|
Marco Bertschi wrote: Religious discussions are not allowed in the Lounge
Since when is stating a fact a discussion?
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
Manfred R. Bihy wrote: Since when is stating a fact a discussion?
The existence of god is not proven, but so is his inexistence.
Religion and any facts about it (and god, his existence or inexistence) are being discussed on the internet. I don't see it as a fact, it maybe was a rather bad attempt of a joke by Nicholas.
|
|
|
|
|
Marco Bertschi wrote: The existence of god is not proven, but so is his inexistence.
I like a quote that says:
Who believes needs no explanation, who don't believe wants no explanation
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
4. No politics (including enviro-politics[^]), no sex, no religion. This is a community for software development. There are plenty of other sites that are far more appropriate for these discussions. Or if you must, use the Back Room[^] - but enter at your own risk.
Religious topics are forbidden in the Lounge, and therefore we need to expand the list a bit:
Nicholas[^]
Muhammad[^]
Muhammad[^]
I could list a lot of more posts where you throw around religious things in the Lounge, which is a clear violation of the Lounge rules. I know that you most likely didn't wanted to violate the rules, but we are Software Developers, and not priests. If you must talk about religion you may get offended, something that happens very often when it comes to religion.
I don't want to say that Nicholas' post was appropriate or intelligent, nor not violating the rules. What I'm calling out is that you have violated the rules first, and this has nothing to do with religion. In the end, we should report both of you for being abusive and not following the rules, but since both of you are Lounge regulars this wouldn't bring any benefit - Both of you two need to behave and follow the rules, as everyone else on this site must.
|
|
|
|
|
Get a grip already!
Nicholas merely stated a fact, which can hardly be considered religious.
The other stuff on the other hand ...
Just my two cents!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
Manfred R. Bihy wrote: Just my two cents!
You are of course entitled to your own opinion.
What I wanted to state in my post above is that if Muhammad wants Nicholas' post reported as abuse, we'd also need to report Muhammad's posts about religion.
By the way, this has absolutely nothing to do with my protector status; You can't discuss the existence of god without having a borderline religious touch in it. I know that I may be on the radar because of my protector status, but I don't have any moderation ability in the Forums, and therefore what I said is my personal opinion on the topic, and not any protector fanciness.
Me: I could list a lot of more posts where you throw around religious things in the Lounge, which is a clear violation of the Lounge rules. [...] If you must talk about religion you may get offended, something that happens very often when it comes to religion. [...] In the end, we should report both of you for being abusive and not following the rules, but since both of you are Lounge regulars this wouldn't bring any benefit - Both of you two need to behave and follow the rules, as everyone else on this site must.
In the end, Nicholas post stays discussable, but I still think he would've been better of not posting it.
|
|
|
|
|
I was mereley making a little joke (note the smiley at the end of my post)
It was not my intention to make fun of any religion. I just saw a small opportunity and didn't think anyone on this site would be seriously offended by it. And it was not my intention to discuss religion.
(Besides I neither started that discussion and wouldn't have continued it)
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Marty wrote: I was mereley making a little joke (note the smiley at the end of my post)
That's what I thought, too - But there is a joke icon which should be used for jokes, it's there for a reason.
See, I personally don't mind your joke, nor do I mind Mohammad's posts. But Chris has banned religious stuff from the Lounge for a reason, and we shall play nice and follow these rules.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I should have used the joke icon (yet I always forget changing that  )
I thought the smily at the end would make it clear enough that it was a little joke. And yeah... Might have been best to have skipped posting that. But you don't really think about negative effects when you mean something as a joke. And beeing on a more technical oriented site I (obviously wrongly) assumed that it wouldn't really offend anyone to write something like that.
But still I feel like people are overreacting here a little...
And only because there are some general Lounge Roules doesn't mean they should be really applied to every single word or post (Take a look at rule #7 How many posts would need to be removed or reported as abusive for criticising the grammar or spelling of another member? Maybe this one[^]? Don't take me wrong I'm not perfect but currently you're pretty quick in judging others...)
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Marty wrote: I (obviously wrongly) assumed that it wouldn't really offend anyone to write something like that.
It didn't affect the majority of people here, but then again: CM banned religion for a good reason from the Lounge suitable topics list.
Nicholas Marty wrote: But still I feel like people are overreacting here a little...
Reporting it was clearly an overreaction, and that's why I said that IF Mohammad wants to really have you reported he should be reported, too.
Nicholas Marty wrote: And only because there are some general Lounge Roules doesn't mean they should be really applied to every single word or post (Take a look at rule #7 How many posts would need to be removed or reported as abusive for criticising the grammar or spelling of another member? Maybe this one[^]?
You are right there, but I try to follow the rules as close as possible - Imagine what happens if we wouldn't -> pure chaos.
There are rules which may "not be applied in every case", but religion belonging to the soapbox or the backdoor is one of the rules which shall be applied word by word, at least in my opinion. Again, I'm talking from my POV, and not as protector.
Nicholas Marty wrote: Don't take me wrong I'm not perfect but currently you're pretty quick in judging others...)
I always said that the Lounge rules shall be applied to everyone, and not only new members. The regulars are not supposed to do whatever they want, and if it happens that I accidentaly violate a rule I'm open to modify a post or remove it if someone feels offended or can tell me why I violated a certain rule.
