Brian Wrote: For what it is wiorth, I'm glad fls has joined as I find her refreshingly tolerant of other peoples views and I have no idea why many proponents think her the devil incarnate. Maybe she produces cognitive dissonance in some people?
(8 hours ago)Brian Wrote: Wrote:Lots of passion from all sides. Maybe it's more worthy to discuss issues instead of attacking people?
(1 hour ago)Brian Wrote: Wrote:Oh my god I'm out of here. It's been not only hijacked but ruddy Pssst has joined in with his dogmatic New Age BS! I want him to F-off to a new age forum somewhere where his diatribe will be appreciated better!!!
heh
And I spout bullshit?
heh
(2017-09-21, 05:10 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Super. I'll wait maybe a day to see whether there are any serious objections and if not will edit them into the rules and restore Max_B's original posts which I'd censored.
Both done (it's been well over a day now and nobody has complained about the proposed additions to the rules).
(2017-09-21, 05:10 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Good idea. Let's wait until we've finalised this one first though, because it would be challenging to try to follow and sum up two of these sort of threads at once (or maybe I just suck at multitasking!).
I don't have the energy at the moment to start that thread (on what qualifies as a "personal attack" and when moderators should intervene based on same). If anybody else wants to: please go for it, otherwise I'll get onto it when I have the energy.
Perhaps we also need to add a clarification on doxxing to the rules too. Will maybe propose something later; in the meantime, again, if anybody else wants to do that, either in this thread or in a new thread, please go for it!
(2017-09-23, 10:07 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]The forum software doesn't seem to be working properly but this is in reply to Kamarling's post
Pssst is a different kettle of fish. He states far out opinions in a manner similar to a religious fundamentalist and then refuses to give evidence when asked. He is making a mockery of this forum and your mockery of me is trolling!
I think the policy is toleration of everyone at the moment. What I would like to know is, why did Kamarling get 3 likes for copying 3 of your posts when I only got one for a dozen posts debating with Chuck.
I don't think people should be judged by their avatar's appearance.
(2017-09-23, 11:54 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think people should be judged by their avatar's appearance.
Isn't that the sole reason for using them?
(2017-09-23, 11:37 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]I was thinking that you didn't get likes because everybody drooled over Chuck. Kamarling looks a bit too stoney faced. Perhaps he chose the right avatar?
"Kamarling looks a bit too stoney faced."
I always sort of think I must have offended him some time back because he hasn't spoken to me in years even though I always give him likes. It doesn't worry me I'm just curious. It's the only thing me and Linda have in common
(2017-09-23, 01:53 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]"Kamarling looks a bit too stoney faced."
I always sort of think I must have offended him some time back because he hasn't spoken to me in years even though I always give him likes. It doesn't worry me I'm just curious. It's the only thing me and Linda have in common
No Tim - I mostly agree with your posts but don't have much to add because you concentrate on the NDE stuff which you have clearly spent a lot of time and effort researching, so you are able to cover the responses better than I could. I also share your frustration when you go to the trouble of checking with sources only to be met with nit-picking which reduces the discussion to an argument about the trivial minutiae and loses sight of the big picture. On the other hand, I understand why people want to see the evidence challenged - as long as the challenge is an honest one. Sometimes I'm not so sure about that.
As for my avatar, my name is David so I chose the Michelangelo David. Blame Michelangelo if I look stoney faced.
