Stuff you hate

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

Muslims.

Fuck these people. Seize their assets and redistribute them for the common good. Then send them to work in my salt mines. Fuck "Allah", and fuck "his" believers. Grow out of needing an imaginary fucking sky-friend.

Jews.

Fuck these people. Seize their assets and redistribute them for the common good. Then send them to work in my salt mines. Fuck "God", and fuck "his" believers. Grow out of needing an imaginary fucking sky-friend.

Now I obviously took that out of context. It was not directed at Jews and Muslims per se, mainly the uber-Conservative rightwing nutbat Christian demographic. But no matter how you frame Z's statement, it's a bit on the offensive side... I'm just saying. I tend to not get involved in these type of debacles, and I recognize that Zeality is one who has obviously been oppressed due to his beliefs (as I think most of us have at one moment or another, based upon a myriad of reasons). I do not mean to belittle anyone's personal experiences. However, it is still intolerance* at the heart of the matter.

I empathize, I really do. People shouldn't be held by the chains of religion or lack thereof. It's simply wrong: plain and simple. However, where is the line drawn? This isn't directed at anyone in particular - not Syna or Zeality or Lord J or Thought or Mr. Bekkler or FaustWolf or rushingwind or Katie Skyye or tushantin or motherfaking wiz khalifa himself (names in no particular order). There's just an impartiality in the logic.

*

— adj  (foll by of )
1.    lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own
2.    not able or willing to tolerate or endure: intolerant of noise

[Syna]

RW, much of what you said about the oppression of atheists is quite applicable to people who participate in minority "faiths" or who don't relate to mainstream religious universe (of which atheism is, make no question, actually part and parcel). Without diminishing the excellent points you've made with regard to where you, and others on the board, are standing, and without diminishing your post's value as a way of empathizing with what I consider to be a completely legitimate worldview, I want to gently suggest that presuming that everyone falls onto one side or another on the fence is not a good presumption and is probably an obstacle to the cultural traction of atheist causes.  

For various reasons, I don't object to most of Zeality's tactics. I am a die-hard Blakean. "Without contraries there is no progression." I admire strong and vivid personalities and convictions, and, more than anything, imaginative vision, even if I would rebel and resist if that vision were ever forced upon me. You could say that I value these things more than correctness, at least as it's conceived of by Enlightenment-influenced Western minds. But I can see where tactics like his, and that of other atheists, stand contrary to their many laudable goals, so I feel the need to make this point.

The framework that atheists invoke with respect to the oppression of religion is highly specific to our culture. It is useful in that it reveals certain important tensions and presents certain battles that must be fought -- such as maintaining the intellectual rigor of the sciences and resisting rampant pseudoscience. (As someone whose high school curriculum included mandatory rants against evolutionary theory, I do understand how vital it is that such battles are uncompromisingly fought.) It is certainly useful in that it allows atheists to cope with a culture that can be violently hostile toward their perspective. It is even occasionally useful when applied to non-Western countries. However, like all frameworks, it is limited by our perceptual stance, and it excludes much; most of the universe, in fact.  

I am not a secular humanist nor a believer. I just don't play the "religious or no" game. I am far more interested in psyche, aesthetics, culture, and experiences than abstract philosophy -- and in the latter case I hold that the only truly reasonable stance is Robert Anton Wilson-esque agnosticism. I'm not going to go into my complex worldview here, but suffice to say there is no way I can fit in that theist-versus-atheist framework you're describing. No possible way -- not without truly Procrustean amounts of reductivism, anyway. I would venture to presume that many on this forum feel the same -- Bekkler and xcalibur the Deists, Tushantin my fellow Something Else Entirely, and even, perhaps, Thought the Christian. We are in the good company of the majority of humans throughout history.

