---

by Sydney
It always ends up with posts being about Tony Blair and your moronic nicknames for him

---

Seeing as this is the only part of your post that wasn't answered, I thought I'd repeat in case it was missed




In other news *counts the seconds before this part is deleted or edited*




I think Byron is a nob. This site is dwindling and threads - or rather posts in threads - like these do nothing to encourage readers or new members.

These days I only very occasionally see a thread that catches my attention and when I bother to investigate further I find it's full of overbearing, pompous, unnecessarily verbose prattling about the subject; usually by the same people.

It’s little wonder that I don’t stick around to voice my own opinion in the company of people who wouldn’t afford me the opportunity to think differently without being labelled as wrong.

There are certain people on this site that make participation dreary and trite.

Unfortunately most of them are staff.

---

by Yvonne
Unfortunately most of them are staff.

---

Don't taint all with the nob brush

---

by Chambler
(quotes)
....Well I guess it's the best comeback he could come up with after a handful of people from a land 99.9% of America had never heard of before....

---

I never cease to be amazed at how gratuitously condescending you can be at times. It must be wonderful to feel so superior to a whole country of almost 300 million people. But, yes, that's right. The whole lot of us are all painfully stupid and had never even heard of Iraq before that time.

---

by Sydney
Whilst I do not follow any religion and find the extremists of all religions pretty distasteful I do believe that there is a worth in the core values of all the faiths that I have any knowledge of and some people who consider themselves Athiests could learn alot from learning from some Faith teachings.

---

I think that comes back to my point. OK they usually have good values at their core, but if the reality of their global usage is the world we have today, which is more important, the intent or the result? Individuals arent excused culpability in crimes just because they didnt mean to do it...


Of course, the real burning religious question is was the Chef bloke right to quit South Park

(Edited by Wobag 25/03/2006 01:24)

---

by Yvonne
(quotes)
Seeing as this is the only part of your post that wasn't answered, I thought I'd repeat in case it was missed




In other news *counts the seconds before this part is deleted or edited*




I think Byron is a nob. This site is dwindling and threads - or rather posts in threads - like these do nothing to encourage readers or new members.

These days I only very occasionally see a thread that catches my attention and when I bother to investigate further I find it's full of overbearing, pompous, unnecessarily verbose prattling about the subject; usually by the same people.

It’s little wonder that I don’t stick around to voice my own opinion in the company of people who wouldn’t afford me the opportunity to think differently without being labelled as wrong.

There are certain people on this site that make participation dreary and trite.

Unfortunately most of them are staff.

---

I agree completely.

Which is why I left T21. The only reason I'm back is because of your DJ entry.

Despite all the spin and 'Hey! It's T21's 4th birthday!', this site is dead and has been for ages.

And, yes, Sandia, you are right, I would say the majority of staff on here now are condescending and talk out of their ass.




(Edited by Whistler 25/03/2006 02:07)

I would also have to backup with what a lot of people have said in here. I only found out about this post due to yvonnes journal. The site is pretty much dead, I hate to say I consider some of the staff to be bloody pillocks (please don't take offence its just my opinion), this site died a long time ago and its partly due to the people left posting nd these sorts of offensive posts as to why I don't post anymore.

---

by Sandia
I never cease to be amazed at how gratuitously condescending you can be at times. It must be wonderful to feel so superior to a whole country of almost 300 million people. But, yes, that's right. The whole lot of us are all painfully stupid and had never even heard of Iraq before that time.

