<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How Should Atheist Bloggers Treat Religious Readers?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/11/20/how-should-atheist-bloggers-treat-religious-readers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/11/20/how-should-atheist-bloggers-treat-religious-readers/</link>
	<description>by Hemant Mehta</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 11:22:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Wade</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/11/20/how-should-atheist-bloggers-treat-religious-readers/#comment-399059</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Wade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:37:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=18422#comment-399059</guid>
		<description>Philoctetes,
I was not singling you out, and your point was well stated. I concur with you that  deliberate proselytizing in any direction should be avoided, so we are both making the same statement. I find any kind of proselytizing at best distasteful, and at worst destructive. 

If someone wants to change their religious beliefs, that&#039;s none of my business. I won&#039;t encourage or discourage it. If they are in pain because of that process, I will do what little I can to reduce their suffering, but which way they go is up to them.

Thank you for stating so clearly that online cruelty  is wrong simply because it hurts others, not because it reduces the chances of deconversion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Philoctetes,<br />
I was not singling you out, and your point was well stated. I concur with you that  deliberate proselytizing in any direction should be avoided, so we are both making the same statement. I find any kind of proselytizing at best distasteful, and at worst destructive. </p>
<p>If someone wants to change their religious beliefs, that&#8217;s none of my business. I won&#8217;t encourage or discourage it. If they are in pain because of that process, I will do what little I can to reduce their suffering, but which way they go is up to them.</p>
<p>Thank you for stating so clearly that online cruelty  is wrong simply because it hurts others, not because it reduces the chances of deconversion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philoctetes</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/11/20/how-should-atheist-bloggers-treat-religious-readers/#comment-398976</link>
		<dc:creator>Philoctetes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:15:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=18422#comment-398976</guid>
		<description>Richard Wade, the point I must have made imperfectly was that I am against proselytisaton.  Many of the comments about Greta&#039;s article appear to support being decent to theists visiting the site in order to convert them.

Now, upon reading Greta&#039;s article again, I find those elements there as well.  I don&#039;t want to overload this comment with quotes, but here is one that is telling.

&lt;blockquote&gt;Today&#039;s defenders of the faith are tomorrow&#039;s die-hard atheists. Some of them, anyway.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I agree 100% that we should be civil and welcoming to everyone without ulterior motive.  

The problem I see in non face-to-face communication is that there are no consequences for the diatribe.  Since it is more entertaining to tear somebody a new one rather than engaging them, that&#039;s what people do.  But that behavior is wrong because it hurts others, not because it drives theists from rationality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard Wade, the point I must have made imperfectly was that I am against proselytisaton.  Many of the comments about Greta&#8217;s article appear to support being decent to theists visiting the site in order to convert them.</p>
<p>Now, upon reading Greta&#8217;s article again, I find those elements there as well.  I don&#8217;t want to overload this comment with quotes, but here is one that is telling.</p>
<blockquote><p>Today&#8217;s defenders of the faith are tomorrow&#8217;s die-hard atheists. Some of them, anyway.</p></blockquote>
<p>I agree 100% that we should be civil and welcoming to everyone without ulterior motive.  </p>
<p>The problem I see in non face-to-face communication is that there are no consequences for the diatribe.  Since it is more entertaining to tear somebody a new one rather than engaging them, that&#8217;s what people do.  But that behavior is wrong because it hurts others, not because it drives theists from rationality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/11/20/how-should-atheist-bloggers-treat-religious-readers/#comment-398934</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:05:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=18422#comment-398934</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;WWRWD?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

We should get tee-shirts made.

I may be mistaken, but I think Richard once cured a leper.  ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>WWRWD?</p></blockquote>
<p>We should get tee-shirts made.</p>
<p>I may be mistaken, but I think Richard once cured a leper.  <img src='http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Wade</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/11/20/how-should-atheist-bloggers-treat-religious-readers/#comment-398933</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Wade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:57:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=18422#comment-398933</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;WWRWD?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Oh dear, I’m in trouble now. ;)

Greta’s full article on her site clearly states that she realizes that only some of the Christians who visit an atheist blog are transitioning toward atheism, and she has further clarified that in her comment here.  