[Syna]

I'm really glad to see more people noticing things like this. Even in the past ten years, if I can attempt to correct for my higher level of sensitivity now relative to then, these heights of awareness seemed to be firmly in the province of academics and political activists. I think, to the extent my observation is valid, we can credit the Internet for popularizing the facts and notions of the sexual equality movement to people who aren't explicitly dedicated to the cause already. (I don't know your level of involvement with the pursuit of sexual equality, Syna, so I don't know if that applies to you specifically.)

Well, I was a feminist* throughout my teens -- it was quite impossible to survive without some feminism to bolster me in an environment that was rather condescending towards the idea -- but ten years ago was about when I began to study issues surrounding sexual equality in earnest, so I'm not sure how I would fit into your observation. My early interest in queer issues probably set me apart from the beginning, tbh. 

But I certainly hope that the Internet has popularized these insights! I do know more women who are willing to talk about sexual equality than before-- when I began college, for instance, many would downplay the issues... and I think I've read that more women than ever are into strength-training, after years and years of certain fitness gurus harping on about how effective it can be. Now, the strength-training line has often been sold with statements like "you WON'T bulk up" and "this is the best way to lose fat," but I do notice that while many women adopt the exercise based on an interest in aesthetics, they continue because it makes them feel awesome.

It's curious, though. I knew intellectually that cultural mechanisms like chivalry were, in part, methods by which females were encouraged to fulfill weak role, and I had enough awareness of anthropology to recognize that the domestic tasks expected of lower-class women throughout history actually required quite a bit of strength. But these awarenesses were not internalized until I began lifting weights as an exercise. I just did not ever expect that I'd be strong. Nothing replaces experience when it comes to how you instinctually assess a situation, I suppose.

The effect is small, with respect to the number of people with higher sensitivity relative to the vast size of the total population, but distinctly apparent.

Right-- difficult to assess how mainstream it is. Again looking at strength-training as a microcosm, I'm still the only woman lifting any substantial amount of weight in my gym a good 95% of the time. (And my "substantial amount" is still squarely in novice-to-intermediate territory.)

Another possibility is that I've got it backwards--that more people have thought this way for a while (though it raises the question of "Since when, and whence the change?") and the Internet simply brings to our attention this higher level of commitment than is reported in the media.

Either way, I certainly hope it's a signal of some kind of cultural momentum.

Anyhow, both of those remarks of yours are fierce keen...worth study and affirmation! The bit about feeling strong is just perhaps the most conspicuous aspect of a much bigger treasure trove: the power of learning to delight in one's own body, something that the world's major religions and most cultures have tried very hard to suppress in females. Enjoying your body, using it, understanding its abilities, extents, and sensations...that's a huge part of human identity, and crucial both for our personal development and social interaction.

Thank you, and I am gratified to see that you understand what's at stake. The female body is so fought over, regulated, and politicized that learning how to inhabit it is one of the greatest triumphs against sexism one can make, imho. I was in fact a textbook case of mind-body disconnection for a very long time (partially by my own fairly cerebral and pretty clumsy nature, and partially due to gender dysphoria, which was largely a reaction to sexism). I'm sure that many other females have similar issues, and I wish that they were addressed more openly. I suppose it's a great deal harder to talk about than abortion, but it is no less significant a topic, I think!

[Sajainta]

When you see what you consider to be outrageous outbursts on the Internet by atheists, I would ask that you instead see it for what it probably is: These people are discriminated against in ways that you simply cannot concieve of, and the Internet becomes their only semi-anonymous platform to speak what's really in their hearts. Trust me, I've been there.

Exactly.

One time a professor in the middle of class started ranting about atheists and said that if any atheist commits a crime then why should anyone be surprised?  He said that it's no surprise that atheists commit crimes because it's "in accordance with their own worldview".  The professor knew I was an atheist, yet decided to spew that rubbish anyway.

Atheists get so much shit from people.  All the time.  I once had a roommate who said she was scared of living with me because I didn't believe in God, but then she found out I was a "nice person".  What the fuck.

