What religious rights, if any, are currently being eroded in the USA?

I still have to have a further explanation of how there can possibly be any blackmail. You have already made your assertions in a public forum where anyone on the internet can find them and read them. By the rules of this forum you already have an obligation to back up your claims. ALl the title does is make it a little easier to find - and make it a little harder for you to evade without making it obvious.If you are prepared to back up your assertions then there is no room for blackmail. By invoking "blackmail" I can only conclude that you know that what you said was not true and you are deeply ashamed of it - yet you lack the integrity to issue an honest retraction.

quote:

---

This statement is completely untrue.

---

I see. So you did support your statement, and you did clarify what you were talking about?What post was that in? I must have missed it. And here I just thought all you did was accuse me of "feigning questions" and then refuse to answer.

quote:

---

I did respond - the problem was that you did not like my answers, so like now you just lie and claim I did not respond.

---

No, I'm aware that you responded. That's why I never said you didn't.

---

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

Paulk quote:
______________________________________________________________________
If you are prepared to back up your assertions then there is no room for blackmail. By invoking "blackmail" I can only conclude that you know that what you said was not true and you are deeply ashamed of it - yet you lack the integrity to issue an honest retraction.
______________________________________________________________________This statement perfectly supports my accusation of blackmail.If I don't participate then I am deeply ashamed/without integrity.
Paulk has declared the "truth" and the only way to prove myself in possession of honesty and integrity is to take this bait and debate.If I do participate then the original and obvious sucker punch by Crashfrog was successful.Crashfrog and Dan Carroll want to ignore the exact context of the previous exchange that ignited this dispute. To proceed in this arena/title topic is to sacrifice the high ground that ended that previous exchange. The truth hurts and they were bested fair and square.This is the m.o. of Crashfrog and his amen section, the placement of my name in this topic title was/is hostile and extortion against my reputation. Paulk continues the assault on my intelligence by whitewashing blackmail to be an innocent favor of informing me that my integrity is on the line so you better debate.The issue here is Crashfrog's bruised ego and the total lack of opportunity to save face.Frog also wants to claim that when Mike the Wiz placed his name in title that this is the exact same thing he did here.No it is not. By calling you "Crash" and the way it was phrased clearly carried a friendly good natured tone - just the opposite here.Tell you what, I honestly believe that EvC member Sylas is a remarkably fair and objective person. I call on him to mediate this dispute and make a ruling. Whatever he decides I will abide by without hesitation - even if he makes a three word decision "you lose Willowtree".I would do the same with Admin/Percy but I do not want to put him on the spot. Both of these persons I would choose to make a ruling.Agree and take the offer Crashfrog or what Paulk says in the post I am responding to applies to you.[edit was minor two letter word addition][This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-24-2004]

I suggest that you read the material you quote. Your guilt is inferred not from silence but from your assertion of blackmail !Let me guess. You intended not to answer the question because you were lying in the first place. But you can't pretend that you didn't see the thread because your name is in it. So instead you invnet this accusation of blackmail. If this is in any way wrong I suggest you tell the real truth because your tactic of evasion and false accusations only make things look worse for you.The rules of the forum pretty much require you to participate - you are required to back up your assertions. Your name in the thread title only makes it harder for you to avoid your responsibility.Let me make it very clear. The only way your reputation could be in danger is if you intended to be dishonest. ALl ypou had to do was to answer honestly. Instead you made up an absurd accusation of blackmail - telling everyone that you had something to hide.You've only yourself to blame. If you had been entirely honest then you would be free and clear.

This entire reply is in violation of Forum guidelines - repeating what was said in previous post.This reply also completely ignores my response, because, just like in the original dispute, this "debater" doesn't like my answers/arguments.Round and round - at least I can admit it.Paulk is attempting an invulnerable tactic of blackmail: Debate or remain defeated.You are defining defeat as refusing to participate under the duress of blackmail to ones reputation, either way I lose, so the choice now becomes which defeat is the lessor/most honorable for me.Originally, I made a simple request of Crashfrog, I said "please...."I am insisting on a little respect this time, with 500 or so posts under my belt, and the topic being right up my known alleys, no honest observer could possibly buy into your blackmail bait that I am refusing to debate because of a pair of deuces in my hand.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-24-2004]

Goddamit!It's not a fucking sucker punch! You made some statements, I didn't understand them but I thought they were interesting, and the thread was closed.It's not a trap, WT. I honestly what to know your views on religious rights erosion, particularly after you inferred that I was an idiot for not immediately agreeing with you.Answer the damn question, already. What religious rights do you see being eroded? If the answer is "none", you know what? I'll drop it. I'm not here to make fun of your views. I just want to know what they are. If you outlined the religious rights you see being eroded somewhere already we all missed it. All you have to do is give us the link.But, no. You refuse to take part in debate and instead, would rather throw a hissy fit about your name being in a title. The point here was never to make you look like you're dishonest or something.You did that yourself by responding with inappropriate paranoia. The point here was to get you to clarify some statements, which you refuse to do. I too view Sylas as supremely objective and intelligent and would be happy to abide by whatever thoughts he had. I think the record shows that WT has reacted to a simple request for the clarification of his views with an entirely inappropriate and paranoid accusation of persecution.

