[continued from part 1]


Recently I posted a couple of articles from some social/political commentators [1] [2], both born and bred in the Middle East, on the growing problems of islamisation and its impact on the west, particularly focussing on the issues of freedom of speech and liberal values in light of the dramas and outrage surrounding Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoons, and most recently, draw mohammed day. Both authors lay the blame squarely for the current status quo of blasphemy hysteria not with Naom Chomsky's favourite whipping horse, US foreign policy, but with western leaders who have allowed responses to the stupidity to be dictated by sections of the liberal/humanist left. The resultant policies of muslim appeasement at any cost and "tolerance" that borders on kowtowing rather than mitigating the problems have only exacerbated them. Instead of seeking true and open dialogue on a foundation of equanimity, they have legitimised and empowered the voices of maniacs allowing them to drown out the real voices of the actual western islamic communities. It is an example of "survival of the whiniest" - the loudest most shameless voices are the ones that get heard, and not the voices that actually count; and they are spurred on by the liberal/humanist left who mistake all the noise for progress. Thanks to their meddling and social experimentation, it is hard to imagine how the situation could possibly be made any worse. The continual pandering and bending over backwards to accomodate the demands of the islamists that have been given a stage and an audience, through the very best of liberal/humanist intentions, has now made the situation throroughly intractable and has benefited absolutely no one - least of all the moderate muslim majority in the west who are now starting to feel the first stirrings of a true backlash. Raymond Ibrahim summarises it quite nicely -

Muslim outrage—as with all human outrage—is predicated on how well it is tolerated. Continuously appeased, it becomes engorged and insistent on more concessions; ignored, it deflates and, ashamed of itself, withers away.

In other words, if our policies did not allow maniacs to have the air time and did not respond to the childish tantrums, chances are the issues we have would have fizzled for a while and then vanished. But they haven't - what was a tiny wound that could have healed naturally, thanks to the well meaning appeasement and coddling, has been picked at and picked at and has now become a festering sore bordering on septicemia.

So how fucking depressing is it to see this soap opera of global islam get played out as microcosmic mirror image right here in our community? With islam, the catalyst that started it all was Rushdie's Satanic Verses, and in hindsight, it looks less that the book actually caused any real offense and more that at the time there was a power struggle between Pakistan and Iran to see who could claim to be the voice of global islam, and they did so by having a hysterical shrieking contest (Iran won; the book was just unlucky for Rushdie; it was the right thing at the right time to enable the idiocy). Here, the catalyst seems to have been the repugnant noise-fest that preempted the departure of Ms. RU486 and our own contest to see who could be the most caring and understanding and demand the most and strictest site rules. Both scenarios served as prime manure for opportunist whiners to flourish like mushrooms. Instead of islam appeasers running around howling about "islamophobia", we're running around howling about people "being dicks". Instead of dissecting media for offence against the prophet, we're sifting every post and comment for offense against absolutely anything people damn well feel like; and, instead of facing it like a vertebrates, the faux offendees are urged to click the complaint button for anything that can be considered even remotely dick-like. Click, don't think. Click often, click hard. Click, click, click. Complain, complain, complain. All driven by the very best of intentions, which also happen to be what the path to hell is paved with.

This well meaning, inclusive and sensitive "New Atheist Nexus" that is being rammed down our throats, just like the efforts of the islam appeasers, achieves nothing other than empowering the stupid, entrenching "survival of the whiniest" and enabling the loudest and most negative voices here. A pure culture of complaint - the most reprehensible amongst us are sanctified and urged on to vent their tantrums free of any strictures of responsibility or accountability. Superficially it appears there is progress. Complaints can be quantified and there's a steady stream of scapegoats to divert attention to at the expense of real issues. Genuine complaints and abuses are lost amongst the noise, but that is irrelevant - it is the appearance that something is being done that really counts.