I fully agree with her description of how Christians should be treated on atheist blogs: being patient, being careful to argue about ideas and beliefs without insulting their person, not treating them like they’re stupid, empathizing with them, and various other expressions of simple decency.

Most of the commenters here have expressed their own ethic of treating such people with courtesy and civility, and that is very encouraging. 

I’m a little afraid that some readers, if they don’t deeply read Greta’s intentions,  will come away thinking that the reason that atheist bloggers should treat Christians decently is so that they can be coaxed toward atheism.  That outcome might be more likely with civility and compassion, but it should not be the purpose.  That has never been my motive, and I think it is not a good idea for anyone to adopt that goal as their motive for treating people respectfully.  It would contradict respect to have an agenda for respectful treatment.  It would be tainted by disingenuousness. Treat &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; people respectfully, regardless.  


I only wish to clarify what I think the motive should be for treating people respectfully, regardless of whether you respect or agree with their beliefs:

.

&lt;strong&gt;There should be no motive at all.&lt;/strong&gt;

. 

I do my very best to treat people respectfully, with compassion, honesty, equality, and open-mindedness, PERIOD. There is no outside reason why, no “because” that is connected with my mood, my feelings or my circumstances, OR their motives, behavior or circumstances.  

If I base my ethical treatment of others on a “because,” then there will always be another “because” to justify treating them &lt;strong&gt;un&lt;/strong&gt;ethically. If I base my treatment of them on &lt;em&gt;their&lt;/em&gt; behavior, then I am being reactionary only, having no solid ethical principles of my own. I would be like a chameleon or a mirror, having no color of my own, only reflecting whatever is around me.  Then, if I was surrounded by unkind people, I would only be adding my own unkindness to the scene. I want better than that. 

Make no mistake, I can fight back against rude treatment of me, and fight against cruel treatment of others, and I do.  But I can still do that within my ethical boundaries.  If necessary, I can seriously kick their asses, respectfully. 

Do I fail? Of course. Some people really get under my skin, especially those with deeply disingenuous agendas of their own.   But I only consider the statement, “I’m only human” to be an explanation for my failure, &lt;em&gt;not an excuse.&lt;/em&gt;  I have to clean up my act every time I tarnish it.  I have to afford myself the same compassionate and respectful treatment that I hope to give to others.  So I respectfully kick my own ass, forgive myself, and try again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>WWRWD?</p></blockquote>
<p>Oh dear, I’m in trouble now. <img src='http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Greta’s full article on her site clearly states that she realizes that only some of the Christians who visit an atheist blog are transitioning toward atheism, and she has further clarified that in her comment here.  </p>
<p>I fully agree with her description of how Christians should be treated on atheist blogs: being patient, being careful to argue about ideas and beliefs without insulting their person, not treating them like they’re stupid, empathizing with them, and various other expressions of simple decency.</p>
<p>Most of the commenters here have expressed their own ethic of treating such people with courtesy and civility, and that is very encouraging. </p>
<p>I’m a little afraid that some readers, if they don’t deeply read Greta’s intentions,  will come away thinking that the reason that atheist bloggers should treat Christians decently is so that they can be coaxed toward atheism.  That outcome might be more likely with civility and compassion, but it should not be the purpose.  That has never been my motive, and I think it is not a good idea for anyone to adopt that goal as their motive for treating people respectfully.  It would contradict respect to have an agenda for respectful treatment.  It would be tainted by disingenuousness. Treat <em>all</em> people respectfully, regardless.  </p>
<p>I only wish to clarify what I think the motive should be for treating people respectfully, regardless of whether you respect or agree with their beliefs:</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>There should be no motive at all.</strong></p>
<p>. </p>
<p>I do my very best to treat people respectfully, with compassion, honesty, equality, and open-mindedness, PERIOD. There is no outside reason why, no “because” that is connected with my mood, my feelings or my circumstances, OR their motives, behavior or circumstances.  </p>
<p>If I base my ethical treatment of others on a “because,” then there will always be another “because” to justify treating them <strong>un</strong>ethically. If I base my treatment of them on <em>their</em> behavior, then I am being reactionary only, having no solid ethical principles of my own. I would be like a chameleon or a mirror, having no color of my own, only reflecting whatever is around me.  Then, if I was surrounded by unkind people, I would only be adding my own unkindness to the scene. I want better than that. </p>
<p>Make no mistake, I can fight back against rude treatment of me, and fight against cruel treatment of others, and I do.  But I can still do that within my ethical boundaries.  If necessary, I can seriously kick their asses, respectfully. </p>
<p>Do I fail? Of course. Some people really get under my skin, especially those with deeply disingenuous agendas of their own.   But I only consider the statement, “I’m only human” to be an explanation for my failure, <em>not an excuse.</em>  I have to clean up my act every time I tarnish it.  I have to afford myself the same compassionate and respectful treatment that I hope to give to others.  So I respectfully kick my own ass, forgive myself, and try again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Linda</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/11/20/how-should-atheist-bloggers-treat-religious-readers/#comment-398886</link>
		<dc:creator>Linda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:55:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=18422#comment-398886</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt; One of the elements of theism that I find the most offensive is the need to proselytize. As an atheist, I have no such need, confident that reality is not affected by how many people believe in it.

