|> >This newsnet is not a decent forum for serious discussions. They are too
|> >often interrupted by flames and sarcastic answers. While these have their
|> >place and are often called for, they are annoying to anyone trying to make a
|> >serious point. For example, someone says something, but doesn't say it
|> >clearly. Instead of getting a chance to restate what they were trying to
|> >say, which was possibly very valid or interesting or thought-provoking or
|> >whatever, they are flamed to death. Out of embarassment, the flamee doesn't
|> >bother to try again, and their insight is lost.
|> >
Well, I've only been in this group for a few weeks. I thought it might be a source of information and support for atheists who need information about atheist
organizations, etc. But unfortunately, it seems to be full of flames. That's the problem of both the Christians and atheists who flame back instead of JUST IGNORING these people. (Do atheists have incredibly thin skins?) I thought we were atheists because we didn't see the need to prove ourselves? This newsgroup could be much more beneficial for "young" atheists, and could help as a support group for people just struggling to overcome Xianity.
|> >
|> >I don't approve of homosexuality. However, I don't hate gays. One of my
|> >best friends is a bisexual. ( I don't have many friends who are gay, not
|> >because I am avoiding them, but because I just haven't met many.)
|> >
|> My best friend is a lesbian, which annoys me no end, since i find her much
|> too attractive for that.
Well, she's probably too attractive to waste her time around men.
So... What do people think? Would you rather have people unsubscribing to the newsgroup, because of the constant flames, or would we like to see this more for the benefit of the atheists and less for the benefit of the Christians.
Maybe I should pay more attention to the atheist.moderated group???
--Mark
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "If you keep looking at the sidewalk, you can't reach for the stars."