Whilst the rest of the civilised planet remains proud of it's foundations on human rights charters and affords such basic, inalienable protections as habeus corpus (variations on the right to present to court, confront your accusers and see the evidence presented against you) to even the vilest of terrorists, it is perverse that in this "enlightened" community such basics are entirely dispensed with. Typically, accusations here are anonymous and follow the format of "someone said you did something bad somewhere for some reason and you had better stop doing it or else". Evidence consists of "I can't find it now", "It was so horrid I deleted it" or a completely psychadelic miscontextualisation and misrepresentation of what was actually said that is never, ever verified. Where people's feelings are concerned, hearsay, rumour and even outright fabrication is perfectly acceptable evidence. Add to this the hyperbolic exaggerations of the extent of alleged abuse that goes on here and the relentless urging to report any and all issues immediately via the complaint button without a second thought and we have effectively divorced ourselves from the real world and entered the surreal universe of hyperreality. Enlightened, rational freethinkers my hairy ass. And if anyone thinks this is an absurd observation, all they need to consider is the following -

* Problems that threaten the very existance of a|n, cause the earth to stop spinning on its' axis, the seas to boil and the heavens to rain acid -

Calling someone an idiot.

* Problems that aren't really problems at all because they help maintain sensitivity and awareness of people's feelings -

Everything else mentioned above.


The supreme mother of all nonsense being peddled here is that a|n has somehow become dysfunctional due to all encompassing harrassment, abuse and intimidation. That all civil discussion has ceased and it is all raw wall to wall internecine warfare. This impression is actively being pushed as undisputed fact by this "Stop the madness!" post and many, many before it. It is a campaign to embed it as a self-replicating meme, and unfortunately it's working.

Well here's some harrassment for you - please provide us with some corroborating data and evidence that supports this proposition. As an exercise, anyone that has read this far, go and start browsing the site and make a realistic estimate for yourself. I do all the time. And the trouble is, this alleged level of abuse simply does not exist. This is a toxic self-hating and self-denigrating meme who's purpose and function benefits absolutely no one, other than the professional victims amongst us who can revel in it, exploiting and abusing our good natures. For the sake of misguided efforts to promote tolerance, a monstrous level of intolerance is being promoted and directed at those that are painted with the very wide brush of being "dicks" - it is effectively open season on "dicks" and there are no rules. People can lie, exaggerate, fabricate, defame, slander and abuse in any manner they please, as long as their target is a "dick". Fantastic community building.

The only excuse I can come up with for pushing this melodrama and catastrophism is an inexcusable naiveté - an absolute lack of wordliness or experience with social networking and forums. As it stands, this place could lay claim to being the most innocuous and non-threatening of it's kind anywhere, godless or not. And it's still not good enough. It has to be shit-talked and denigrated, all to placate a minority of professional whiners pushing their own selfish agendas or those who simply lack the ability to stand on their own hind legs and need to squeal for pity with every gasp.

From a historical perspective a certain series of events happened about a year ago when there was an enormous and spiteful shitstorm (over what exactly I still don't know, other than inevitably being blamed for a lot of it, despite having nothing to do with anything) that resulted in several members staging grandiose and noisy exits and quite a number of others being banned. Let's call it "D Day" ("D" for dick). It should be noted that all involved were at the time relatively new members; the older members, wisely, stayed clear of it. All that needs to be said was that it was massively nauseating and unpleasant, and has ultimately resulted in all manner of other lunacy infecting and poisoning the whole site. The main reason to raise D Day is that it is a point in time for reference. The manner, style and content of discussion and interaction before and after D Day has not fundamentally changed in any way. At all. Discussions were always vigorous, often got heated, occassionally even triggered spikes of anger. But before D Day, there never were any issues serious enough to merit anyones complaint. Situations were always amicably resolved and even the most heated disputes usually concluded with a "well played sir/madam" and folks got onto the next subject. Not so after D Day, when we began to have it drilled into us that there was abuse here, that we must all be more tolerant and must under no circumstances tolerate the now apparently rampant intolerance, and most importantly of all - to complain.

And here we are now. A self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one. How to Manufacture a Problem 101.