I am new to this site, but the impression I’m getting is that you want atheism to appear friendly so we can get more recruits. Are really recruiting? That sounds like a form of ‘converting the paynim’ to me.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Thank you for saying so simply what would have taken me two pages to say.

The realness is exactly what drew me to this site, NOT necessarily the &quot;niceness.&quot;  If someone is friendly, it should be genuine without an agenda, otherwise it&#039;s not friendly at all.  That&#039;s called deception.

Sometimes truth hurts to hear or even uncomfortable to say, but views need to be expressed the way each individual sees it.  Then they can be sorted out in plain view.

&lt;blockquote&gt;Not everything in life is a popularity contest. If people feel strongly enough about something to say it, they can surely say it how they want. They’re allowed to be wrong too.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Well said. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p> One of the elements of theism that I find the most offensive is the need to proselytize. As an atheist, I have no such need, confident that reality is not affected by how many people believe in it.</p>
<p>I am new to this site, but the impression I’m getting is that you want atheism to appear friendly so we can get more recruits. Are really recruiting? That sounds like a form of ‘converting the paynim’ to me.</p></blockquote>
<p>Thank you for saying so simply what would have taken me two pages to say.</p>
<p>The realness is exactly what drew me to this site, NOT necessarily the &#8220;niceness.&#8221;  If someone is friendly, it should be genuine without an agenda, otherwise it&#8217;s not friendly at all.  That&#8217;s called deception.</p>
<p>Sometimes truth hurts to hear or even uncomfortable to say, but views need to be expressed the way each individual sees it.  Then they can be sorted out in plain view.</p>
<blockquote><p>Not everything in life is a popularity contest. If people feel strongly enough about something to say it, they can surely say it how they want. They’re allowed to be wrong too.</p></blockquote>
<p>Well said. <img src='http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philoctetes</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/11/20/how-should-atheist-bloggers-treat-religious-readers/#comment-398706</link>
		<dc:creator>Philoctetes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:37:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=18422#comment-398706</guid>
		<description>One of the elements of theism that I find the most offensive is the need to proselytize.  As an atheist, I have no such need, confident that reality is not affected by how many people believe in it.

I am new to this site, but the impression I&#039;m getting is that you want atheism to appear friendly so we can get more recruits.  Are really recruiting?  That sounds like a form of &#039;converting the paynim&#039; to me.

I&#039;m all for being nice and all, but that&#039;s because I&#039;m a nice person.  My mom thinks so anyway!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the elements of theism that I find the most offensive is the need to proselytize.  As an atheist, I have no such need, confident that reality is not affected by how many people believe in it.</p>
<p>I am new to this site, but the impression I&#8217;m getting is that you want atheism to appear friendly so we can get more recruits.  Are really recruiting?  That sounds like a form of &#8216;converting the paynim&#8217; to me.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m all for being nice and all, but that&#8217;s because I&#8217;m a nice person.  My mom thinks so anyway!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/11/20/how-should-atheist-bloggers-treat-religious-readers/#comment-398662</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=18422#comment-398662</guid>
		<description>Doesn&#039;t it depend on the individual blogger?  If one has complete disdain for a given childish outlook on life, why can&#039;t you tell people to grow out of it, as rudely as you wish?  It doesn&#039;t mean anyone has to listen to you, but that is surely your own personal choice.  And if people don&#039;t like it, they wont come back (or will come back more often!).  Not everyone is trying to force their point of view on others, merely to express it.