A lot of people see atheists as this collective group of angry people, but you know what?  We have a right to be angry.  We're judged, mistrusted, scoffed at, ridiculed, belittled, are assumed to be immoral, are assumed as trying to be "edgy" or "rebellious", told that our worldview is "just a phase", etc.

I'm angry, and it's justified.  I don't know what it's like to be in the majority regarding belief in god and I don't know what it's like to not constantly have your morality questioned, but I wish I could be.  I wish I weren't wary to tell people I don't believe in god.  I wish I didn't assume that upon telling people I didn't believe in god that I would be automatically judged and pigeon-holed.  I wish people didn't assume things about my morality before even meeting me.  I wish I weren't consistently told that people feared for my soul.  I wish I weren't told that [insert bad thing] happened to me because of my disbelief.  Etc. etc. etc.

There is such a thing as "Christian privilege", you know.

[Lord J Esq]

@ZeaLitY: I think most of us who have gotten to know you a bit understand that your flamboyant style is not to be taken at face value. I'm sure you don't actually own any salt mines yet. But others who don't know you are going to have a hard time not taking your statements at face value, and thus you'll always have to choose between alienating them and venting your frustrations with an unjust world. (Well, not always: There is ever that elusive "third way," to be agreeably disagreeable without everyone's points ending up watered down to useless amity. Let me know if you ever find it. I'd like to try it on myself.) For what it's worth, this is your Compendium and this board is General Discussion, and I don't think you said anything out of line. It's anyone's right to get pissed off at you, but we're all adults and having others pissed off at you is as likely to be an indication that you're doing something right as it is that you're doing something wrong.

@Katie Skyye: Don't give up on the rest of the Compendium. I mean, you can if you want to, but really you're just depriving yourself and us of your contributions. Real life is messy sometimes; this environment is a good place to do some growing up. I speak from firsthand experience. ZeaLitY is zealous, but don't mistake his flaming rhetoric for a hateful personality. I know it's an easy mistake to make because he speaks so breathtakingly offensively sometimes, but if you make the effort to broaden your perspective, I think you will find it rewarding. As to your core complaint, that you feel, for lack of better words, persecuted against because of his words and because of the fact that here, unlike almost everywhere else, religious viewpoints do not dominate the atmosphere of discussion...it's hard to find the words to say this right. Your frustration is understandable, but not appropriate. You're human, and humans sometimes get upset when they feel that they are being disrespected or badmouthed. ZeaLitY quite correctly bemoans the utter poverty of justice in religious system and in the minds of believers. Quite apart from the question of whether non-religious people are good or bad folks, plenty of religious people are bad. That's what he's focusing on. It's not a commentary on you personally, and you should strive hard to find a way not to take his comments personally. ZeaLitY has proven himself quite capable of being respectful of religious people who prove themselves worthy in their secular affairs.

@tushantin: You are not in a position to issue forum directives.

@Rushingwind: Thank you for saying what I did not have the patience and energy to say. You said it well, and you brought a personal background that I could not have added myself. I have been fortunate not to have grown up in a Christian world; it makes the ubiquity of Christianity in our culture both more apparent to me, yet also more easy to dismiss for what it is. And I was never discriminated against, to my knowledge, for not being Christian. That is a testament to the environments of my upbringing, and to Seattle.

@Boo the Gentleman Caller: The comparison you make is emotionally resonant, but not strictly accurate. I understand what you're saying, and frankly one of my own criticisms of ZeaLitY is that his deconversion from radical Christianity to radical irreligion has been, well, too radical. I try and pursue goals which by definition are quite extreme (all social progress is varyingly extreme; such is the nature of change) in a less radical way. With a Jewish background, I am particularly sensitive to the dangers of trying to destroy religion by force. The Holocaust is unforgettable. With a liberal orientation, I understand all too well how the correct position can sometimes be held for the worst reasons by the most despicable people, such as Christian conservatives who want to destroy Islam. I want to destroy Islam, but not by slaughtering Muslims. ZeaLitY, in my opinion, doesn't possess the subtlety of discernment yet necessary to identify the best policies for dealing with religious-based injustice. However, like Syna, I do not see the present moment as a perfect world and I seek change and betterment, and I recognize that the momentum for change comes from the people who are not sitting down and behaving themselves quietly. I have more respect for a ZealitY who steps on toes than I do for a consensus-builder who would rather that injustices persist than feelings get hurt.

