Comments on: Stop Using Q&A Time to Pontificate

By: lneely (codemenkey)

lneely (codemenkey) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:45:22 +0000

meh, for the time allotted, they did alright. i sure wasn’t looking for an all night event, and there is only so much that can be covered in an hour or less. it is my opinion that dr. meister made a lot of fallacious arguments including a very godwinesque one near the end, some of which did more harm than good to the end of civil discussion between theists and atheists IMHO; but since this was not a debate — meh, whatever. he appealed to his part of the audience, and hemant to his.

By: fsm

fsm — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:49:45 +0000

with all respect, the entire event was poorly done. the audio was terrible. your time on stage together was silly. hitchens very clearly said that “human solidarity” was where he based his morality, and you both spent 15 minutes discussing or trying to find the right words. your biblical scholar (barf) from “indiana university” (later said to be bethel college, a subpar christian degree mill in indiana) used the words “this/that is interesting” more times than i could keep count. your entire conversation together was never more than surface deep.

finally, books that have come out since “new atheism” was coined are not the only ones in print. how do you justify discussing “is christianity good for the world” with only reference to hitchens “G.I.N.G.” and also only dawkins penultimate publication (T.G.D), and ignore books on the creation of our country as a republic, and Thomas Jefferson, Mother Theresa, etc.

the entire evening was a sore disappointment.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:02:18 +0000

IANAM (I am not a moderator), but it seems to me that the moderator bears the brunt of the responsibility for this. Why not begin Q&A with the following:

“There is a large audience and limitted time. I realize many of you have a lot to contribute, but to make sure we get to everyone’s questions, you will be limited to 60 seconds to phrase your question. If you go beyond that I will give you 10 seconds to finish your question before cutting of the microphone.”

Then, at 60 seconds, interrupt everyone who has not asked a question yet with “Your question, please” and, after 10 more seconds, turn off the microphone and allow the speakers to respond to what has been said.

By: Aj

Aj — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:38:18 +0000

This is universal to every Q&A I’ve listened to, about any subject, however intelligent/knowledgeable the audience. I’m surprised when a good question is asked, I really like good questions. I prefer the format where people are asked to write down their questions and hand them in. You get better questions, and a lot of people aren’t very good speakers, or they hold the mic too close or something else that makes listening to them horrible. Hitchens seems to attract the most crazies, atheists and theists, rambling about different things.

By: Pseudonym

Pseudonym — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:50:15 +0000

Another rant on the same topic from Leigh Sales.

By: Svavar Kjarrval

Svavar Kjarrval — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:41:49 +0000

The audience could write the question onto a card and then those who pass the microphones could check if the individual actually has a question. They could also remind the speaker (before it’s their turn) to focus on the question itself.

By: Greta Christina

Greta Christina — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:52:07 +0000

It isn’t just atheists. I’ve seen it in Q&A’s about almost every topic. Some people just use it as an opportunity to fulminate and hear the sound of their own voice. And yes, it’s very annoying. A total missing of the point.

I personally don’t object to the “write your questions on cards” thing. But I agree that if that’s not going to be the format, then the moderator definitely needs to be willing to step in with, “Thanks for your thoughts — do you have a question?”

By: ed42

ed42 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:50:31 +0000

The problem with written (or texted) comments is the (perhaps irrational) paranoia that the questions are gamed and/or filtered by the moderator.

Even if you are not the moderator have the fortitude to either interrupt a running commentary or after the first long one is finished with a phrase such as “What is your question?” and repeat as necessary until the audience gets the point.

By: Stephen P

Stephen P — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:18:17 +0000

Hemant- you did the right thing. It’s the moderator’s job to handle these types. It would have come off as downright unfriendly for you to cut someone off.

As he was sitting next to the moderator, perhaps he could have quietly – i.e. not through the microphone – encouraged the moderator to intervene. Or he could have asked the “questioner” something like “sorry, it isn’t clear to me – is this a question for Chad or for me?”

(I appreciate that it is much easier to think of these things behind the keyboard than in front of an audience.)

By: Staceyjw

Staceyjw — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:38:53 +0000

I think this type of behavior occurs when an event draws an audience that (is thought to be) made up of mostly one worldview, but includes speakers from an opposing philosophy.

In every group (xtians, atheists, etc), there are a minority of individuals that are especially attracted to these type of events. They see them as the ultimate opportunity to spread their beliefs to a CAPTIVE audience, which holds an opposite belief system. I think they also want to publicly denigrate the opposing idea.

Some Fundies show up to primarily atheist events, and vice versa, for honest intellectual discussion, but the above described just want reinforce their own beliefs, pushing it on others.

The best way to deal with this is to make it clear that this is not acceptable, and is not what the event is there for. If the moderator is hesitant, then someone else needs to step in and ask the interloper to step down.

That said, I have had a much different experience at those type of events. It’s always been fundies acting inappropriately, asking unrelated questions, and rambling about their belief.