Not everything in life is a popularity contest.  If people feel strongly enough about something to say it, they can surely say it how they want.  They&#039;re allowed to be wrong too.

In society there seems to be a general will to &#039;belong&#039; to some group or another, and a pressure to conform to whatever that group may be.  e.g. you&#039;re not a &#039;real&#039; x y or z if you don&#039;t do a b or c.  A good example are Emo&#039;s or goths and so on that celebrate their non-conformity to general society by wearing an amazingly consistent uniform across the whole planet.  Way to show your rebellious side guys!

Another example within the atheist &#039;community&#039;; there&#039;s a lot of &#039;hate&#039; toward people like Hitchens because of some of his political ideas - things which have nothing to do with his atheist ones.  People want to label him with one thing or another rather than taking the merit of his arguments individually, and will dismiss him entirely because of just one of his views.

I really don&#039;t understand why everyone wants to label themselves or others with a particular tag and then expect them(selves) to stick to that tag rather than make their own way in the world.

So, if people want to pick on people for believing nonsense, let them.  It&#039;s their choice, they might not be trying to `turn&#039; anyone and simply don&#039;t give a rats who they offend.  If that offends you then don&#039;t give them air-time ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doesn&#8217;t it depend on the individual blogger?  If one has complete disdain for a given childish outlook on life, why can&#8217;t you tell people to grow out of it, as rudely as you wish?  It doesn&#8217;t mean anyone has to listen to you, but that is surely your own personal choice.  And if people don&#8217;t like it, they wont come back (or will come back more often!).  Not everyone is trying to force their point of view on others, merely to express it.</p>
<p>Not everything in life is a popularity contest.  If people feel strongly enough about something to say it, they can surely say it how they want.  They&#8217;re allowed to be wrong too.</p>
<p>In society there seems to be a general will to &#8216;belong&#8217; to some group or another, and a pressure to conform to whatever that group may be.  e.g. you&#8217;re not a &#8216;real&#8217; x y or z if you don&#8217;t do a b or c.  A good example are Emo&#8217;s or goths and so on that celebrate their non-conformity to general society by wearing an amazingly consistent uniform across the whole planet.  Way to show your rebellious side guys!</p>
<p>Another example within the atheist &#8216;community&#8217;; there&#8217;s a lot of &#8216;hate&#8217; toward people like Hitchens because of some of his political ideas &#8211; things which have nothing to do with his atheist ones.  People want to label him with one thing or another rather than taking the merit of his arguments individually, and will dismiss him entirely because of just one of his views.</p>
<p>I really don&#8217;t understand why everyone wants to label themselves or others with a particular tag and then expect them(selves) to stick to that tag rather than make their own way in the world.</p>
<p>So, if people want to pick on people for believing nonsense, let them.  It&#8217;s their choice, they might not be trying to `turn&#8217; anyone and simply don&#8217;t give a rats who they offend.  If that offends you then don&#8217;t give them air-time &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cicely</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/11/20/how-should-atheist-bloggers-treat-religious-readers/#comment-398580</link>
		<dc:creator>cicely</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:49:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=18422#comment-398580</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t agree that religious readers on atheistic sites are proto-atheists; sometimes, they&#039;re On A Mission From God.