---

Well I'm sorry you feel like that and I will admit that I very often create a black and white image of things for the sake or argument which some people might take offense with. However I wasn't talking about Iraq (or atleast I didn't mean to do so, but English isn't my first language so I could be mistaken). Of course a large part of Americans know about Iraq as America fought a (short) war there not too long ago to free one of its allies from an invasion by Saddam. Although Bush's God reference was about the war in Iraq, the terrorist group that attacked the wtc was based in Afghanistan. Besides a relatively sizeable export of drugs by the Taliban regime (which the Taliban regime was okay with as it helped to corrupt the western society) it didn't do anything else that was of great interest, besides push their religious believes on others with a vengeance. I don't think that before 9-11 many people in American (or the rest of the western world for that matter) knew where the hell Afghanistan was or knew anything about it (like its capital), as it just wasn't a country of interest. So I didn't mean to say that Americans are stupid or anything but what I intended to take a stab at was that Bush played the 'God' card which was exactly what the terrorists (from a country hardly anyone knew about before 9-11) did, so it wasn't particularly "creative" or "original". Sure they use different 'Gods' but for an atheist both cards are just as valid as in their views neither 'God' exists. This kinda means you end up with a oooh your figment of your imagination tells you to fly planes into the wtc towers?!? Well my figment of my imagination can do you one better and tell me to invade a country. At this point you have a good old pissing contest going on. I personally thought that was funny and I wasn't trying to be gratuitously condescending but if you think otherwise that's also fair enough.

(Edited by Chambler 25/03/2006 10:23)

If people disagree with what I've said about religion, I'm happy to reply to any on-topic posts. If my opinions have offended, it's fine to tell me, and I'll respond to any -- politely expressed -- criticism.

But personal insults and disrupting a thread with them are not appropriate.

---

by Yvonne
(quotes)

In other news *counts the seconds before this part is deleted or edited*

---

Still counting?

No seriously, it would be the easiest thing in the world to make this thread go away but it hasnt. Instead, Id really like to take the opportunity to stress that we have a WHOLE Feedback forum for discussion about the general state of the site, AND specific complaints can and should be emailed to admin@tangent21.com. Threads spinning off like this doesnt solve anything.

Also not closing this thread either, as its perfectly valid for continued on-topic discussion, but please keep in mind the above when posting.

---

by Wobag
(quotes)

Still counting?

No seriously, it would be the easiest thing in the world to make this thread go away but it hasnt. Instead, Id really like to take the opportunity to stress that we have a WHOLE Feedback forum for discussion about the general state of the site, AND specific complaints can and should be emailed to admin@tangent21.com. Threads spinning off like this doesnt solve anything.

Also not closing this thread either, as its perfectly valid for continued on-topic discussion, but please keep in mind the above when posting.

---

With all due respect, my post was not strictly off topic.
The topic of my post was this thread and the posts contained within it.

Please set more rules as to what can be posted and where we can write it, that's sure to encourage people to return

---

by Byron
If people disagree with what I've said about religion, I'm happy to reply to any on-topic posts. If my opinions have offended, it's fine to tell me, and I'll respond to any -- politely expressed -- criticism.

But personal insults and disrupting a thread with them are not appropriate.

---

Thanks for the bold text; I may have missed your subtlety had I been left to my own devices. I didn’t miss a single clause sentence starting with “but,” though, so I thought I’d bold that one for your own edification.

I won’t judge someone for expressing his or her own opinions; I encourage it. However, I do object to having the same few voices ramming theirs down the throats of other people until they just give in and stop replying. Having your voice heard or telling people how you feel should not be competitive and there is a very distinct difference between examining the differences between approaches and belittling another person’s beliefs and values.

To wave a flag in the name of atheism is as bad as humping on a horse and invading other countries or flying 'planes into buildings in the name of Faith, religion or otherwise.

Incidentally, I am not atheist; I’m agnostic.

(Edited by Yvonne 26/03/2006 14:10)

---

by Yvonne
Thanks for the bold text; I may have missed your subtlety had I been left to my own devices. I didn’t miss a single clause sentence starting with “but,” though, so I thought I’d bold that one for your own edification.

---

Since I clearly don't consider faith contemptibly small or unimportant, "belittle" can sit comfortably beside that rogue conjunction.

---

I won’t judge someone for expressing his or her own opinions; I encourage it. However, I do object to having the same few voices ramming theirs down the throats of other people until they just give in and stop replying.

---

You are of course free to read nonexistent intentions, but that doesn't make them true.

---

Having your voice heard or telling people how you feel should not be competitive and there is a very distinct difference between examining the differences between approaches and belittling another person’s beliefs and values.