@Syna: It's absolutely sick what we do to our children, and girls in particular, when it comes to subverting their will by perverting their self-image. Nine-year-olds with eating disorders? They're out there, and they're not even rare. That is all kinds of fucked up. We have to get to children before their parents do, before their schoolmates do, before the media do, because once that subversion begins they're likely to bear the scars for the rest of their life, and a will subverted may never return. People are so quick to assume that females are weak, and I rather suspect that it's because sexism is so ubiquitously entrenched that they think so, rather than that they're just lying fools who knowingly participate in a sexist culture and then spout lies to deny their crimes. (There are some of the latter, but I think the former are far more numerous.)

Anyhow, this has become a (mostly) great discussion arising from a turn of conversation that I thought could only end badly. Color me thankful for that.

[Truthordeal]

I posted in the Love thread about getting a Kindle and buying a copy of The God Delusion, and yes, I absolutely do love those things. But this discussion in this thread in particular reminded me of why I've only now bought it: I don't want a physical copy around for my family or collegemates to see.

I'm still a Christian, but I wasn't one at one point. Unlike J, and probably more similar to Zeality, I was also an atheist while in the Bible belt of the South, with all the hangups that go with that. Oddly enough, however, I remember most of the dogmatic Christians being the young people themselves; my teachers usually stood up for me whenever they'd start too. Even the very conservative Bible professor here at the Presbyterian college I go to believes in and teaches evolution as a fact. The only time that's ever happened is when a student brought it up in high school Biology, and the thought at the time seemed so absurd that most of the class thought he was making a joke(he may have been, but it wouldn't surprise me that he wasn't). That's why I'm still shocked whenever I hear stories from Saj or whomever about professors or teachers demeaning their students and trying to deride evolution. Somehow or another I missed being involved in the realm of explicit Christian ignorance and oppression, even as an atheist.

But upon buying The God Delusion, I had to stop and realize that even as a Christian, I was still being held down by the more implicit, societal willful ignorance of a mostly Christian nation. I believe the word Z throws around to describe it is "Dominionism," and I'm just now seeing that "web" as it is. Truth is, even when I was an atheist I only copped to being an agnostic since no one really understood the term to mean anything other than "not an atheist." Somehow or another this very insignificant distinction became very significant. The word "atheist" is looked down upon as anathema, even within my fairly casually Christian family. I really don't understand why the difference between "agnostic" and "atheist" kept me out of what I thought was a scolding to come, but it somehow does.

It was only a few weeks ago that I silently scoffed at Saj's post about C.S. Lewis, thinking that she HAD to be exaggerating or sarcastic, but now I realize that I was probably just very lucky when it came to my experiences and that luckiness made me instantly ignorant and inaccessible to most of the atheists here who wear that chip on their shoulder. I figured atheists were just being whiny about superficial mistreatment, but this line of discussion in this thread has been helpful to that eradicating that notion.

I wonder. If I got a copy of Mein Kampf and The God Delusion and put them side to side on my bookshelf, which one would freak out people the most because I have it. Chances are, up here in Presbyterian Collegeville State, there'd be enough people who are educated enough to understand why I'd have a copy of Mein Kampf, since I am a history guy and that happens to be a valuable, albeit unfortunate literary source for that field, and yet just the title of The God Delusion would put them in a tizzy since most of them probably never heard of it, or if they did, it was from a pastor telling them not to read it because of Satan.

Bah. I'm gonna go see if Project Gutenberg has a free copy of Mein Kampf and show off my Kindle collection to others.