I'll take that as an admission that my understanding of the situation was correct.You were lying from the start - and your accusation of blackmail was another lie to try to cover up the original lie. A foolish lie since it only made things look worse than even a complete refusal to reply would have been - but a lie none the less.I wish I could say that I was shocked that a self-styled "Christian" could act in such an amoral way. But I've grown to expect it from creationists.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-24-2004]

I take no pleasure in seeing you very angry.I commend you for showing your anger and I would have to say that your anger in this context does evidence truthfulness to a certain degree.But I am not without valid points - I am not naieve.I appeal to Sylas or his equivalent.

Once again I did say "please" originally.

"Please" doesn't turn shit into roses. You accused me of perfidy and attempting to blackmail you."Please" doesn't make that better. You acted like a baby instead of answering a question. That's not something that "please" makes go away.

WILLOWTREE jibs:

quote:

---

But I am not without valid points...

---

Then what are they? What can't you answer this simple question without appealing to Sylas for help? And what the hell difference does your post count make?I looked at the earlier thread. You did aver that religious rights are being eroded. You were asked to provide examples but you refuse to do it, appealing instead for someone else to come to your aid. Why won't you answer the damn question? What religious rights are being eroded?You also said that atheism is a religion. I'd be interested in seeing how you define 'religion'.

quote:

---

Crashfrog : If you want a piece of me then approach like a man and stop the intelligence-insulting

---

You know what would be "manly" to this woman, WT?If you would support your assertions.Ever.

Hi folks,I am honoured to be asked to contribute a view, but I don't think it was necessary. I'll express a view, with no expectation or demand than anyone agree. If it helps, great. I will not refer back to other threads which I have not read; I will only consider the first 18 posts in this thread, and this thread only.The original post Message 1 appears to be a perfectly reasonable question. The name in the title gives focus to the question. Focus is a good thing to have; although names in titles can be risky and should be used with caution. I must declare a conflict of interest here; I recently put a name in a new title. However, it is not my usual practice; but I honestly find no major issue in this instance. Message 2, from the administrator who approved the topic, raised an interesting point about thread approvals. I would advise against making public comment on editorial corrections, but to take the opportunity to fix errors prior to forming the thread. This could be done by requesting the original user to edit their post before it is approved, or making a minor correction at the time of approval. Notice of such minor corrections should appear in the original Proposed Topic area, and not in the new thread. Just a thought. Message 3 and Message 4 express interest in the original question. No issues. Message 5 and Message 6 are a side track into an extreme phenomenon in the USA; interesting, but a bit off topic. Message 7 was the first mention of blackmail, and asks the original poster to remove the name from the thread. The request was calmly stated, but invalid. There is no blackmail involved or suggested by having a name in a thread title, and the author cannot modify the title in any case. Message 8 responds to the request. I agree with the response, but this post makes the start of rising levels of aggression. Aggression is okay sometimes; and in this case the post is entirely fair, but it does set the trend for what follows. Message 9 and Message 10 introduce ideas which could go to the subject of erosion of right. People may disagree with views, but the posts are fair. Message 11 attempts to identify the putative blackmail. With this post, all attempts to engage the topic are out the window and the aggression has escalated to become naked. But in fact, nothing is given which could reasonably be called blackmail. Crashfrog is the one who asked the original question and set the title. Crash tends to be, shall we say, a robust debater. The word "innocent" does not spring to mind when one thinks of Crash. He might even agree. I cannot comment to the allusions of defeats in other debates, but I remain persuaded that the original post and topic title was indeed "innocent" of blackmail or abuse or rantings. My major comment here is that second guessing motives and real reasons is not helpful; and degrades debate. It is a poor excuse for not answering the original question. Message 12 was the response to 11. This post is firm, but fair; classic Crash. It manages to avoid contributing directly to the downward spiral, but alas at this stage only a comparatively nauseous conciliatory tone could avert the coming collapse. I don't think that is in Crashfrog's repertoire. Message 13 is good advice from Asgara. This is the first post I endorse completely and without hesitation. Message 14 and Message 15 and Message 17 refer back to the previous thread, so I have no comment. Message 16 speculates on blackmail some more, with moral overtones that are not exactly going to contribute to calming the waters. Message 18 is where I am first invoked. Although I am actually being invoked by the author of this post, WillowTree, I think this post is itself very unreasonable.My advice is to drop the matter of blackmail. There is no blackmail involved.The closest you can get to blackmail is the perception that the original question is not one WillowTree will be able to answer effectively. The use of difficult questions to expose errors and weaknesses in a debating colleague's position is standard and fair in debate. Failing to answer straightforward questions quite properly reflects negatively on the defenders of a position. The use of unfair questions which incorporate invalid presumptions or which fail to actually engage the position they are questioning are also common in debate. The best approach, IMO, is to clarify the original position and respond to the question anyway. This can really help show your position more clearly.Pressing a good question will emphasize and underline weakness, although it can eventually become a case of beating a dead horse; the dead horse usually being the position which failed to adequately answer difficult questions. I see no reason to doubt that the question was honest and genuine; although I remain unsure of the extent to which the implication that anyone perceives an erosion of rights is valid; in part because of a lack of a clear answer to the question.There was no need or cause to predicate a response to the original question on removal of a name from the thread title. There was never a basis for the spectre of blackmail.Bear in mind that sometimes the right response to a difficult question is to acknowledge that the original post was overstated and needs to be revised.In any case, may I propose that the topic for this thread should be The question is specifically directed at WillowTree, who is under no obligation to answer. But it is a good question. Second guessing at motives for the question is not helpful and swiftly takes us off topic.Cheers — SylasPS. I'll be very irritated if anyone from any side refers back to this post in the future as a cudgel to beat up other posters. If in the future anyone has something critical to say about a poster, and this will certainly be the case, please express it in your own words; not in mine. Other people will have different perspectives to me on some of the matters I've mentioned, and this is expected and okay. Although I have been asked to comment as a mediator, this is post is just my view; not any kind of formal or final judgement to which others must defer.

