blonde poker forum

have to say on the odd occasion I have had a thread deleted or edited by a mod they have always sent me a PM explaining why (although most didn't need explanation). They do a good job and even seem to pick things up quite quickly ( a little over 3 mins earlier was a bit slow imo ;) )

NO MORE WELSH JOKES, YOU HAVE ALL BEEN WARNED!!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAH  humbug



i'll get ma jacket

Thats a 7 day ban right there!!!

Hi All,

I would like to add my support to the points Tikay has made. We all want to enjoy the site and feel we are part of a team. We have made lots of progress in the last year and have lots of new adventures planned for the next year. With your help the site will continue to grow and continue to give you the players the platform to discuss what you want.

I would also vote for Matt Tyler to be added to the next round of mods....Even if he cant hold his drink.

You have explained Blonde's position and policies well Tony. You should have permament sticky entitled something like

New Members Please Read: Blonde Posting Guidelines

It should be short bullet points of what goes and what doesn't, as people won't read something thats too long.

Thanks JR.

It was the work of the Mods as a Team, rather than me alone, in fact I did naff all towards it, but I support it 100%. So if it's good, I take the credit, if bad, blame the rest of 'em.....

I agree "short & sharp" is better - I'm just reading a book about Winston Churchill, that was his maxim, short, sharp is good. Buy if we leave stuff out, the smart brigade get all clever.

As to stickying, well, that's a ticklish subject with me! I am vehemently opposed to ALL stickies, but in this case, I agree, we have to hold it on the page somehow, it will drop off in 24 hours otherwise. So yes, a sticky it has to be.

Or you could have a button / link called Rules (shorter than posting guidlines) with the other buttons, Home, help, search, profile, calendar, logut. That way it's not in the general discussion board, whereby someone could theoretically join and not go in that board and not see it. And it won't be taking up board space where 99.9% of readers will have already read it and it's alwyas on the top of the page. I read maxconsole forums, where they have 4-5 of those 'useless' once you've read them stickies at the top and it's annoying to ahve to scroll past them everytime.

Tell me about it! Stickies being annoying, jeez, I loathe 'em.

 :goodpost: ;iagree;

'Posts which seek to discriminate on the grounds of sex, race, ethnicity or religion.'

the guidelines look good but i think you should add to the above sentance ' or gender or sexuality'. i remeber a time where some people were offended by all the 'gay bashing' so its not a male female thing only. also 'sex' says to me , male or female' it does look at transgender. if you add those two things, i recokon you got it covered :)up

Didn't read all the guidelines properly. Surely you aren't expecting women to be treated equally on here? You mean there will be no more digs about them playing in the evening instead of doing the ironing/washing up etc? Next thing you will be wanting a female mod- hope nobody ever suggests that in a thread (and no ginger doesnt count- after spending so long with flushy gingers gender is still up for debate in my eyes ;) )

I don't imagine you've got anything to worry about Ariston - I think the women that post on here are pretty much resigned to the fact that there will be chat of a sexist nature.  It'll never get reported or moderated because it's so hard to tell with with those posts whether they are in jest or not (and if anyone did complaint about something we'll probably be accused of having a sense of humour bypass and 'having the painters in') :)

Can't disagree with Tikay's post. A lot of it comes down to common sense, but worth documenting.
 :)up

good post Claire:)

You can get new members to agree to rules as part of the join up process.
There are actually 2 female mods Ariston.

I do have a question about the "rules" though, what about PM's? i understand Nem was banned because of PRIVATE messages, what's the standpoint on that??

imo a pm should be just that - private. I really hope the mods dont have access to my PMs as I have never deleted any and there are some in there that are very private.

Yes they are, aren't they!

No one has access to PM's except sender and recipient.

Nobody has access to anyone else's PM's.

Duplicated thought-aments.

thankfkforthataments- was just coming out in a cold sweat and trying to figure out how to delets 600 pms lol

its ok darling, I have ours saved xx

I thought they were disgusting.

Two grown men saying all those depraved things - it turned my stomach.

On the general point of the rules, I quite like discriminating against people on the basis of religion. Religion is just like any other lifestyle choice we make - open for discussion and criticism.

I disagree Andrew, what real choice does a child born to a poor uneducated family Afghanistan have?

I think  Scientology is a cult. Will I be allowed to say so ?

No mod deleted your post

As long as if someone gives an alternative view, both viewpoints are argued within the spirit of the guidelines above then no problem

The problem recently has been too many debates involving flaming, trolling, baiting etc

There are parents all over the world who are fanatically religious. Are their children making a lifestyle choice?

well i think scientology is just swell :)up

Are we doing o.k?

Excellent, we'll turn you into a Stepford blonde in no time.

No, but you could argue that it's a form of persecution or abuse (and I'm being serious here).

I don't meet kids from Afghan villages though - I meet people who live in a country where we are free to question assumed truths. Those who still choose to lead blinkered lives and, worse, indoctrinate their children to have closed minds should be pulled up about it.

The problem with anti-religious discrimination rules and legislation is that it allows the religious to avoid criticism of their point of view. If a certain group of people happen to all believe in the same invisible ghost daddy, and then use that common link to gain advantages over people not in that group, then they should be able to be criticised for it.

how many people born to poor uneducated families in Afghanistan who wish to debate religion post on Blonde?

12? (It's only a guess)

To many your brand of atheism is as blinkered as any religious belief.

I guess Andrew is quite happy with you expressing that opinion, and would be willing to debate it.  This is what his original point alluded to, and is probably the difference between a religious 'believer' and an atheist who is a strong 'non-believer'.