My preference is to respond to other posters civilly, even the obnoxious ones, because in my experience, once you&#039;ve called someone an asshat, they &lt;em&gt;stop listening&lt;/em&gt;.  Oh, they may continue hearing or reading what you have to say, but their minds are now set to auto-dismiss.  After that, there&#039;s no real communication taking place, just poo-flinging.  Unless you&#039;re into invective as an artform, it&#039;s just a waste of everyone&#039;s time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t agree that religious readers on atheistic sites are proto-atheists; sometimes, they&#8217;re On A Mission From God.</p>
<p>My preference is to respond to other posters civilly, even the obnoxious ones, because in my experience, once you&#8217;ve called someone an asshat, they <em>stop listening</em>.  Oh, they may continue hearing or reading what you have to say, but their minds are now set to auto-dismiss.  After that, there&#8217;s no real communication taking place, just poo-flinging.  Unless you&#8217;re into invective as an artform, it&#8217;s just a waste of everyone&#8217;s time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buffy</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/11/20/how-should-atheist-bloggers-treat-religious-readers/#comment-398565</link>
		<dc:creator>Buffy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:17:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=18422#comment-398565</guid>
		<description>I treat religious visitors to my blog according to how they behave.  If they&#039;re polite and seem to be interested in genuine dialog I&#039;ll respond in kind.  If they&#039;re only interested in spewing nonsense and/or leaving cut &amp; paste drivel I&#039;ll either ignore them (my comments are moderated) or approve them and read them the riot act.  Which course I take with the troll types depends on the content of their post and my mood at the time.  If they post anything that includes a threat (and we get several of those a year) we contact the appropriate authorities.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I treat religious visitors to my blog according to how they behave.  If they&#8217;re polite and seem to be interested in genuine dialog I&#8217;ll respond in kind.  If they&#8217;re only interested in spewing nonsense and/or leaving cut &amp; paste drivel I&#8217;ll either ignore them (my comments are moderated) or approve them and read them the riot act.  Which course I take with the troll types depends on the content of their post and my mood at the time.  If they post anything that includes a threat (and we get several of those a year) we contact the appropriate authorities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: muggle</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/11/20/how-should-atheist-bloggers-treat-religious-readers/#comment-398510</link>
		<dc:creator>muggle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:19:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=18422#comment-398510</guid>
		<description>Funny you should mention this.

I just took a lot of heat on another board because I called fellow regulars (it&#039;s a mixed board so we&#039;ve Christians, Wiccans, Atheists, Agnostics, Jews and who knows what else, one won&#039;t say because she doesn&#039;t want to be labelled) out on being particularly nasty and vile to a kid who said he was in Liberty University, even making assumptions about him because he was a student there.  Like he couldn&#039;t be trusted.  He was a liar for Jesus.  Push him and he&#039;ll turn on you.  Yes, one actually used that excuse for getting nasty to him first.

Now this kid (okay, I turn 52 soon, college students are kids to me, alright, you&#039;re right) um, young adult, he was polite and respectful and didn&#039;t make any assumptions about those who believed differently than he did and I felt that he should be treated as he was treating others -- respectfully.

Now a couple of regulars took my comments (I tried to be polite about my criticism) to heart and minded their manners after it but a couple of the others (other women to my chagrin, the guys were the ones who woke up to their rudeness when it was pointed out to them) got real nasty about it.

One in particular was rather vile and took it as a personal affront.  It finally got so bad between the two of us (don&#039;t know if you&#039;ve noticed but my fuse is rather short and my patience extends only so far) that a couple of the guys teasingly commented, one saying the fur and feathers (her avatar&#039;s a bird) were flying and the other saying that he was enjoying the catfight because his wife is always saying if woman ran the world, there&#039;d be no wars.  I laughed and told him I never bought that one; other got pissed at him for making a sexist remark.

Looking back on it, she seems to be pretty touchy.  There are some regular Christians too who can get pretty obnoxious (one&#039;s so bad, I don&#039;t even read his posts; people seem to overlook that you can do that if you really can&#039;t stand someone who&#039;s a regular on a board you really like) and the other&#039;s well, they bristle but they talk and discuss and I do likewise.

About six weeks ago, one of those posted that he had taken a fall and needed hip surgery as a result.  I was shocked to read this and find the comment ignored by other posters.  So I said, c&#039;mon, we&#039;re not so uptight we can&#039;t wish him well and speedy recovery, are we? after my comment telling him I hoped it went well then other people did the same.

After I got my avatar, before this commenter&#039;s injury, the one who&#039;s gotten particular nasty told me she thought it was scary in a tone that indicated I should change it.  Yeah, right.  I just said sorry.  I like it and let it go but I&#039;m kind of wondering if she isn&#039;t still carrying a bug up her ass because she couldn&#039;t nix a avatar she didn&#039;t like.  Shrug.  What are you going to do with people like that?

