So you are agreeing with me?

 

...and another thing, Mulder --- You are not a lawyer yet, so please quit using the word 'said' as an adjective.

 

I think new posters should be given a chance before other posters start flaming them.


I hate the trade so and so threads, but what you gonna do about it?



I hate quoting long ass posts with

smiles and lols in them.


I hate it when Horn Nation myopia tries to put down other schools.

 

Uh... NO.

 

Rewarding stupidity with replies, even if it's to say "this is stupid". If no one replies to the 1000th "Trade Steve" thread, that means there will only be 999 of them left to read.

 

Some of us don't believe in unverified fairy tales, so you'll have to pardon me if I ignore point 5. I don't believe in religion, so I have no reason to have any respect for religious figures.

I don't really miss god, but I still miss santa claus.

 

...and I wondered why your handle is Heretic. Well since you don't believe the Bible this shouldn't offend you too much...

Psalms 14:1 The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

 

about the religion thing,

people should accept others religion rather than respect .


what if my God doesnt read Psalms, for instance?

 

1) If you going to post a link to an article, do us a favor and post the article.

2) If you are going to post a picture, make sure it's not huge and that the link isn't going to die any time soon.

 

The Psalms were in fact praises from many different people who were inspired by God to write them. It is often said God is the author of the Bible, but used men to write down His words.

 

I am not sure what point there is in having an argument and quoting the old testament or new testament. One can pull scripture out for pretty much both sides of any argument.

But since I assume one is attempting to be rational here, I'll pull some stuff off the web for Psalms 14:1. This is covered in introductory logic in college.


AD HOMINEM FALLACY: An argument is discounted based on attacking the character of the person making the argument. ("He is wrong when he says there is no God, because he is a fool.")

STRAWMAN FALLACY: Arguing against a postion by creating a different, weaker, or irrelevant position and refuting that position instead of the original. ("There is no God" misrepresents "There isn't sufficient evidence that God exists.")

CIRCULAR REASONING: The truth of the conclusion is assumed in order to justify the premises. ("The fool says there is no God, because anyone who says there is no God is a fool.")

BEGGING THE QUESTION: The argument creates a secondary proposition that is related to the primary proposition, which requires a similar argument that is missing. (The existence of God is assumed, while addressing propositions of whether God exists.)

FALLACY OF INCONSISTENCY: The argument is inconsistent with other arguments within the same context. (In the Christian context, Jesus commands against the invective in Psalms 14:1, warning that "whoever says 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire" in Matthew 5:22.)

SPECIAL PLEADING: The inappropriate attribution of emotive functions to objects that do not have that capability. (Hearts are not capable of "knowing" or of feeling emotions.)

QUESTIONABLE PREMISE: It is obviously not the case that all atheists do nothing but bad deeds. This premise is invalidated by a single example of an atheist doing a single charitable act.

 

How about everyone makes sure there are no logical fallacies in their arguments before posting? Although that would cut down the number of posts by about 99%.

 

I would like to see reposting of an entire reply, just for a one sentance reply eliminated... THERE IS NO NEED to quote an entire post for a one line reply. You're just taking up viewing and server space. This is not a newsgroup (USENET) it's a message board, the original post IS AT THE TOP or at least in the thread, if you must quote, quote only the part you are commenting on!!

I would also like to see threads that don't reply with reposts of images. In other words if a picture is posted in a thread, please do not reply by REPOSTING the image.

 

Is it me, or is this thread devolving into the etiquette it aimed to stop?

Oh wait, I get it. EXAMPLES!

 

my question was meant to be rhetorical.


look, I will be honest. I don't really claim to be a religous person, I don't even know if God exists. maybe that is why we are put on this earth, to find the meaning of life/existence of God.

however, I would consider myself open-minded enough to realize that different people are going to come up with different conclusions to their questions.


my original point of ACCEPT versus RESPECT is simple.



there are billions of people in this world.


a lot of them believe in God.


some of them are Christian.


Some of them are Jewish.


some of them are Hindu.


some of them are Muslim.


NONE OF THEM ARE WRONG.



the minute one labels his answer the end all/be all answer, then they have just negated millions of other peoples' valid theories on GOD/religion/whatever you call it.

it is an individual journey, not a blanket quote from a piece of historical text, that will answer the questions we all ask ourselves.

 

What I accept is that people can make choices. If you want to worship the Water God (as a friend of mine who was Ethiopian did in college) that's your choice. At the same time, do I have the right to think you are wrong? Yep.

It comes back to that whole agree to disagree thing. I used to ask him:

"So you worship a water god?"
"Ya."

and I'd ask him questions he thought were stupid like
"does rain count?"
and he would just laugh

and he'd ask me questions like

"so this guy was dead right?"
"Uh-huh"
"But then he came back?"
"Ya."
".... weird... I don't believe it" in an accent that reminded me of Hakeem at the time.

That's cool, we were still friends, we could still talk... and that beats throwing rocks at each other, right?

So Heretic can say he doesn't believe in God, and that's cool (IMHO his loss) and I can put chinawang on my ignore list and believe he never existed... Cool?