Comments on: A WotM forum?

By: Timmy

Timmy — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:46:19 +0000

Yes, I need a place to vent my midget rage :).
I do like the idea though, most forums don’t allow religious discussion on the grounds that it turns into flame-wars.

This could be different.

By: Pedro Timóteo

Pedro Timóteo — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:16:43 +0000

Michael: thanks for the tip. However, here it’s not really a question of quantity, but of off-topicness. What I want is to leave the blog discussions on-topic, while having a way for people to start new topics, without being dependent on me to do so.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:54:56 +0000

I have looked at a lot of forums over the years.
The only ones that are successful have a large enough
membership ( I would guess in the 1,000’s) so that
there are several new posts everyday.
In other words, I think you only need a forum
if you are getting too many bog comments to handle.

Cheers

By: Pedro Timóteo

Pedro Timóteo — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:03:39 +0000

[quote post="170"]I also hope that this isn’t something we’ve irked you into.[/quote]

Nope, don’t worry about that.

I believe this will be the best of both worlds. I’ll keep posting here, and I’ll welcome your comments, but you can also start new threads, instead of moving the posts’ discussion off-topic.

By: Kren

Kren — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 04:17:59 +0000

WHATS WRONG WITH ETERNAL DAMNATION?!

Joking of course.

I think it’s a good idea, because like in a bar you could say “Take it outside”.

I also hope that this isn’t something we’ve irked you into.

Looking at a couple of the threads here, I myself have gone way off topic for a number of replys.

That’s bad. It looks bad too. When you look at some of these posts it’s like “let’s talk about cake” and then everybody’s argueing McDonalds VS Taco Bell instead.

By: Pedro Timóteo

Pedro Timóteo — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:42:29 +0000

Simon: well, a forum needs to have a “point”… that is, one or more subjects. People will be told that the forum is mostly for — or, that most members are — atheists, humanists, etc.. They’ll be warned about it in advance. It won’t be restricted to those, of course, that’s not what I want. Besides, we’re all individuals. I simply don’t want people to be shocked because they’ve just entered “a den of godless atheism!” (a pleonasm if I ever saw one!)

As I said, a Christian who can participate in an intelligent discussion will be more than welcome. But (s)he should be prepared for the fact that most people there are non-theists of some kind. And I really don’t want anyone “witnessing”, saying we’re slaves of Satan, threatening eternal damnation, repeating Pascal’s Wager for the 637th time. Those people are not only rude, but also annoying.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:22:04 +0000

Sounds like a good idea to me. I’d like to use it. I’m enjoying posting comments on your blog, though there does seem to be an awful lot of labelling going on - something you seem to encourage here with your talk of atheists, humanists, individualists, libertarians, objectivists etc. Isn’t there a danger that in labelling themselves in this way, people are placing restrictions upon the extent to which they are open to new ideas? In the same way that - oh, just name a category at random - fundamentalist Christians do.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:19:09 +0000

Being someone who has, on occasion, “hijacked” the original intent of a post I think it would be a great idea and place to continue those ’side’ conversations that sometimes get going in the comments of a post. I would use it.