But before I do, let me make a preemptive apology to wiz, tush and the other, as Syna called them, Something Else Entirely's. I realize this does very little to include your personal beliefs and etc., but unfortunately I can only work with what I know, and that is very little, so it seems.

[tushantin]

Incredibly beautiful responses by folks above me.

A lot of people see atheists as this collective group of angry people, but you know what?  We have a right to be angry.  We're judged, mistrusted, scoffed at, ridiculed, belittled, are assumed to be immoral, are assumed as trying to be "edgy" or "rebellious", told that our worldview is "just a phase", etc.

Saj, everyone has the right to be angry, and it's a justifiable sentiment, but what I meant was that it was best to try not make the same mistake as the abusers. The thing with the Atheism backlash is that the crimes of Religious Dominionism sets a trap for the opposition to undermine themselves, and that kind of wrath inevitably sets them in a bad light. And when the opposition does react that way, the Dominionists simply point and say, "Hah! We told you so!" That only worsen's the situation for the minority.

In essence, I'm not saying that we shouldn't react to them or kick their butts for their abuse. I'm just saying we oughta kick their butts in style!   As Syna mentioned, certain battles akin to this one needs to be fought, especially since individuals begin to see a broader world-view secular from religion itself. As Atheists, you folks have a responsibility of not only accomplishing your goals but also setting a bright example for the future generations. Though you're a minority, you're still an important element, an important voice, to abolish Orthodox. Be proud!

I wish I didn't assume that upon telling people I didn't believe in god that I would be automatically judged and pigeon-holed.  I wish people didn't assume things about my morality before even meeting me.

And I concur. It's incredibly difficult to not have a person label you indiscriminately and decide what to do with you; it's sickening. Practically speaking, however treading beyond the "religious discrimination" and peeking more into sociology, almost everyone judges a person they meet within the first 5 seconds of their meeting; whatever follows is usually biased from that view itself, unless they pursue long-term association. This works in any respective field, including in work-places, and often due to lack of social time or psychological security issues. What's intriguing is that those with psychological insecurities (such as the Religious Fundamentalists, or the victims of the said Fundamentalists) react even harsher to such situations, while those open, empathetic and sociable tend to take their time in getting to know a person well.

Egad! Ninja'd by Truthordeal.

I wonder. If I got a copy of Mein Kampf and The God Delusion and put them side to side on my bookshelf, which one would freak out people the most because I have it. Chances are, up here in Presbyterian Collegeville State, there'd be enough people who are educated enough to understand why I'd have a copy of Mein Kampf, since I am a history guy and that happens to be a valuable, albeit unfortunate literary source for that field, and yet just the title of The God Delusion would put them in a tizzy since most of them probably never heard of it, or if they did, it was from a pastor telling them not to read it because of Satan.

Bahaha, my Christian boss actually encouraged me to read The God Delusion; as he said, it offered a different perspective to formulate your own deduction (did I mention my boss is quite like Sherlock Holmes?). What he discouraged me from reading, however, was books from Satanism and Occult; he was worried I'd get possessed with negative thoughts or something.

But before I do, let me make a preemptive apology to wiz, tush and the other, as Syna called them, Something Else Entirely's. I realize this does very little to include your personal beliefs and etc., but unfortunately I can only work with what I know, and that is very little, so it seems.

Not sure if you're supposed to be apologizing, considering I haven't taken it as an offense and you weren't the one to say it, but accepted nevertheless. I suppose that "Something Else Entirely" is because I simply loathe to have myself in a specific category, so I take it as a compliment. People assume I'm a Zoroastrian, Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Satanist, Atheist, etc. then I contradict them with my knowledge about something else entirely, just to bewilder them.

[ZeaLitY]

It's hard to maintain tact here. There was a time when Saruman was the only religious apologist, and Lord J, GrayLensman, Radical_Dreamer, several others, and soon enough, I presided over a hegemony of reason, an attitude that filtered into the zeal for analyzing the Chrono series and drawing up principles of time travel. For that reason, the Compendium's always felt like a personal space.