First of all, I'll make the suggested change to the topic title soon. For the record, the original title was "Willowtree on Religious Rights Erosion".Now, concerning the use of member names in topic titles. I have long felt uneasy about such things. At least sometimes it can easily be (rightfully?) interpreted as mean spirited hostility towards the named person.At the time I was studying the topic in preparation for moving, I did consider changing the title (BTW, only full admins have title change powers). Ultimately I left the title unchanged.At the time of Willowtrees initial complaint about the title, I once again considered changing it. But I was split between thinking that while WT's complaint did have significant validity, so did Crashfrog have, in his choice of the title. Thus, again no title change.

quote:

---

Message 2, from the administrator who approved the topic, raised an interesting point about thread approvals. I would advise against making public comment on editorial corrections, but to take the opportunity to fix errors prior to forming the thread. This could be done by requesting the original user to edit their post before it is approved, or making a minor correction at the time of approval. Notice of such minor corrections should appear in the original Proposed Topic area, and not in the new thread. Just a thought.

---

I assume this refers to the This was intended as a friendly jab at Crashfrog. Quite recently he and I had been involved in an off-topic discussion of things spelling and punctuation, in which I ended up conceeding that I was wrong (It was about using "it's" when I should have been using "its").The misspelling was trivial. I know I make such or worse errors. It wasn't worth bringing up, especially considering how clunky the "Proposed New Topics" system is. Forum policy is against any editing for content by the admins/moderators. I have edited proposed topics for format, such as inserting lines between paragraphs. I insert a note explaining what my edit was.With the topic move system, anything the is in the source is automaticly in the moved topic. There is no way to leave anything behind, short of editing the moved topic.One last off-topic comment. Normal forum procedure is to copy/move topics, such that the original is not deleted. This prevents links to the original location from being orphaned. There is no such problem involved in moving proposed topics. The original could be deleted. The reason the originals are not being deleted is because showing them is an aid in illustrating the new clunky system in action. It also provides more "Post New Topic" buttons. Once a better system is in place, I expect that the preserving of the original location will end.Please take any discussion of the "New Topic" situation to How do you all feel about the new posting rules?.Adminnemooseus

---

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Just so you know, I did indeed take it as such. {Note form Adminnemooseus - I just noticed that I misspelled "response" in the message quoted in message 29. My natural instinct is to spell it "responce". Sometimes I catch it and correct it - sometimes I don't. I also had to do a second edit, to put the "c" in "instinct". Now, please no response to this note (even if I did make more errors).}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-26-2004]