So, I&#039;m now also not reading her posts, still having give and take with the Christian commenters in the same vein they take with me and find I&#039;m really not missing her comments at all.  She tells the board all the time how they should be running it.  She complained in a chat room to an internet radio show that a lot of us listen to about their censorship and was kind of huffy when I pointed out that they were a national organization ( ;) this could be what you&#039;re getting yourself into Jessie; any word on the job yet ) and they had to censor since the RR is after them all the time.  At that, I don&#039;t think their limits on free speech are bad at all and even then you can get around it by putting in an * or something.  She&#039;s also called them and asked for changes she wants and last I was reading her (I stopped wasting my on-line time on it), she was in a hissy fit that they hadn&#039;t got back to her &lt;em&gt;the same day&lt;/em&gt;.

So, yep, not only the impression you make on Christians or other theists but even those whose side you are on.  As others have mentioned above, don&#039;t we all wish we could be as patient and well-spoken as Richard (he was with me once when I was ready to go off and pretty much diffused the situation by being so and I still appreciate it and learned from that) or as friendly as Hemant?  Pretty much, I treat other posters as they treat other people.  I be polite and respectful if they are, crude and rude if they are, somewhere in the middle if they are.

That said, I can be bad.  I&#039;ve got a short fuse myself and if someone gets under my skin, I can blow.  You&#039;ve all seen it and know what I mean and thank you for your tolerance and patience.  But there are certain things that will set me off every time.  I&#039;ve got to work on that.  Well, mostly, since one of those things is speaking up when I see someone else treated badly.  I hope I never lose the courage to do that.

Bottom line, who knows or cares why other people are there.  Everyone who is is getting something out of it for their own reasons.  Don&#039;t second guess it.  Some Christians might be having doubts, some are there to try and convert you and some just want to hear what we&#039;re thinking.  One reason I was so annoyed at the reception the guy from Liberty U got was that I was interested in his point of view and he was a pleasant fellow who was a refreshing change from the Christians who were argumentive or out to save your soul.

On this other board, they often accuse posters of being the same person under differing names.  Don&#039;t know about that but I really don&#039;t care.  It&#039;s nothing to get worked up about and doesn&#039;t matter in the final analysis.  This is the internet.  Who cares?  Whoever they post as or pretend to be, for Pete&#039;s sake, just respond to the content.

I treat people as I find them and, while I trust very few people in this world, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and treat them respectfully until they give me reason not to.