Where we are now -

We are all being held hostage by a small, but very vocal, minority of people who have essentially made a career of being professional whiners and victims. This hostage situation has been a self-created problem initiated by a combination of the very best of intentions, a stunning degree of naiveté and a deeply ingrained, and unhealthy, habit of overestimating people's integrity and decency. This hostage situation should really not come as a suprise either. "Survival of the whiniest" has pretty much dominated the last 50 years of human history. Similar hostage situations are eternally being played out by "family focus" groups, right to lifers, morality crusaders, animal rights crusaders, fringe feminists, the Louis Farrakhans of race politics and countless others. It is always a case of a small minority who out of sheer loudness and relentlessness create an illusion that they are of greater import and impact than actual reality merits. The tolerant, average person is their natural prey - appeasement and accommodation is after all the first response you will get from them. As such, it is breathtakingly easy for the ethically bankrupt professional whiners to take root and control of groups of otherwise ordinary people. Atheist Nexus has done pretty much everything you can think of to accelerate this process.

The expectations too are fairly clear. What needs to be done is that all discussion and interaction must be dumbed down to a PG-13 level. Criticism of any kind must be discouraged, especially if that criticism involves humour that goes over the whiner's heads, or involves concepts and ideas that demean them by making them feel stupid because they don't know what you are talking about. Similarly, demands for people to provide evidence for outrageous statements are tantamount to assault - you hurt people's feelings by not believing them.

Whether this is the world that we want a|n to be is besides the point: this is the only world that is possible if we are to successfully meet the demands for a "dick free" community.

What it means is that the folks that make this place entertaining - those that push conceptual boundaries in an effort to make people think in ways they have not thought before; those that provide meticulously researched information that dispel accepted preconceptions; those that refuse to buy into accepted memes and are prepared to challenge their validity - all have to go. They do nothing other than foster conflict which breeds resentments and in turn tears.

To a large extent this process of weeding out has been underway successfully for quite some time. Valued contributers have been silently departing in large numbers and it shows in the deterioration of quality content as compared to 18 months ago. Median IQ is plummeting and it's bell curve distribution is shifting markedly to the left. This degradation has had an inverse relationship to the volume and frequency of members bitching about other members. Funny that. It's what usually happens when adults behaving as adults is frowned upon and children squabbling in a sandpit is promoted.

With current site policies and attitudes this will continue until we reach the point where we are a sheltered workshop of bubble wrapped mediocrities that have a list of topics on which there is universal agreement and the most controversial thing to be discussed is the weather or the latest Disney Pixar flick. The site will finally be safe and no one will be offended.


Of course it doesn't have to be this way. All it really takes is for people to stand on their hind legs and grow a spine and a hide. Atheism by its very nature is individualist - by rejecting the supernatural as having dominance over your life means you should be accepting of the fact that the responsibility for your own life lies with you and you alone. The culture of complaint spits on this idea by abdicating autonomy and responsibility and demanding that others be there to deal with all your petty hissy fits and tantrums. The correct, and only, valid response to this should be: "Well screw you pal. If you don't like the party you can leave". However it's not, and we have the mollycoddling that is the source of all our grief.

If there is any will left whatsoever to try and resuscitate this site's dignity and merit, there have to be some pretty radical attitude readjustments. I am pessimistic, we may have passed the point of no return in that it may no longer be possible to entice back those that have already left in disgust. But that's not an excuse not to try. Some of the critical issues are -

Complaint: As it stands, for all complaints the de facto position is that you are guilty as charged - the complaint itself is all the evidence that is required. If you are innocent, the onus is on you to prove your innocence and even if you can there is no guarantee you will be listened to. Of course this assumes you even know what it is that you have been charged with to begin with, and that if any evidence actually exists, it has need not been deleted or tampered with. It's all so Kafkaesque that there is no point in defending yourself anyway.