---

A great many people consider debate inherently competitive. Perhaps you'd win converts to your professed approach if you demonstrated it.

---

To wave a flag in the name of atheism is as bad as humping on a horse and invading other countries or flying 'planes into buildings in the name of Faith, religion or otherwise.

---

Waving that flag is a belief I value, and substituting wild comparisons for genuine reasons in order to dismiss it out of hand ... well, now belittle fits nicely.

Cutting past all the adrenaline, I think it boils down to two viewpoints.

Discussion=list of everyones opinions, vs. Discussion= analysis of each others opinions

Strongly stating your case=make your point as clear as possible vs Shoving opinion down each others throats.

I can genuinely see how if you sit on one side of the fence, the oposite approach could really tick you off.

Just an observation.

I couldnt be bothered to read this thread because i knew it would just be people going back and forth and who needs that on a sunny day....even tho its almost 11pm and its been raining all day.

In all truth, i couldnt give a toss what the quoted americans think of any religion. The whole point of having a religion is that you believe whole heartedly in the ideas behind what ever derivative(sp?) you have decided to follow.

Although i wouldnt go as far as bombing countries for my faith i wouldnt say i had any less conviction. I just have respect for other peoples idealisms.

I may have gone completely off point but thats what i think. People shouldn't be bothered by negative comments towards their religion, its your own and only you can decide whats right or wrong for you.

Thank you and good night.

Edited the typing screw ups

(Edited by KaTiEStar 27/03/2006 00:07)

Thats the wisest thing I've read here thanks KT!

---

by Wobag
Cutting past all the adrenaline, I think it boils down to two viewpoints.

Discussion=list of everyones opinions, vs. Discussion= analysis of each others opinions

Strongly stating your case=make your point as clear as possible vs Shoving opinion down each others throats.

I can genuinely see how if you sit on one side of the fence, the oposite approach could really tick you off.

Just an observation.

---

Again Wo sifts through all the mudslinging and gets to the heart of things.

My school's debating lessons "listed" issues: we'd take turns stating our case and everyone voted. Good for defining competing points of view, but, I thought, poor at deciding the stronger because they never directly engaged. By contrast uni favours a mental sparring match. It's emphatically not about browbeating your opponent into submission, but testing the merits of both sides against each other by finding and addressing their respective strengths and weaknesses through debate. It’s also understood there’s a clear distinction between attacking an opinion and the person holding it.

I like nothing better than someone giving as good, or better, as they get, and of course it's rare for either side to "win" conclusively, but I do feel it sheds more light on an issue than a non-adversarial approach.

Who needs global politics when you can come to T21 for misunderstandings, aggression and just general warfare?

If I may be so bold, I'd like to offer some opinions of my own. They are not meant to be rammed down anyone's throat or that they should suggest that anyone who disagrees is inferior. I would say they would be wrong, but that doesn't mean they couldn't persuade me otherwise. While I may offer my reasons for disagreeing, that does not mean I am not listening, nor evaluating their worth and reconsidering my own opinion. To me, and I think Byron and the others I have regularly debated with here, that's what debate is about - offer an opinion, hear a counter opinion, then test the counter opinion for value, to see if it is a better position than the original. Or even, if a melding of the two has merit. Nothing I have ever posted on this site has been meant as a personal attack. I just believe that battling words/ideas is healthier than battling people.

Ok. I'd like to start by pointing out a common misunderstanding about the word 'Atheism'. The route of the word comes from Ancient Greek, with the a meaning 'without' and theos meaning 'god'. It is a statement about belief. A Theist believes in god/s/ess/es/etc. An Atheist does not. Some Atheists would go further and say they actually believe there is no god, but these are few and far between. To me this is making the same error as the theist - belief without evidence - and is unnecessary. There is no evidence for any of the world's religions, therefore I do not believe in them. Ergo, I'm an Atheist. Then again, good friends of mine, like the legendary ‘he’s so not gay’ Tom, would argue that they do actively believe there is no god (he’s wrong, but I don’t think any less of him for it – is there an emoticon for ‘tongue in (my own) cheek’? I think I need one at this point…).