You and Andrew are disputing the right of parents to educate their children as they see fit.

I don't see the point you are trying to make.  It's perfectly possible to have a religious belief and retain the ability to discuss it intelligently.

Precisely.

Yes, I have a strong point of view on this kind of thing but, if challenged by someone with a differing viewpoint, I'm quite happy to explain why I think I'm right, and why I think they're wrong. Just like I would be with any other topic.

Pro-religious counter-arguments tend to be 'I'm right'. 'Why?', I ask. 'Just because', comes the reply, which is obviously no kind of argument whatsoever. It is precisely because pro-religious arguments cannot be backed up that they seem to require special protection - religious people seem to need to legislate against atheists saying the emperor is naked.

We're disputing the right to debate the point.


Absolutely.  The right for intelligent debate on the subject was what Andrew was asking for.  I think the point was that we should be allowed to question a religious view (in the same way as any other views can be questioned and discussed), and that it shouldn't be a restricted topic for discussion - as though a religious view is in some way sacrosanct and 'above' other opinions.

Religion = WALOB

Discuss that :)up

WALOB = What A Load Of Bible?

bump

 ;tightend;

For the record, I was not banned from blonde because of an argument with Rookie via pm. It was one of the final straws but not THE final straw that made Darth Tighend banish the great one for 2 weeks.

Here's an example.

I think it is wrong that a certain group of people are allowed to mutilate the genitals of their baby sons, purely because they all happen to believe in the same invisible ghost daddy. I'm quite prepared to debate with someone having an opposing view.

However, it is very difficult to have that debate without someone accusing me of being racist/persecuting someone because of their religion. Any anti-discrimination rules are used to effectively stifle debate on issues in which the pro-religious arguments are weak.

Anyway, I think the thread is getting off-topic. We've had loads of debates on religion on here, and I have never had one of my posts altered by a mod. I would assume that the new rules are simply a clarification of the current modding procedures, rather than an introduction of anything new, therefore what was deemed OK in the past will be OK in the future.

Thanks Nem, for correcting that. We don't really wish to disciuss with others, on the open Board, why that "Suspension" thing happened, so we are grateful to you for correcting the erroneous Statement.

He did however say it had a factor in it, so i still think it needs an answer

Also for the record I love Tightend dearly.

Who's buggering with the threads?
Someone take the button away rom Tikay.

I'm insanely jealous, & deeply hurt.

It wil be answered Ian. Please bear with us.

Blasphemy is still a crime in this country.

Even this year, some religious groups sought to gain the right to discriminate against homosexuals purely because of their religious beliefs.

The Mods have decided to sticky and lock the main guidelines to have as reference for current and future members

The rest of the thread has been split to allow the discussion to carry on.

Quote from: AndrewT on Today at 11:37:52

Pro-religious counter-arguments tend to be 'I'm right'. 'Why?', I ask. 'Just because', comes the reply, which is obviously no kind of argument whatsoever. It is precisely because pro-religious arguments cannot be backed up that they seem to require special protection - religious people seem to need to legislate against atheists saying the emperor is naked.


Thats a very dismissive statement, and not very accurate.

Yes, many religious people have difficulty explaining rationally their beliefs. Their answer tends to be 'It's what I believe' rather than 'I'm right'. I think the distinction is important. There are also many religious people who are happy to debate the nature of their beliefs.

There are also some people who find it hard to rationally debate the way they played a hand of poker. I tend to ignore these people, you cannot win.

To what anti-atheist legislation are you refering to? I accept that in some places athesism may be discriminated against, but no more so than other minority groups.

When was the last prosecution for blasphemy?

The latter was unsuccessful because of the law, not in spite of it...

Supeb, Andrew gets to quote me before I post. There are supernatural forces at work!

 :kiss:


for the record Nem, I did not ban you the TEAM did

I happened to be the mug who had to communicate it.

Its how a "main" mod gets a reputation for being OTT apparently!!!

rotflmfao

It's a sign!!

I'm using my special atheist powers to post from the future.


Whether successful or not, the law is still there. And there is a movement within Islamic groups in Britain to get it extended to cover Islam (only Christians can be legally blasphemed against)

And the fact that the religious groups thought they could get their exemption passed as law tells its own story. It's not so much the fact there is 'anti-atheist' legislation, more that being a part of a religious group confers advantages that are not available to atheists.

rotflmao

Now that was funny. :D

Being part of any group, religious or otherwise, gives a member advantages over people outside the group. It is why groups form in the first place. Atheists tend not to form groups, but if you feel excluded you can always join the Humanists.

"trying to organise athiest into a group is like trying to herd cats."

think you have got athiest and anarchist mixed up

No he hasn't. He's quoting Richard Dawkins.

Anarchists are often very well organised.

no idea who richard sawkins is

but athiest are also well organised IMHO

How so?

How many atheists do you know that are members of an atheist organisation?

i only know 3 open atheists and 4 agnostics  all 7 are much better organised as people than i am

but no idea what organastions that are part of execpt 1 atheists and 1 agnostic were in the army and 1 atheists is in a disabled group

i might know more but its not something i normally ask

What if two people happen to share the same computer?  ;whistle;

I was thinking about atheist organisations, such as The Humanist Association, that organise like-minded people in a similar way to churches.

A very small percentage of atheists belong to this type of group.

Good question!!


If the population of the UK is about 60,000,000 i would hazard a guess that 59,999,990 are better organized than you mate ;)

your guess is out by about 8

i only know of one poor sod less organised than me

but enough about tikay

eek careful, don't be breaking any of the flaming or trolling rules....... ;)

Not believing non-sense is not really something to get organised about.