This has to STOP. And it has to stop IMMEDIATELY. The burden of proof lies entirely on the accuser and the evidence must be of acceptable forensic standard. No more deleting content prior to complaining, thereby destroying the evidence. If it has to be deleted, then follow the same procedures as with email abuse - save the source of the original web page as evidence, that way it will retain all original unique Ning message ID stamps. A screencap WILL NOT suffice - given the level of disgusting behaviour I have witnessed here, the idea of people doctoring a screencap with Photoshop would hardly surprise me. No more concealing the nature and the facts of the complaints from the target either - habeus corpus, you have a right to know who hates you, why they hate you and what evidence there is against you. As it stands, often the target of the complaint is the victim of the actual abuse.

If it is found that a complaint is spurious, exaggerated or entirely fraudulent, then it is the responsibility of a|n to raise the issue with the complainer and take the appropriate action. Fabricating a complaint against another member, regardless of the justification, is not a trivial matter and needs to be acted upon appropriately. Lying about other members should be treated with far greater gravity than common abuse and name calling. Until this situation is seriously addressed, there will be zero confidence in the a|n complaint process.

Nonsense: No more diplomatic immunity for gibberish. Ask a person nicely once to substantiate any suspect claims. If they refuse, ask again. If they refuse again, declare open season on the crank. Drag them into the town square, put them in stocks and pelt them with rotten tomatoes until they promise to not open their mouths until they have verified their facts ever again. What is unfair about this? Why should gibberish mongers be protected from accountability when they bring atheists as a whole into disrepute by spouting unsubstantiated rumour and hearsay? In order to make this tolerance of nonsense acceptable, we need to cease and desist from criticism of creationists too. You can't have it both ways.

Application of Rules: What a no brainer. Either apply all the rules consistently with all members consistently, or don't apply them at all. No more convenience store policing, or worse, selective agenda driven policing. Allow the moderators to actually moderate by allowing them to address the mother of all gripes - violations of rule 9. Sit back and watch the huge volume of other issues vanish if they are allowed to actually do so.

Police the police: This is just basic responsibility. Any and all moderation action MUST be logged along with a copy of any content that is removed and the justification for taking action. Selective and partisan content deletion has been an issue in the past. This is the only way to maintain integrity of the moderation process and to ensure there can be a defense against accusations of bias.

"You do not have the right to not be offended": Don't atheists just love repeating this one over and over at theists? It's quite a different matter when they actually have to apply it to themselves though isn't it? Hypocrites and chickenshits going clackety-clack-clack on the complaint button when someone goes and tramples on *their* petunias. Grow a spine people. No one should have to be told this one, least of all the folks that run this place. And how many pointless complaints does this generate? More importantly, why are they even listened to?

The list by no means ends there, but there is nothing startling about any of it and there's certainly nothing on it that should not be self-evident to anyone who's rational and wants to sit down and think about. The question still remains - is there any will to address any of this? Or do the professional whiners win and the rest of us abandon this sinking ship as a lost cause? My pessimism does not see any kind of light on the horizon. Because what is the point of posting anything here when there is no telling what kind of random idiotic complaint lays waiting - and you are defenseless against it. And if there is no point posting, what is the point of even being here in the first place?


I often wonder what would happen if Christopher Hitchens himself arrived here under a nom de plume? Assuming he could wade past the inanity without immediately recoiling in disgust and proceeded to participate in debate here, it is pretty certain he would get run out of town, leaving a trail of devastated hypersensitive carcasses in his wake. It would happen, I have absolutely no doubt. This is how far this place has degenerated. When the lowest common denominator is elevated to being the benchmark to which everyone has to aspire, anything that is exceptional has to be purged. We are no longer allowed to be adults, we cannot laugh at absurdity and above all else, we cannot criticise. Precious, precious feelings everywhere.

Myself, I was swept in here by chance via StumbleUpon some time in July 2008, liked what I saw and stayed. What I found was a site full of like-minded, freethinking adults, that spoke like adults and behaved like adults, without fear and without restraint. In the early days, the greatest crime you could commit was to be inane or boring. Discussion was no more outrageous than now and no less fiery, yet complaints simply did not exist. Why? Because stupidity was not rewarded, nor was tantrum throwing, nor fabricating offense by twisting words. In fact all of this idiotic behaviour was stomped on and discouraged by the community as a whole. This was the world before D Day, and it was good. There are still pockets here where adults can still be adults without fear and there's no professional victims around around to ruin the party. For a taste of adults being adults and harming no one, you can browse the comment wall in Sacha's no nonsense group and have a taste of what a world is like without the presence of relentless complaint and bitching and fabricated offense of deranged peecee politics. It is a very enjoyable place to be when there are no whining fuckwits around. And I can imagine how much that wall would be ruined and ground to a halt were the a|n general public to witness it.

