[iNow]

mooeypoo said:

when tangents are too far off the original subject, we split it off to continue a side-discussion.

Except in this case, apparently.

mooeypoo said:

But when discussions veer off to make a point that is valid to the general picture of the original debate (as was done here), then there's no need to split the posts.

No, again... As conceded above by Mr.Skeptic, that is NOT what happened here.

mooeypoo said:

The tangent might be slightly off topic, but it's valid.

<...>

"Off topic" doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing. It sometimes *contributes* to a thread.

It was little more than a personal attack based on a complete misreading/miscomprehension of the thread. I couldn't disagree more with what you've decided, wonder how you could possibly suggest that what just happened "contributed" to the thread and helped the topic, and I am frustrated by the lack of support here from you guys after an obvious attack on me by Mr.Skeptic, but whatever. I'm the bad guy.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

iNow said:

It was little more than a personal attack based on a complete misreading/miscomprehension of the thread. I couldn't disagree more with what you've decided, wonder how you could possibly suggest that what just happened "contributed" to the thread and helped the topic, and I am frustrated by the lack of support here from you guys after an obvious attack on me by Mr.Skeptic, but whatever. I'm the bad guy.

Oh hush. You're both the bad guys here. I am not pleased with the behavior on both sides of the discussion, but your particular manner of responding to a problem with a bigger problem is not something I am fond of.

Now, I have removed posts 155-160, the posts that were originally the "turds." The ones left behind are non-turd. If Mr Skeptic believes their points are better made in a separate thread, he can open a thread to make them. (In fact, I suggest he do that.) At this point splitting the existing posts will just split the anger off into its own thread, and that's not fair for the topic -- I think Skeptic and Tar have some good points that are worth discussion.

Also, a word of future advice: if you don't think a post is on topic, don't respond to it and drag things further off topic.

If you insist on continuing to drag your own thread off topic by arguing with me about who's the bad guy, we will be forced to close it.

[iNow]

Cap said:

If you insist on continuing to drag your own thread off topic by arguing with me about who's the bad guy, we will be forced to close it.

Frankly, it doesn't much matter any more. You have shown how little respect you have for the topic under discussion... a topic which I've been nourishing and carefully protecting from emotion and misrepresentation these past 8 months... and worse, how little respect you seem to have for me.

It's not even about Mr.Skeptic miscomprehending the thread. He didn't even bother reading it before launching into an attack about how I was treating religious people. It was only after I stood my ground and forced him to go back and review the thread that he conceded he was way out of line and his comments had absolutely zero to do with the discussion taking place in this thread... And the claims from you and Moo that his comments were on-topic are wholly inaccurate.

I put a lot of effort into this thread, and I'm just pissed off that none of you seem to even understand what it's about, or care how much consideration I've put into avoiding the "god" and "religion" topic while still addressing the science of belief.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You will note that we removed the attacks by Mr Skeptic. As for attacking religious people, well, there is far more to his argument that just that.

Lessons learned from this thread:

• Responding to what you think is trolling or flaming with more trolling or flaming only makes things worse.
  
• Post reports are always read promptly and discussed by the staff. In-thread demands are unnecessary and just make things worse.
  
• Arguing with staff derails things even more. The thread was basically fine after Tar's posts.
  
• Nobody owns a discussion.

That will be all for now.