I don't know. There are probably people of color, women, or the deeply impoverished out there who would say I'm acting like a baby for having tasted only a little bit of the discrimination that pervades this world. But I want to give it zeal. In a world in which rampant consumerism, entertainment, and religious validation have dulled participation in political machinery (and severely dulled intellectual curiosity and prowess), passion has become a rare commodity.

[tushantin]

I don't know. There are probably people of color, women, or the deeply impoverished out there who would say I'm acting like a baby for having tasted only a little bit of the discrimination that pervades this world. But I want to give it zeal. In a world in which rampant consumerism, entertainment, and religious validation have dulled participation in political machinery (and severely dulled intellectual curiosity and prowess), passion has become a rare commodity.

Indeed. If it's any encouragement, Z, I'd like to say that I share the very flame you light, the very intense zeal as yours, so you're not alone. I do it for those impoverished people, for those sectors of humanity where the slightest ray of light never reaches.

I did mention once before about the orphan girl I had a hearty conversation with. It was disheartening, despite the fact that she saw the world as completely different from what we do. Her heart was beautiful, and indeed she'd see our arguments as childish whining.

For her sake, for all those like that girl, I'll do everything I can to set bring in the light.

[Thought]

Often the largest difficulty lies in properly defining the question. I will address this in regards to Zeality's post, but highlighting this difficulty is important for those comments. Thus, if you will indulge me, I will explain. If you will not, then I would urge you to skip down to the second part of my post.

Also, Rushingwind, if you do not mind, I would like to use something you said as an example of this:

As a geology student, I have fielded discussions from at least two people who were determined to prove to me that "flood geology" was real and true, and that "polystrate fossils" proved it. Introductory Geology 101 clearly explains why all of this is simply nonsense. But even then, explaining to them that "flood geology" was disproven by a Creationist geologist more than 100 years ago doesn't convince them. The mindbogglingly simple explanation of so-called polystrate fossils doesn't convince them. No, they come into the argument convinced they're right, and that I'm wrong, and there's nothing I can say or do to make them see the simple truth before their eyes. They cannot see the simple truth because they have "faith." They'd rather believe in a story (one that would have them believe their god has purposely tried to deceive them about the nature of the Earth and the universe) than pay attention to fact.

The problems you had arose primarily from the wrong question being addressed. I can say this with certainty because I've been on both sides of that same discussion. Although it might seem like the question was if "flood geology" v real geology was correct, or perhaps if creationism was a valid intellectual position, in reality the question that was being addressed was if Christianity is a viable world view or not. Many individuals, both Christians and Atheists, frame these as being the same when they are not.

The individuals in your example wouldn't listen to you because you were only addressing one small sliver of a problem. You were trying to prove that they were wrong in only one tiny regard, when if they admit that they were wrong there, they would also be forced (in their minds) to say that they were wrong in a host of other areas that you hadn't even touched upon. It is like trying to pick up a large piece of plywood and keep it horizontal by only lifting one tiny corner.

In short, both you and those you were talking to were not discussing the real issue, and thus no progress could be made. It would have been far more profitable to discuss how the real issue is a false dilemma and that accepting real geology need not cause a domino effect for their world view.

It doesn't really matter what your (here, I am switching to an abstract "you," rather than a "you, RW") perspective on religion is. The fact that the head of the NIH and one of the top scientists in the nation can be religious and fully support science reveals that the two need not be at odds. Thus, while your long-term goal might be to eliminate religion, a more pertinent and desirable short-term goal is properly identifying the problem between religion and science and correcting it. This will not result in the elimination of religion, but it will be a good step towards the eliminations of pseudoscience.


Now, how does this relate to Zeality? Alas, the defenses given thus far do not address the actual question.

To be clear, Zeality is perfectly justified in being angry at being discriminated against based on him being an atheist. The question, however, is if that in turn justifies how he expresses that anger.

