Suggestion for a new sub-forum: PRS

[Mags]

I found the above interests and opinions well reasoned and interesting. If anyone wants to engage in a theology discussion the old fashioned letter still works too and many of us have incowrimo addresses so a letter works too. My address was posted so I don't mind the forum or the handwritten letter for sharing ideas. At least by letter I use a fountain pen to put my thoughts to paper. It may be a simple solution to post themes for letters or study of theology by forum and to let those wanting to share perspectives to use a FP of choice and write away. The exchanges will take longer but it may be a compromise. Food for thought?

[Manny]

[raging.dragon]

I am amazed that someone could be offended by the title of a thread such as "I was born into a religious southern family. A personal path to belief."

It is clearly labeled explaining the content, points out that it involves personal belief and that it will be about religion.

I saw nothing wrong with jar's post. I didn't read through the responses, but if they got acrimonious, that's a problem with the responses not the original post.

Are there other religious and political posts that I missed?

[Mags]

Raging Dragon it's not that you missed something. It is more questions of is this a pen place or more of a fora for exchange of bigger issues of importance to pen users in a milieu of of areas from law, politics, religion, industry etc. While some topics are generally widely accepted theology is often so emotional and at times divisive that there are arguments for inclusion versus censure. In general my read of the majority is the best censure is ones own personal filters.....the bottom line is adequate caveats so pen purists avoid entering a debate without some heads up this is not a pen centric exchange ....the issue being any alienation of the dedicated fountain pen enthusiast in other arenas due to some more passionate exchanges on theological themes.

[raging.dragon]

I agree with writinggrav: the tone of the site has changed just with these discussions. People are taking sides, people are getting upset. Res ipsa loquitur.

No more so than in threads about FPN.

Here's the thing that I notice. The one person who strongly states a minority view about religion is the one who draws criticism. He says, in terms no stronger than the believers use, his opinion that the Christian God is imaginary. And many people consider that rude or antagonistic. When really he's just opining that people not talk about religion here.

The problem might be that if many people believe one thing, and agree with each other in that belief, than anyone stating the opposite is considered confrontational and rude, or wrong, or to be rocking the boat. Anyone who doesn't agree with that belief feels out of place. It creates a difficult atmosphere for others.

The poster didn't simply state he was an atheist and believed divine beings were imaginary. Instead the post was loaded with direct and indirect insults of those who disagreed, and it was the intolerant and incendary tone to which others are objecting. And it isn't only religious people who objected to this - I'm an atheist, and at least one other who complained about this post stated that he is an atheist.

[Finalist]

Being new to this site and the pen world, yet a very experienced member and moderator on a golf site it's strange to see so much religious chatter. Usually politics and religion get dropped fast especially if you want the site to grow.

[Jon Szanto]

Being new to this site and the pen world, yet a very experienced member and moderator on a golf site it's strange to see so much religious chatter. Usually politics and religion get dropped fast especially if you want the site to grow.

Part of being new here give you only a partial view of the site's dynamic: it is a very recent, and probably somewhat short-lived phenomenon (at least in terms of activity) and mostly coming off of events that played out on another pen forum.

As I suspected, the activity in the couple of religious threads has died down in the last couple of days since I made the suggestion in the OP. One of the people had decried the seemingly rampant growth in the non-pen topics and activity, and yet the last day or two has been a return to mostly all pen-centric talk. I'm fairly certain that, assuming you stick around, you'll see it become a small part of the overall spectrum of chatter.

It may very well be that there is a continuum of desires, from those who would have a pen forum with virtually NO other topics of conversation, as well as those that "come for the pens, stay for the people". I confess that I fall into the latter category; long chats about pens and related stuff simply introduces me to people, and invariably many of those people end up being personalities that I'd like to know more about, and to be able to interact with them on levels wider than mere writing activities.

But we're all different, which is why I proposed this simply as one potential solution.

[dannzeman]

I think I've found a solution that should work well.

I've created a new sub-forum in the Off Topic forum called "Politics, Religion, and Society". I've also found a plugin that will exclude all posts from that sub-forum from the 'What's New?' link in the main menu. So if you want to see what threads have new posts you'll have to go into the PRS sub-forum and look.

I'll move existing threads into the new forum but if I miss any please help me out by PMing me or flagging them and leaving a comment to move them to the proper forum.

Looking forward to hearing your feedback about this decision.

[Jon Szanto]

Dan, at first blush, that is just spectacular. The biggest drawback for allowing people freedom while keeping everyone comfortable was seeing things pop up in "What's New". If you've found a way around it, this would be a wonderful solution, and should satisfy anyone with a sense of reason and community.