What it all comes down to is this - why should I (or anyone) invest my time and energy here, gratis, to entertain all of you if all that I get in return is a tiny minority of mediocrities and professional whiners, who themselves contribute nothing, that churn out spurious, unsubstantiated complaints for petty reasons and have no other reason for doing so other than to make everyone else as miserable as themselves? 6 months ago, due to these pointless noise makers, I said I cared less about this place than a year ago. 3 months ago I cared less again. Now I have reached the point that I no longer care at all.

[*] - Rule 9. Do not spam the groups, forums, chat, or other members. Any and all commercial or fraud spam should be reported immediately, using the "report issues" function. The following types of posts may be subject to removal without warning:

1. Web links with no adequate accompanying description or explanation.
2. Embedded media with no adequate accompanying description or explanation.
3. Posts promoting personal websites and projects in inappropriate places. Your own profile is a good place for promoting your endeavors.
4. Repetitious posts.
5. Flooding the forums or groups with several posts in a relatively short period of time.

[**] - for anyone that seems to think this is not an issue, and an extremely nasty one at that, needs to be referred to Larry Carter Center who took a particular comment of mine about the nastiest and most vicious management style I had ever seen as being that of a large software company's all female marketing team and managed to reinterpret it to mean that I think most women that get raped and murdered deserve it anyway so it's no big deal. Larry has long since been banned from this site (for unrelated reasons), and many, many others. In fact, he can't seem to last more than 2 weeks anywhere except facebook without getting booted to the curb. Larry still keeps reposting this twisted bastardry around the place, often refering to me by name, to this day. The salient point is that when he did it here, no one batted an eyelid.

Views: 112

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Welcome back, Felch! As to whether you will care long enough to stick around is, of course, something only you can determine. I'm hoping you do.

These two posts contain an awful lot of information (which is not surprising) and some sorely needed opionation re some of the abominable inanity that has been floated about here like a political hack trying to determine whether to run for office or not. When such trial ballons are not precisely deflated with a well-placed prick, they grow into immense repositories of hot air sucking the life out of the air we breathe.

Well played, sir.
NSC: And when I mentioned Assburgers it was in jest.

Really? Who actually cares? What neurotypicals don't realise is that calling an aspie an "aspie" is kinda stoopid. It's like saying "the sky is blue". Yeah? And? And only an NT could ever be dumb enough to think it would get taken as an insult or be hurtful. So no offense was taken, even if it was meant.

My point in mentioning it is that the peabrain that keeps throwing it at me is both a hypocrite AND an imbecile, because -

a) it is obviously supposed to hurt and that is the intent, and

b) it usually gets accompanied with accusations of my supposed ad hominems and other war crimes, and

c) the dick police never, ever say a word about it. There are no points to be scored defending me.

I think his choice of avatar is a throwback to grade school when he used to stick crayons up his nose.
All this talk about dicks is making me think of Team America: "the world is made up of dicks, pussies and assholes..."
Felch welcome back, I hope you choose to continue to stay, and thank you for a very compelling post.

When you are speaking of "isms", I think what people have to get past is the concept that 'isms' themselves are sacred vehicles. From what I have seen, nothing is sacred, let me repeat that "nothing is sacred", no idea is so innate, so full of truth that it is or should be immune from criticism, even ones of our own making. Ideas from what I see are all creations or observations of a human mind, and can carry similar mental baggage. If you have an idea that is so sacred or immune from criticism that you cannot participate in meaningful conversation around it, then you have probably crossed that line into dogma and faith.