Anger motivates one to action, but what sort of action is posting such a comment as he did? It doesn't better the situation. It is, however, mildly cathartic. But why is it so? It is not just because he is expressing his anger: if that was the case, then the profanity and (hopeful) hyperbole are utterly unnecessary. Any outlet for his anger would suffice, be it posting on a forum or going for a jog.

I propose that such a post does not come from anger but rather from frustration. He envisions a better world. He lives in one that is far less than he wishes it to be. He is faced with an injustice, is angered, and thus is motivated to action. He is unable to do anything useful. Regardless of his anger, he cannot correct the injustice. Here we can fully agree: fuck being unable to correct injustice.

However, here anger is morphed into frustration. He wishes to take meaningful action, he is unable to, he is impotent. Where is the remedy, where the cure?

Anger prompts action, frustration prompts violence. Frustration is released by seizing power in this imaginary way: he might not be able to correct injustice in the real world, but at least here, where he is safe, he can scream to the heavens and for a moment pretend that he does have the power to dominate the source of the injustice.

How does he assert this power? Through violence. Sure, they are just words, but they are damn violent ones.

The question isn't if Zeality is justified in being angry, or frustrated, but rather if he is justified in expressing it through violent means (the “where” this occurs is largely irrelevant). I do not hold that violence is inherently evil and undesirable, and so I have no simple answer in this regard. I am merely proposing that discussion should center on the real question.

We might broaden the discussion slightly by asking what the proper response to injustices is when one lacks the power to affect a change in one’s immediate state, instead of if violence is appropriate in this specific case. I am sure that Zeality would gladly choose a course of action that provided him with the same release but had the added benefit of improving the world at the same time.


Katie, in regards to if you should continue interacting in this part of the compendium, I would urge you to do so. If nothing else, Z does have the virtue of allowing others to call BS on him. And while you might not respect him, perhaps you might be able to tolerate the situation if there are those who you do respect who in turn respect him. Besides, there are plenty of good people here besides him to interact with.

[Lord J Esq]

I see what you did there, Thought. I thank you for the change of mind and the edit to your post. I will never choose to totally restrict myself in the way you had suggested. This coexists with my pledge to leave tush well enough alone. It is inevitable that I will occasionally mention him or even speak directly to him. I may even have something nice to say! In this case, it's not his place (or mine, for that matter, given that I renounced my administratorship), to discourage whole avenues of general discussion on the General Discussion board. And since, humanity being what it is, no one else would likely have pointed that out, sometimes these things fall to me. Give me at least enough credit for that.

[tushantin]

...sometimes these things fall to me.

Are you sure?

[FaustWolf]

...sometimes these things fall to me.

Are you sure?

Hah, I think I know how you took that tushantin, but for what it's worth, my interpretation was that J's merely saying he's keenly observant on certain issues, including who has what rights to do what on a forum, etc. In that sense, it does fall to him if nobody thinks to point it out first.

As for the premise of J's observation (if I'm following this line of discussion correctly), I'd prefer to tweak it a bit: rank and file members are free to make suggestions inasmuch as we have free speech here, but free speech being what it is, chances are the topic will come up again anyway if you happen to suggest that a topic not be discussed.

Wow, that came out sounding kind of like: "And I don't know half of you half as well as I should like!"

[Lord J Esq]

Yes, thoughtfully put, Faust. You have surmised my meaning well. My word that I will behave myself, but it is in my nature to chafe against silly sayings. At any rate, I meant nothing against tushantin, except possibly that I was more keenly attuned to an error of his than I might have been to an error of someone else's--although I have lectured many people in my time here similarly, including friends, so perhaps do not read into it too much.

This forum shall continue to be open to all forms of discussion until ZeaLitY brings down the iron fist upon us all and the sun sets on our golden land.

[Lord J Esq]

Hey...100 pages of hate.

That's not at all a pleasant milestone. =/