Bonus points for being you. More later, after dinner (and doing taxes...).

[VertOlive]

Dan, at first blush, that is just spectacular. The biggest drawback for allowing people freedom while keeping everyone comfortable was seeing things pop up in "What's New". If you've found a way around it, this would be a wonderful solution, and should satisfy anyone with a sense of reason and community.

Bonus points for being you. More later, after dinner (and doing taxes...).

Wait, if we don't agree entirely does it mean we don't have a "sense of reason and community"?

[Jon Szanto]

Wait, if we don't agree entirely does it mean we don't have a "sense of reason and community"?

Quite poor wording and thought transmission on my part. My point was that it appears to be a solution that both allows those, who so wish, to continue posting on topics that range further from pen interests, as l as having potential for disquiet, while at the same time giving those who would prefer to not be faced with such to have the option to avoid those conversations. To me - and maybe *just* to me - a solution that benefits as many people as possible, within a community, is one that is working in the spirit of community.

I am not naive enough to think that, given a problem, a solution will always exist that satisfies each and every person. That which satisfies the most will be the best we can hope for.

[mhosea]

Quite poor wording and thought transmission on my part.

If you say so. I would say, rather, that "satisfy" was just too strong, that's all. When somebody accedes to the reason behind a compromise in the spirit of community, they may also regret the loss of one thing or another that they would have liked to have had but didn't get. In this case, they probably don't identify their feelings about the compromise as "satisfaction". So "satisfy" was a poorly chosen word. If I don't make any mistakes worse than that tomorrow, it will be a good day.

[pengeezer]

Semantics here(raising and waving my hand....).......

Perhaps one might think that satisfy was a bad choice for the chosen spot in Jon's sentence,but it is that very "satisfaction" between the
members that becomes the issue(and quite possibly here also). I had no problem with his choice of the word as I thought it fit adequately
the issue at hand without sounding like a politically correct "nth"-ly worded statement.

I also believe--as Jon has said--that that which "satisfies" the most will be the best we can hope for.


John

[mhosea]

You are correct, John, but it is a rare gathering of people where word choice is 100% semantics and 0% diplomacy. Actually, I only commented because I thought Jon's post was, if anything, too diplomatic, and I was surprised that it elicited a negative response. For my own purposes, I just had to sort out why that could be. That's what I came up with.

[jar]

I think I've found a solution that should work well.

I've created a new sub-forum in the Off Topic forum called "Politics, Religion, and Society". I've also found a plugin that will exclude all posts from that sub-forum from the 'What's New?' link in the main menu. So if you want to see what threads have new posts you'll have to go into the PRS sub-forum and look.

I'll move existing threads into the new forum but if I miss any please help me out by PMing me or flagging them and leaving a comment to move them to the proper forum.

Looking forward to hearing your feedback about this decision.

Looks like an elegant solution. Personally since most areas of any forum on most any subject hold little or no interest to me I never bother with the "What's new" links.

[VertOlive]

My question was a "negative response?"

As I read that post, it does seem that anyone who isn't satisfied with the solution falls outside of the category of one who has "reason and a sense of community".

It seems an insult to say something on the order of "If you disagree with this, you are not cvilized." An urbane insult, if you will.

That said, I'm glad you've come to an agreement with the moderator and we can move on to the PRS thread if we must.

[Jon Szanto]

Vert, you are taking my statement farther than I said or intended. I said it "should satisfy" people, which of course means also that some of those same rational and good-spirited folks might not agree. Such is life, but in no way is that to mean that they are lacking in any way. I hope you can take what I have said in the *spirit* with which I say it.

[mhosea]

My question was a "negative response?"

As I read that post, it does seem that anyone who isn't satisfied with the solution falls outside of the category of one who has "reason and a sense of community".

It seems an insult to say something on the order of "If you disagree with this, you are not cvilized." An urbane insult, if you will.

The phrase "reason and sense of community" refers to a willingness to take account of all viewpoints and to compromise when necessary. The phrase "should satisfy" was what threw you off into the "urbane insult" interpretation, since "satisfy" was too strong, and "should satisfy" could be misinterpreted to mean "should" as in "You should eat your vegetables." when here it means something more like "I think it will", as in "That should fix it." In the software business, such words are often uttered before being proven wrong.

[Flounder]

Mühlberg_-_Säbelmensur.jpg

[Jon Szanto]

I deliver!