Scarabin

Thanks.Positive in the sense of welcoming feedback, not discouraging it. :D

I think were missing the point here. I thought the website was/is designed to encourage feedback and, because mine is a serious suggestion, I expected a more positive(in the sense of encouraging feedback) response from a moderator. :unsure:

Yes, but I do not think that's a complete answer. If I know someone is behaving badly, the fact that I am not forced to watch does not mean I should turn a blind eye. If I see someone committing a crime, don't I have a duty to act, even at the risk of spoiling his pleasure? :D

When I miss an episode of Homeland I can see it on tenplay.com.au. It's the website of one of our local(ie not cable) TV channels. It may not work for you - when I've accessed similar sites in US I've been told the facilities only apply to locals - but it may be worth a try. :D

When I miss an episode of Homeland I can see it on tenplay.com.au. It's the website of one of our local(ie not cable) TV channels. It may not work for you - when I've accessed similar sites in US I've been told the facilities only apply to locals - but it may be worth a try. :D

Actually my aim is not to ban anyone. When Inquiry locked the religious moderation topic I applauded his decision and would have been happy to see several posters and religious topics banned out of hand since I felt the discussion was completely out of control. Then I found some sensible posters had actually enjoyed the discussions and I decided that banning posters (for life?) is too drastic for what may be a flaw in character. I thought that a private warning that the moderator(s) considered the poster was overstepping reasonable limits might have a salutary effect. I did not envisage any formal follow-up other than that repeated warnings would result in a (temporary?) ban from a specific forum. If I were a mod I'd be happier to give a warning rather than an immediate ban. That's my suggestion FWIW. :D

Agree completely :D

Agree 100%. And I am happy to rely on the Mods judgments. But I think there are at least 2 schools of thought on which posters would be banned? :D

I would agree with your first point. Disagree with the other three. My approach is to expect posters to observe the normal tenets of civilised behaviour. I think there is a small coterie of posters who have taken to themselves the right to decide who and what may appear in topics concerning religion. Challenging newcomers and vilifying other posters is not acceptable behaviour in my book. I agree that it is not pleasant to have one's "buttons" pressed but my observation is that these posters have been behaving badly ever since I first joined BBO, and only recently have other posters begun to "press their buttons". Let me pose a question: If I vilify you, call you an idiot, uneducated, and unread, would you be solicitous about not pressing my buttons? And if I responded to your first ever post to BBO by asking: "why should I listen to you?", would it encourage you? It may be that your cadre is the same as my coterie. It's difficult to be sure without naming names and I would not wish to do this. Whether we agree or disagree we can still have a rational,civilized discussion without rancor or abuse.

Perhaps it could be applied on an honour basis since I think most posters (with possibly a single exception) would accept this, and there would always be the ultimate sanction of wider banning. I am not sure however I would not argue against my own suggestion since removing the troublemakers would also remove the life from the discussions. It's just that since we cannot conduct rational discussions on some subjects one feels it should be possible to do something.

You are very persuasive and I am tempted to accept your premise. I won't however because:-(1) I feel that if I look long and hard enough I may discover a non-sequiter in your logic, and (2) In essence,your philosophy boils down to "people will always believe/suspect the worst so in self defence we must become paranoid",and (3) Your approach means no-one can ever float a controversial hypothesis? Perhaps we could compromise by agreeing a form of words nige1 could have used without offence? Your programming example is amusing but not quite accurate: I happen to be the sort of woolly-thinking amateur programmer who writes woefully inaccurate algorithms and then writes much more complicated algorithms to discover why the originals don't work. :D

Sorry, clumsy duplicate. :rolleyes:

May I make a suggestion. I do not think we should want to drive posters away and I am not sure we should not sanction those who do (unsociable?). A possible, workable compromise would be to ban specific posters from specific topics, although I would not care to shoulder the responsibility of choosing whom to ban. The people who are most enthusiastic about particular topics seem to be the most disruptive. About a year ago I decided to browse old topics and I was shocked to discover two posters, who seemed markedly intelligent to me, and who agreed that the discussion was becoming too unpleasant and that the best course was to leave the forums. :rolleyes:

Put very simply, I think you are confusing neutral statements such as "If religion does some good, so be it." with loaded questions like "Has Trinidad stopped beating his wife?", to which even I would object. I also said that I did not think you would find any support for your view in Fowler's "The King's English" OK? :D

Happy to give you points for humor but are you not avoiding admitting error by fantasizing? My Fowler was never like this.:D

FWIW I do believe that moderation is a virtue in and of itself. And I do equate moderation with occupying the middle ground, although we would probably define this differently since I do not think moderation requires me to accept two diametrically opposed views. I do think moderation requires me to be able to understand other peoples views/beliefs/convictions. Let me offer a very simplistic example: I believe that one's convictions are based on training/education, culture, experience and that believing in something which conflicts with experience is wrong to impossible. Thus superstition is clearly ridiculous. Just as historians say a man should be judged in the context of his time so I hold a man's convictions should fit his circumstances/milieu. But 2 caveats: I can understand how someone with a charmed life could ascribe this to answered prayer, and if I were a world-class footballer being paid $150,000 a week and I believed I played better when I put on my left boot first, then I would surely do so. :D

FWIW I see the use of "if" as precluding your reading of Nige1's statement. :D

Well, Brodie is back but still separate stories! Cannot see how they'll converge but maybe next week. :rolleyes:

I am trying to trace a quotation about King Charles the second. It was to the effect that he was a very tolerant, forgiving King but that this did not reflect to his credit since he had such a low opinion of men no one could disappoint him. I think I read it in Antonia Fraser's biography but it may have been in a biography of Marlborough. Remember C caught M bedding C's mistress. Anyhow I cannot find it. Can anyone help, please? :rolleyes:

I am puzzled why obviously intelligent posters find this and similar posts offensive and insulting. To me it seems merely to state the obvious - "an extra sanction is an extra sanction" - without invoking moral judgment. Perhaps one can read it as an underhand attack on one's convictions but the "sanction" can be religious, cultural or even parental and while I am a sceptic I do not take it personally. :D Surely it is possible the poster may consider the discussion has got out of hand and want to restore it to an even keel, with a relatively mild contribution? :rolleyes: My experience of life and my reading of history have convinced me people who adapt, and I equate this with having moderate views, are wiser than those with fixed convictions :)

Fwiw I view religious and sceptical moderation as approximately equivalent: hopefully moderates' beliefs are not set in stone. Having said that I see Mikeh's posts as rational and hence more likely to attract replies. I must confess I do not see much point in responding to 32519's posts.

With two episodes shown, "Prisoners of war" seems to get better and better. Reserving judgment on "Homeland". Cannot decide if the air of hysteria is due to overworked scriptwriters or an accurate portrayal of our time? :D

My personal view is that the only problem with religious moderation is there is not enough of it. Moderation, by believers or sceptics, is better than extremism, and certainly more intelligent. I wonder if only two posters really enjoy these debates, one spewing pop science, the other pop religion?

I saw a Peter O'Toole movie, "My favourite year", recently, and which was funny throughout (for me the comedy usually peters out after a few scenes) and it made me realise there must be hundreds of old movies which never became famous but which are still enjoyable. Any suggestions? :D

Anything as funny as that has considerable merit. More quotations, please? :D