I never liked some of the regulars advertising their new book, or online shop, and still stick with my opinion that these posts shall be handled as spam post (I guess I posted about that in the Lounge before, but can't find the post right now - Whatsoever, that I see a need of following the rules on here is nothing new, and I stated this opinion already before I became a protector - Versus some on here may now think that they "see" a connection to this new role).
|
|
|
|
|
Marco Bertschi wrote: You are right there, but I try to follow the rules as close as possible
So do I, but I don't recite those rules every evening or read them everytime I post something. It can happen (probably to other members too) that I might forget a little bit of those rules sometimes  (And it really wasn't meant to start a religious discussion)
Marco Bertschi wrote: I never liked some of the regulars advertising their new book, or online shop, and still stick with my opinion that these posts shall be handled as spam post
Also I don't really mind regulars (or even non-regulars) advertising their book in the lounge a bit. I see that they are happy to have accomplished writing a book and having it published and want to share their joy (As long as it isn't spam only). Also I don't mind having links to books or personal blogs websites etc. in their signature... That's my opinion though. I understand that others might see it as spam.
I didn't meant to relate that with your protector status. I meant with currently that it's just the way I see it at the moment (regardless of since when). But it's like you analyse a post and mark it for you with "good" or "bad". That's just how I feel about the responses I read from you. Leave some room for discussion and acceptance for others beliefs and thoughts (see rule #1)  (But that's just a bit of advice from my part, take it or leave it, that's up to you )
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Marty wrote: but I don't recite those rules every evening or read them everytime I post something
Neither do I, but the religion stuff got somehow stuck in my mind.
Nicholas Marty wrote: I see that they are happy to have accomplished writing a book and having it published and want to share their joy
is different to
Nicholas Marty wrote: As long as it isn't spam only
Nicholas Marty wrote: I didn't meant to relate that with your protector status.
That was a side-poke to Manfred, who did
Nicholas Marty wrote: But it's like you analyse a post and mark it for you with "good" or "bad". That's just how I feel about the responses I read from you.
And I am entitled to do so. I didn't really analyze it, but I've seen previous posts where religion was involved (not in first place, but it was involved) where the whole thing ended up in tears.
Nicholas Marty wrote: Leave some room for discussion and acceptance for others beliefs and thoughts (see rule #1)
I accept your post as a joke, my point was merely that IF Mohammad want your post to be classified as abusive his own posts are abusive, too. He can't accuse you of being abusive while he violates the lounge rules himself.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. No offense was intended...
I was merely making a little joke to express my feelings about that topic. 
I never expected that anyone would take it THAT serious...
I'm sorry if I offended you with that post 
|
|
|
|
|
It was not acceptable. This is the core of our religion and no one should joke about it
|
|
|
|
|
I can't do any more than apologize for it
|
|
|
|
|
I love this sort of argument: "I believe X, therefore it's not acceptable to joke about it". 
I believe that blondes are intelligent. Should I complain about the jokes that were posted yesterday?
Hey, you'd better not post any jokes about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in case it offends me.
Once we accept that any single topic cannot be the subject of a joke, then it's only a matter of time until all jokes are forbidden.
And if your belief system is so fragile it can't handle a little gentle ribbing, then the internet really isn't the place to be.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
modified 18-Feb-14 8:27am.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: a little gently ribbing
Juvenile snicker, fnerr fnerr.
|
|
|
|
|
And he has apologised.
Please accept his apology and move on.
|
|
|
|
|
And as he's stated there is no God, do you think that only you get the privilege of being offended? What about Jews and Christians?
|
|
|
|
|
I was representing myself, if you feel offended report him too
|
|
|
|
|
No, you said it was abusive for all muslims, not just for yourself. Personally, I'm not offended - he's as entitled to his opinion as you are to yours. Where the stupidity (yes, I used the word stupid there) occurs was in bringing religion into the lounge in the first place. The lounge is deliberately off limits for religious and political topics because they are too emotive and people get all stupid about these topics.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: he's as entitled to his opinion as you are to yours
Not when he offend me it is not acceptable. everything he say will be judge on on the after life I'm just advising him by proof the to right path
|
|
|
|
|
Mohamad M. Mohamad wrote: everything he say will be judge on on the after life
Then that is his issue, not yours.
Mohamad M. Mohamad wrote: I'm just advising him by proof the to right path
No, you are advising him based on your belief system. Catholics think theirs is the right path. Protestants think theirs is the right path. Jews think theirs is the right path. Coptic Christians think theirs is the right path. And so on. Each group has their own belief system. And this is why it's stupid to argue about religion - rather than argue about it why not try to lead by example?
|
|
|
|
|
Mohamad M. Mohamad wrote: everything he say will be judge on on the after life I'm just advising him by proof the to right path
No, you are continuing mixing religion in the discussion, and that's the original point where all started.
As I said in other message: Who believes needs no explanation, who don't believe wants no explanation.
This thema is a do {...} while (1), a.k.a. an endless loop.
As Chris Maunder said, he has apoligized, accept it as a mature person and and do what every religion in the world encourage: forgive him and continue living your life in peace.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
What about me? he's denying I, the love god exists.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
