Does it matter?

#45
Of course it would be desirable.
Great! How about others? Put aside whether its possible- who agrees that it would be desirable? Anyone disagree? Let's see if we're all on the same page with this at least. (If you guys want, just like this post to express agreement or post- either way!
 
#46
... and I'm correcting you when you said:
Sure, why not? I was wrong to correct ghost on the fly. However, my correction was to correctly quantify the true amount of podcast that bash proponents. Just like my correction to Steve was to quantify the amount of people actually rejoicing in Stenger's death.
 
#49
On Stitcher alone there is 74. And Stitcher alone doesn't have a good compilation; many of your listed podcasts aren't even on it.
 
#50
Great! How about others? Put aside whether its possible- who agrees that it would be desirable? Anyone disagree? Let's see if we're all on the same page with this at least. (If you guys want, just like this post to express agreement or post- either way!
Let's be plain. Respect requires trust. I wouldn't trust any of the skeptics on this forum as far as I could throw them. This is born out of the school of experience, not prejudice, group hugs have no place in the debate. I'm happy to think lovely thoughts about you and the other skeptics, but only in retrospect. While you're still performing your acts of graciousness toward the world of common sense, or whatever it is you think you're doing, you are in the wrong place. You're entitled to your opinion, or so Alex thinks, but you can whistle for the sugar on top. I want you to argue the evidence, not the context. Good manners can come when respect has been earned.
 
#51
Wow, that's a lot of atheist podcasts. I wonder how I manage to avoid hearing anything about atheism as I go about my day bombarded with "bless you's" and crosses. :)

ETA: Correction, I do get told atheist jokes (this is always a favourite http://gentleyoga.com/blog/?p=98), so I guess I manage to hear about atheism.

Linda
 
#54
Good manners have nothing to do with being earned as far as I can see. Everyone is entitled to be on the receiving end of good manners. That is unless the person is rude themselves - then they may provoke an angry response of course. Even then, I'd say it is better to respond in a well-mannered way. As an observer of the board, it does spoil discussions when it degenerates into insults and petty tit-for-tat. If a person is bothering you that much why not just ignore them, or keep making the same point if you feel there is a need to engage or address the point you disagree with.

We cannot choose how people provoke or question us, but we can choose how we respond. Sometimes a dignified silence might be better.

If we are convinced a person will not come to an agreement no matter what we say - what is the point in extending the discussion once it starts to repeat?
 
#55
Let's be plain. Respect requires trust. I wouldn't trust any of the skeptics on this forum as far as I could throw them. This is born out of the school of experience, not prejudice, group hugs have no place in the debate. I'm happy to think lovely thoughts about you and the other skeptics, but only in retrospect. While you're still performing your acts of graciousness toward the world of common sense, or whatever it is you think you're doing, you are in the wrong place. You're entitled to your opinion, or so Alex thinks, but you can whistle for the sugar on top. I want you to argue the evidence, not the context. Good manners can come when respect has been earned.
Butt do you agree it would be desirable?
 
#56
@Arouet It has to be different strokes for different folks, ay? The way I engage with Iyace is reflective of the way he engages with others... Equally, proponent Steve is one of my "Skepiko chums"... Reece and I are battling it out at chess.com etc etc.
 
Last edited:
#58
@Arouet It has to be different strokes for different folks, ay? The way I engage with Iyace is reflective of the way he engages with others... Equally, proponent Steve is one of my "Skepiko chums"... Reece and I are battling it out at chess.com etc etc.
Right. Exactly. Arouet is treated the way he is because of how he acts. As is Linda, as is steve001, as is Paul. As are you. People just outright don't like you guys. This whole thread is trying to force two groups together that have animosity to one another. It's a bit silly, don't you think?
 
#59
@Arouet It has to be different strokes for different folks, ay? The way I engage with Iyace is reflective of the way he engages with others... Equally, proponent Steve is one of my "Skepiko chums"... Reece and I are battling it out at chess.com etc etc.
Yeah, in general my less public interactions with the people here are pleasant and civil. Some of what goes on publicly is show, I think.

Linda
 
Top