After reading your lovely essay I also felt that there are some points which frankly bear repeating.

Atheists are made from the same clay as everyone else, and have the same distribution of virtues and flaws as the rest of the planet.

The evidence is overwhelming that, as I said earlier, critical thinking is neither an expectation nor a requirement here, and in fact over-vigorous application of critical thinking can constitute harrassment, bullying and worse.

"You do not have the right to not be offended": Don't atheists just love repeating this one over and over at theists? It's quite a different matter when they actually have to apply it to themselves though isn't it?

The question I think at its heart is what standards should we hold A|N members too, and what standards are reasonable to expect them to hold themselves to (both are equally important in my opinion). Are we going to be like almost every other place online and simply delete or ignore what we don't want to hear, post garbage after garbage and end up filling the site with noise rather then content.

I personally would like A|N to be about the ideas and the community (people) which drives them. That we (royal) can find the nuggets of insight that help make us all better humans at the end of the day. I still think A|N could be that place, a harbour for those who wish to understand not only themselves but the world better.

One of the reasons I stay is frankly because of what I see as the core members of A|N. Sadly as you have said some of whom have recently quietly left for other areas of the internet. A|N for a while now has primarily been my oasis, my reality break, a place where I feel/felt I could speak my mind without fear. A|N has been an evolution for me (and still is), at no point since high-school have I been forced to reconsider things which for me were deeply held ideas or beliefs. It is even one of the few places online where I consistently make a monthly donation to help keep the site up and alive. I value things which challenge my perceptions and mental content, within reason mind you, somethings are just not worth considering without better evidence.

I still think this site is important and I always hoped that people were getting similar things out of A|N that I was. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case, in fact the worst thing I can say about A|N right now is that in certain groups and areas it is beginning to look a lot more like the content light I get from FB. Still if I was to pick anyplace I would rather be online, A|N is still the top of the list. It is still one of the few places where I will actually post content on the internet in general.

Thank you again Felch, and while some might not appreciate what you bring to A|N, I for one feel the site would be poorer without your participation.
Welcome back, my dear.

I could not agree more. I fear that A|N has indeed turned into a place of no return. For now, with our small pockets of rationality, it is still a place that I want to spend time, but the pockets are becoming smaller and smaller, and the amount of time I want to spend here, is decreasing as well. Those of us who feel the same as you are being shut out, and silenced, and far too many have left in exasperation.

I, for one would be much happier with a small site full of solid content, and vigorous discussions from those who are interesting, well read, critical thinkers, who research and fact-check the subjects they post about, those who are respectful without being peecee eggshell walkers, and those with a backbone, a watertight hide, a strong sense of humour, and the ability to admit when one turns out to be wrong, or has fallen into a logical fallacy. A strong group of people like that would be able to police the small site themselves, and the majority of the minority of people like that here, do donate, so I think, perhaps a small site would be able to sustain itself, until discussions were made in regards to how to proceed with keeping the site afloat.

I'm not interested in being a part of the largest atheist site, I want quality, my people are not followers, an enormous site does nothing for me. It just reduces the percentage of excellence.

I don't want to have to tip toe around everyone's feelings, and I do not feel the need to be inclusive to anyone who thinks of themselves as an atheist. I don't want to waste my time having to wade through gibberish, whining, spam, tired one-liners, and idiotic postings. The professional victims are now running this site, and I haven't one shred of sympathy for them. Those who feel the need to be the centre of attention by pouting and whining and pointing fingers would have been gone long ago had it been up to me. I have no desire to have children, let alone deal with that behaviour from adults online. No one should have to deal with them, and the fact that they have been coddled and given the attention and sympathy they crave, has only made them louder, in many more places, and far more annoying. It has also reduced the type of content I look forward to reading.

I want a place where that is not acceptable, and is not tolerated. Let me make it clear that this does not mean I want a site full of everyone agreeing on every topic. I want to learn new things, I want to challenge myself, I want to realise half way through a discussion that I have been wrong about something, or did not think of it the way it is presented, or see a new angle that I had never thought of. I want to laugh, and I want to think. I want discussions that cause me to research the subject even more because I found it so interesting. Of course no site can possibly be that all of the time, but I want a place that is conducive to that. A|N no longer is that place. We have it pretty good over at No Nonsense, (although it could be even better) but I fear that it won't last.

