> F%ck$$%$ google bot told me that too many posts had occured for it to > take my post...like three hours after I posted. WTF?
I had the same problem. I'm not sure what's going on. It seems to have resolved itself. If there are any other problems I'll see if I can find someone responsible for it.
> THEN, the post I put up to complain didn't get put up.
> Wassup dawg? I came back to Rome crumbling.
> Do you do this to punish me for actions in a past life...cause I'm > sure you believe in those? =)
> Has Oldman started hitting the bottle before he mods?
Not that I know of. But I've been known to take a few swigs myself ;)
> Are you multitasking your posting time with monitoring electrons > mating in captivity?
On May 6, 10:11 am, randomthought <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have been informed that this is actually a forum for ex-Christians. > Is this correct?
> Cheers.
We've recently discovered that atheists can be Christians so we're all a little confused right now. Just keep your head down and you'll make it out of here alive soldier.
On May 6, 9:11 am, randomthought <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have been informed that this is actually a forum for ex-Christians. > Is this correct?
> Cheers.
Most of the participants are atheist, and many were once members of Christian churches. But it is not a forum just for them.
The description for this forum as found in "About this Group" is "Place to debate all the common issues regarding Atheism, Christianity, and Philosophy / Religion in general. The only moderation imposed is upon spam."
I think they should be there, but someone needs to step up and put in the counter-points to the arguments that are there. I personally didn't put them there (i really just made this sticky about it), but the arguments are gone over so often on this group that it's nice to have them linked.
On May 8, 7:42 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
It would be nice if original notes for any given topic would not simply disappear after a certain number of responses. In this way, debates could continue on the intented subject thrown out for discussion and not get lost in some small talks after a while.
On May 9, 4:23 pm, Kutte <Kurtortm...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> rappoccio,
> It would be nice if original notes for any given topic would not > simply disappear after a certain number of responses. In this way, > debates could continue on the intented subject thrown out for > discussion and not get lost in some small talks after a while.
> Kutte
It is the nature of a discussion group like this that threads eventually migrate down in the list as fewer people respond to them. But they never 'go away', although they will move off the first page. If you sort by 'Latest Message' rather than 'First Message' the active threads will stay at the top no matter how old they are.
> On May 9, 4:23 pm, Kutte <Kurtortm...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > rappoccio,
> > It would be nice if original notes for any given topic would not > > simply disappear after a certain number of responses. In this way, > > debates could continue on the intented subject thrown out for > > discussion and not get lost in some small talks after a while.
> > Kutte
> It is the nature of a discussion group like this that threads > eventually migrate down in the list as fewer people respond to them. > But they never 'go away', although they will move off the first page. > If you sort by 'Latest Message' rather than 'First Message' the active > threads will stay at the top no matter how old they are.
> It would be nice if original notes for any given topic would not > simply disappear after a certain number of responses. In this way, > debates could continue on the intented subject thrown out for > discussion and not get lost in some small talks after a while.
> On May 9, 8:13 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 9, 10:33 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote: > > > On May 9, 4:58 pm, "thedevil...@hotmail.com" <thedevil...@hotmail.com> > > > wrote:
> > > > Is that really what he was saying? I can't understand how someone > > > > could not have figured that out.
> > > I don't know, but that is what it appeared like to me.
> > > > Wait, does Kutte assume: > > > > (1) That the amount of responses makes a thread disappear? > > > > and > > > > (2) That you guys work for Google?
> > > And well paid we are, NOT! ;-)
> > Is that a "not" joke? That jacket is NOT black :)-
> No, it's just something I picked up from my kids. It's a way of > saying we are not well paid.
I know, I was making a reference to the movie "Borat". I recommend it, it was beyond hysterical.
On May 8, 8:42 pm, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One note about the FAQ, I think it should contain only defenitions and > not arguments.
S: The FAQ is an eye-sore. I don't think one large FAQ document is maintainable. I think members will be more likely to contribute to a series of smaller pages?
Random, or anyone, feel free to take the common arguments out of the FAQ and put them into a separate document. You can place a link in the FAQ to each argument.
There are plenty of resources out there to help people summarize the main arguments. Perhaps we should just direct new members to http://www.philosophyofreligion.info?
I think we ought to encourage members to write articles like OldMan's resurrection article. It will add to the value of the group.
I would love to have the time to go through rappaccio's and DDG's posts and just have a best of AvC page ;-). Perhaps we ought to start a "post of the month" page, not too dissimilar to www.talkorigins.org?
Having spent the last few days on this forum I have made a few observations...
(1) There are not 2900 active members. It think 20 would be a more realistic estimate.
(2) Most of those 20 are atheists.
(3) They have no intention of ever changing their mind on the subject. They just want to sling crap at you.
(4) Granted, it is likely you also never intend to change your mind, which is a good thing, but you will gain nothing by associating with infidels. The Bible teaches us that our relationships should not be unequally yoked. Does this not also apply to our friendships, and to the discussion forums we frequent?
As such, I would strongly urge you, and will make it a matter of prayer, that you will all leave this forum.
Without the Christians here to chastise, this forum will die a quick death. Either that, or it will just remain as a handful of atheist who sit around patting each other on the back.
I have written to each of you personally, and pray that you will take the appropriate action.
> On May 8, 8:42 pm, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One note about the FAQ, I think it should contain only defenitions and > > not arguments.
> S: The FAQ is an eye-sore. I don't think one large FAQ document is > maintainable. I think members will be more likely to contribute to a > series of smaller pages?
> Random, or anyone, feel free to take the common arguments out of the > FAQ and put them into a separate document. You can place a link in the > FAQ to each argument.
> There are plenty of resources out there to help people summarize the > main arguments. Perhaps we should just direct new members tohttp://www.philosophyofreligion.info?
> I think we ought to encourage members to write articles like OldMan's > resurrection article. It will add to the value of the group.
> I would love to have the time to go through rappaccio's and DDG's > posts and just have a best of AvC page ;-). Perhaps we ought to start > a "post of the month" page, not too dissimilar towww.talkorigins.org?
> > On Apr 19, 10:57 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Please be sure to read the group's Frequently Asked Questions, and > > > feel free to contribute:
|