And I&#039;d rather read the Liberty University student&#039;s comments than the regular who has to have things her way any day of the week.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny you should mention this.</p>
<p>I just took a lot of heat on another board because I called fellow regulars (it&#8217;s a mixed board so we&#8217;ve Christians, Wiccans, Atheists, Agnostics, Jews and who knows what else, one won&#8217;t say because she doesn&#8217;t want to be labelled) out on being particularly nasty and vile to a kid who said he was in Liberty University, even making assumptions about him because he was a student there.  Like he couldn&#8217;t be trusted.  He was a liar for Jesus.  Push him and he&#8217;ll turn on you.  Yes, one actually used that excuse for getting nasty to him first.</p>
<p>Now this kid (okay, I turn 52 soon, college students are kids to me, alright, you&#8217;re right) um, young adult, he was polite and respectful and didn&#8217;t make any assumptions about those who believed differently than he did and I felt that he should be treated as he was treating others &#8212; respectfully.</p>
<p>Now a couple of regulars took my comments (I tried to be polite about my criticism) to heart and minded their manners after it but a couple of the others (other women to my chagrin, the guys were the ones who woke up to their rudeness when it was pointed out to them) got real nasty about it.</p>
<p>One in particular was rather vile and took it as a personal affront.  It finally got so bad between the two of us (don&#8217;t know if you&#8217;ve noticed but my fuse is rather short and my patience extends only so far) that a couple of the guys teasingly commented, one saying the fur and feathers (her avatar&#8217;s a bird) were flying and the other saying that he was enjoying the catfight because his wife is always saying if woman ran the world, there&#8217;d be no wars.  I laughed and told him I never bought that one; other got pissed at him for making a sexist remark.</p>
<p>Looking back on it, she seems to be pretty touchy.  There are some regular Christians too who can get pretty obnoxious (one&#8217;s so bad, I don&#8217;t even read his posts; people seem to overlook that you can do that if you really can&#8217;t stand someone who&#8217;s a regular on a board you really like) and the other&#8217;s well, they bristle but they talk and discuss and I do likewise.</p>
<p>About six weeks ago, one of those posted that he had taken a fall and needed hip surgery as a result.  I was shocked to read this and find the comment ignored by other posters.  So I said, c&#8217;mon, we&#8217;re not so uptight we can&#8217;t wish him well and speedy recovery, are we? after my comment telling him I hoped it went well then other people did the same.</p>
<p>After I got my avatar, before this commenter&#8217;s injury, the one who&#8217;s gotten particular nasty told me she thought it was scary in a tone that indicated I should change it.  Yeah, right.  I just said sorry.  I like it and let it go but I&#8217;m kind of wondering if she isn&#8217;t still carrying a bug up her ass because she couldn&#8217;t nix a avatar she didn&#8217;t like.  Shrug.  What are you going to do with people like that?</p>
<p>So, I&#8217;m now also not reading her posts, still having give and take with the Christian commenters in the same vein they take with me and find I&#8217;m really not missing her comments at all.  She tells the board all the time how they should be running it.  She complained in a chat room to an internet radio show that a lot of us listen to about their censorship and was kind of huffy when I pointed out that they were a national organization ( <img src='http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' />  this could be what you&#8217;re getting yourself into Jessie; any word on the job yet ) and they had to censor since the RR is after them all the time.  At that, I don&#8217;t think their limits on free speech are bad at all and even then you can get around it by putting in an * or something.  She&#8217;s also called them and asked for changes she wants and last I was reading her (I stopped wasting my on-line time on it), she was in a hissy fit that they hadn&#8217;t got back to her <em>the same day</em>.</p>
<p>So, yep, not only the impression you make on Christians or other theists but even those whose side you are on.  As others have mentioned above, don&#8217;t we all wish we could be as patient and well-spoken as Richard (he was with me once when I was ready to go off and pretty much diffused the situation by being so and I still appreciate it and learned from that) or as friendly as Hemant?  Pretty much, I treat other posters as they treat other people.  I be polite and respectful if they are, crude and rude if they are, somewhere in the middle if they are.</p>
<p>That said, I can be bad.  I&#8217;ve got a short fuse myself and if someone gets under my skin, I can blow.  You&#8217;ve all seen it and know what I mean and thank you for your tolerance and patience.  But there are certain things that will set me off every time.  I&#8217;ve got to work on that.  Well, mostly, since one of those things is speaking up when I see someone else treated badly.  I hope I never lose the courage to do that.</p>
<p>Bottom line, who knows or cares why other people are there.  Everyone who is is getting something out of it for their own reasons.  Don&#8217;t second guess it.  Some Christians might be having doubts, some are there to try and convert you and some just want to hear what we&#8217;re thinking.  One reason I was so annoyed at the reception the guy from Liberty U got was that I was interested in his point of view and he was a pleasant fellow who was a refreshing change from the Christians who were argumentive or out to save your soul.</p>
<p>On this other board, they often accuse posters of being the same person under differing names.  Don&#8217;t know about that but I really don&#8217;t care.  It&#8217;s nothing to get worked up about and doesn&#8217;t matter in the final analysis.  This is the internet.  Who cares?  Whoever they post as or pretend to be, for Pete&#8217;s sake, just respond to the content.</p>
<p>I treat people as I find them and, while I trust very few people in this world, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and treat them respectfully until they give me reason not to.</p>
<p>And I&#8217;d rather read the Liberty University student&#8217;s comments than the regular who has to have things her way any day of the week.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic (User agent is rejected)
Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching using disk: basic
Object Caching 395/399 objects using disk: basic
Content Delivery Network via Amazon Web Services: S3: wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com (user agent is rejected)

Served from: www.patheos.com @ 2012-05-28 06:44:08 -->