For the record, Agnostic (a - without, gnosis - knowledge) is a different issue. You can be an Agnostic and a Theist (I believe in god, but have no knowledge of him). This is very common in modern European religions. And most Atheists are also Agnostic as well, like myself. I did once encounter a Muslim online who claimed that through logical argument he could prove the existence of god, but he was scary.

I would agree that many of the world’s current problems have their roots in religious intolerance. But I'd also say that all the world's current problems boil down to intolerance or just indifference towards anyone who is different from us. It is our illiberalism that causes so much pain.

I'd disagree with statements suggesting religion has not done any good - not because of any individual’s actions (as that presupposes they wouldn't have done them if they were atheists - and you can't prove that). Rather, it seems clear that most civilizations formed around religions. They gave people commonality of purpose. They gave them a set of rules to agree to and abide by. In essence, they encouraged humans to work together for the good of all, and not alone, dog-eat-dog, as the modern religion of Capitalism/Materialism does. I just personally think we should be grown up enough as a species to see the benefit of co-operation, and not need the threat of punishment from an invisible father/mother figure to keep us inline.

I wrote this post twice, in my head at least. The first one was shorter, punchier, and I thought funnier. But as I made my way through all the entries above, I thought it might also have been seen by others as arrogant, and demeaning to anyone who disagreed. As I said, that's never been my intention, but maybe it has been the effect. So I softened the words, tried to explain myself fully, and show that my mind isn't closed, these are just my current beliefs, and as I have believed differently in the past it is conceivable I will change them again. Accept this time I'm right, so I won't have to - sorry, I had to slip in some humour somewhere in this post.

Personally, I don't think this site is dying because of threads like this one. They're dying because of the explosion of journals in the last few years, and that most of us first came here for a show that is no longer running. While I apologize for any posts I've made suggesting anyone who disagrees is stupid, I should also present the counter-argument: that those of us interested in debates like these have been made to feel very unwelcome over the years by other members - by people who outside of threads like this I would call friends. We've been attacked for being boring (sorry Milky, you're a mate an all, but that post was unnecessary and offensive), for the way we use the English language, and for wanting to debate.

There are very few people from this site I have met and not liked. Why else would I be taking time off work and going to Brum this weekend? But sometimes, I just think we all need to take a chill pill and stop attacking each other. If a thread bores you, click out of it. If someone posts something you find offensive, why not ask them why they did that? Better than to attack back. And maybe all of us should just think twice before pressing submit, and ask ourselves 'how would someone who doesn't already agree with me react to what I've said?'

Like I said, most of the world's problems boil down to indifference and intolerance. Maybe the same can be said of T21.

---

by Jayjay
To me, and I think Byron and the others I have regularly debated with here, that's what debate is about - offer an opinion, hear a counter opinion, then test the counter opinion for value, to see if it is a better position than the original. Or even, if a melding of the two has merit.

---

Exactly so. Debate has shifted my position on many issues. (General outlook used to be socialist-lefty, now, more or less, right-wing libertarian.) Assertively putting over my current beliefs doesn’t make them fixed in stone, it just means I’m looking for a high standard of evidence to justify changing them.

---

I just believe that battling words/ideas is healthier than battling people.

---

Very good point. Keeping our opinions to ourselves might avoid short-term conflict, but in the long-term, if we’re not talking, we’ll end up polarized, and doing something much worse. Call debate letting off steam to stop the pot boiling over. (Claiming to specialize in hot air; see, can get people to agree with me!)

---

Some Atheists would go further and say they actually believe there is no god, but these are few and far between. To me this is making the same error as the theist - belief without evidence - and is unnecessary.

---

Actually I agree I can’t claim certainty about an all-powerful being. I assume there isn’t one in the absence of evidence, but there might be; what I reject is calling that being God. (Which I realize might make that being reject calling me alive; talk about your unhealthy beliefs.) Right now, in our admittedly primitive state, we can annihilate a city in microseconds by manipulating the building-blocks of matter. Godlike power with less-than-godlike minds behind it.