As it is, I truly miss a handful of fabulous contributors, who have left in sheer frustration. There aren't many I consider to be far above the rest, so when they leave, I find myself mourning the loss, and furious at those who caused them to leave, and in turn furious at the way the site is being run, furious that it was allowed to happen, even after those reasons were brought up again and again and again, in an effort to remedy them, long before they left, but the pleas were ignored. It is difficult to thoroughly enjoy myself, even when I am in a (fairly) safe pocket, because of the anger at what the rest of A|N has become, and what is encouraged.
And wouldn't you know it, to coincide with this post, here is a perfect textbook sample -

The “Historical Jesus” is a Sideshow

From the author's comments -

Glen, I suppose that you were referring to the comment I deleted. I met up with him one other time on my blog, when he was using a different name. It is creepy that he seeks me out when he has made so clear that he just hates me. I prefer to spend my time with friends.

The comments that were deleted were ones that disputed basic assumptions in the post. Note the method employed - deliberately confusing the man and the ball and playing the victim card. This is as perfect an example of professional victimhood as you can hope to see here -

a) Insinuating a person is stalking you. Guaranteed to be a successful
whine that admins will listen to. Also blatantly false and incredibly
vain in assuming you are worth stalking.

b) Insinuating a person hates you because they make comments that
refute points in your post and therefore are negative in terms of
promotional value to your blog.

b) Deleting those comments because it's your "right" to do so, instead
of addressing the points raised.

I know the critic/"stalker" in question and I find it insulting that this member would want to create a fabricated demon out of him purely on the basis that he won't enthusiastically agree with them. I do know that he is probably far more of a biblical scholar than the poster will ever hope to be, and that he doesn't specifically notice the poster as is insinuated (by claiming he hates and stalks them), but he DOES notice sloppy scholarship. If the poster repeatedly writes material that is erroneous or just plain fabricated, he will also keep noticing it - so the personal focus (ie. "stalking") is irrelevant.

The poster is out of habit playing victim and overestimating their own importance. If they seriously wanted the "stalking" to stop, I would suggest spending a lot more time validating and referencing what they say so they can counterpoint the "stalkers" arguments instead of just curling up into a ball and inventing stories that they are being picked on.

It should also be noted that this poster immediately deleted my comments highlighting all this too.

This is precisely the kind of behaviour this site is inviting. And as a side issue, if you carefully read the actual blog entry, it is little more than a piece of spam to promote the poster's book to begin with.
Now if she would remove the statement from her blog post ...
Diana Agorio is simply promoting her book. She will not even allow comments on her post except by people who have read her book and her blog (and who also agree with her).

Really? Because I've never read her book or her website and have not been deleted from her blog.

I'm guessing Matt VDB has not read her book either. He vehemently disagrees with her position and yet his comments remain on the blog, intact, and addressed in civil conversation by Diana. All this days before the deleted-comments-in-question were posted and deleted.

And I for one am grateful some of the authors here have let us know what they write and where to find their books. I have thoroughly enjoyed Don Bredes' and Stephen Goldin's work and as a bonus, I get to support Atheist authors.

I agree that people who come here to drive-by-spam us with "Buy my shit" is rude, annoying, and shouldn't be tolerated. But I myself have no problem with participating members letting us know they have a product on the shelves.
I am still trying to figure out who Al-Kadim is.
Lisa-Kadim's brother?
I know the critic/"stalker" in question and I find it insulting that this member would want to create a fabricated demon out of him purely on the basis that he won't enthusiastically agree with them.

And I find it insulting that you would jump to this conclusion. For if it were true, then please explain why there are other comments on the same blog that enthusiastically disagree with the position of the blog/author and those comments have not been deleted. But rather, the author addressed and engaged the poster.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon


Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service