Basically: I don’t believe the possession of raw power, however great, confers either infallibility or a duty of worship. The wrath-loving Biblical deity, with His preference for blind obedience and ethnic wars, and tendency to indulge a short-temper at the expense of a great many lives, bears this out very well.

---

... most Atheists are also Agnostic as well …

---

Unless they reject the concept of a god. (Useful copout that.)

---

I would agree that many of the world’s current problems have their roots in religious intolerance. But I'd also say that all the world's current problems boil down to intolerance or just indifference towards anyone who is different from us. It is our illiberalism that causes so much pain.

---

I’d never claim religion is the ultimate “root of all evil” either. That’d be asinine in the extreme. Neither would I absolve it and say people do bad things whatever their beliefs; of course they do, but certain beliefs, not just religion, shape people in a way that makes bad things more likely.

Illiberalism is definitely part of the problem, but beside human traits that are never going away -- greed, tribalism etc -- I’d place most blame on the collapse of a shared moral consensus, and in its absence, either clinging to its relics or indulging selfish hedonism instead of developing the disciplined independence of thought needed to create it anew.

---

In essence, they encouraged humans to work together for the good of all, and not alone, dog-eat-dog, as the modern religion of Capitalism/Materialism does.

---

I’d disagree completely about the desirability of capitalism. For the majority, I consider acting in a dog-eat-dog way to be a fundamental human instinct that can only be retrained, not eliminated; so some kind of property owning free-market system, by dispersing economic power, is essential for freedom and human progress. But I would agree it should never become a religion. It’s a tool, not a goal.

---

Personally, I don't think this site is dying because of threads like this one. They're dying because of the explosion of journals in the last few years, and that most of us first came here for a show that is no longer running. While I apologize for any posts I've made suggesting anyone who disagrees is stupid, I should also present the counter-argument: that those of us interested in debates like these have been made to feel very unwelcome over the years by other members - by people who outside of threads like this I would call friends. We've been attacked for being boring (sorry Milky, you're a mate an all, but that post was unnecessary and offensive), for the way we use the English language, and for wanting to debate.

---

Debate has become a scapegoat at T21. Like you say, the real problem is the lack of a shared focus: the only thing we’ve got left is what divides us. Getting rid of certain threads will not remedy that. A site composed of homogeneous topics, whether celeb threads, sports threads or, yes, politics threads, would repel as many members as it attracted. Diversity is essential. I can’t stand celeb threads, but I leave the people who like that sort of thing too it, and all I ask is they do me the same courtesy. I realise my posting style’s become rather belligerent of late, but when the threads you enjoy are constantly bombarded by people whose sole reason for being there is terminating their existence, it’s little wonder.

Visit, say, www.thedvdforums.com. Hardly a political site, but me and plenty of others debate current affairs in their general chat without problem because ultimately we’re all there to discuss DVDs and movies. Restoring interest in cult TV is not going to be achieved by suppressing off-topic threads you don’t like.

---

If a thread bores you, click out of it. If someone posts something you find offensive, why not ask them why they did that? Better than to attack back. And maybe all of us should just think twice before pressing submit, and ask ourselves 'how would someone who doesn't already agree with me react to what I've said?'

Like I said, most of the world's problems boil down to indifference and intolerance. Maybe the same can be said of T21.

---

Totally. I’m more than ready to change my posting style, but progress takes willingness on both sides. Debate can become less aggressive; participants can explain themselves better; but in return, there needs to be an acceptance that personally disliking certain topics absolutely does not justify disrupting them or trying to have them stopped.

Tolerance is asking a lot less than suppression.

Geez By, maybe we should impose a long post tax, even Im falling asleep now

---

by Wobag
Geez By, maybe we should impose a long post tax, even Im falling asleep now

---

With Gordon Brown raising taxes to an all-time high of almost a million pounds a minute, this additional tax you suggested might be able to make it an even million a minute

Byron you want to pay cash or credit card

(Edited by Chambler 28/03/2006 15:40)