ForumGarden

I recommend changing the site name from ForumGarden to ForumGardenofEden since the site has for the most part been taken over by religious trolls and their supporting apologists.

Ahso!;1481813 wrote: I recommend changing the site name from ForumGarden to ForumGardenofEden since the site has for the most part been taken over by religious trolls and their supporting apologists.


Then start some different topics.........easily solved

Ahso!;1481813 wrote: I recommend changing the site name from ForumGarden to ForumGardenofEden since the site has for the most part been taken over by religious trolls and their supporting apologists.


There are really only a couple of whackos. They are mostly noticeable because there is not much else going on, of late.

The tide will shift soon.

Forum Gardenof Eden. No that wouldn't work. Most people think we are a forum for gardeners already. That'd just make them think we were a forum for nudists...

Or nudist gardeners!:)

LarsMac;1481816 wrote: There are really only a couple of whackos. They are mostly noticeable because there is not much else going on, of late.

The tide will shift soon.
Tell that to Pahu.



I all for a Nudist forum though.

I'm very nearly naked right now..................................not a pretty sight.

LarsMac;1481816 wrote: There are really only a couple of whackos. They are mostly noticeable because there is not much else going on, of late.

The tide will shift soon.You mean that those religious types whose beliefs and/or behaviours regarding religion or "God" which are dissimilar to yours are W[h]ackos? There is no degree of distortion (or as you say "w[h]acko") when it comes to belief in Gods in my book. It all qualifies. Perhaps I mean that with all the myths or illusions humans are prone to become captive of, religion and God has proven one of the worst. But then, it always appears that way from the outside looking in. Right? I assume those with just the right balance would know.

Bruv;1481872 wrote: I'm very nearly naked right now..................................not a pretty sight.


I'm not exactly naked. I'm wearing my glasses & my watch.

Saint_;1481824 wrote: Forum Gardenof Eden. No that wouldn't work. Most people think we are a forum for gardeners already. That'd just make them think we were a forum for nudists...Good one!

Bruv;1481815 wrote: Then start some different topics.........easily solvedYeah, that'll shut em up. It's the passivity of the other forum members tolerating the threads leaving them unchallenged that is the real issue with forums that go this direction. I've found that engagement on a group level is where change happens. Though FG is a hodgepodge of floating "opinion" lacking much in the way of serious conviction that invigorates and stimulates conversation. Thus the constant one-liner (or two if we're lucky) posts that starve one of clarity, frankness and information.

Anyone recall "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman"? That's what FG has become.

Ahso!;1481889 wrote:

Anyone recall "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman"? That's what FG has become.


Must be before my time. I've got no idea who you're talking about.

Ahso!;1481889 wrote: Yeah, that'll shut em up. It's the passivity of the other forum members tolerating the threads leaving them unchallenged that is the real issue with forums that go this direction. I've found that engagement on a group level is where change happens. Though FG is a hodgepodge of floating "opinion" lacking much in the way of serious conviction that invigorates and stimulates conversation. Thus the constant one-liner (or two if we're lucky) posts that starve one of clarity, frankness and information.

Anyone recall "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman"? That's what FG has become.


Why should I want to 'Shut them up'?

I have no desire to challenge them either.

Are you familiar with King Canute? Our examples go back further than TV soaps.

It is,after all, a discussion forum, I can engage in or avoid to engage in any discussion I choose, you have the same option.

Ahso!;1481886 wrote: You mean that those religious types whose beliefs and/or behaviours regarding religion or "God" which are dissimilar to yours are W[h]ackos? There is no degree of distortion (or as you say "w[h]acko") when it comes to belief in Gods in my book. It all qualifies. Perhaps I mean that with all the myths or illusions humans are prone to become captive of, religion and God has proven one of the worst. But then, it always appears that way from the outside looking in. Right? I assume those with just the right balance would know.


Actually, I often find you to be just as whacko as the rest of us, my friend. Anyone who insists that his PoV is the absolute truth over anybody else is bordering on the "whacko" line.

In my book, you are right up there with Pahu and the the Gnostic fellow.

Me, I have my opinions, but don't get all fired up over them.

LarsMac;1481931 wrote: Actually, I often find you to be just as whacko as the rest of us, my friend. Anyone who insists that his PoV is the absolute truth over anybody else is bordering on the "whacko" line.

In my book, you are right up there with Pahu and the the Gnostic fellow.

Me, I have my opinions, but don't get all fired up over them.Of course you do. I imagine you see the "whacko" in everyone.

Ahso!;1481941 wrote: Of course you do. I imagine you see the "whacko" in everyone.


Oh, not everyone. but most of us have a have a touch of the madness about us.

Bruv;1481914 wrote: Why should I want to 'Shut them up'?

I have no desire to challenge them either.

Are you familiar with King Canute? Our examples go back further than TV soaps.

It is,after all, a discussion forum, I can engage in or avoid to engage in any discussion I choose, you have the same option.Because it's how the species evolves; it can evolve to become religious believing or it can evolve to become reality based thinkers. But not both because they conflict too much, as evidenced by the mush we hear coming from religious apologists.

It may not be understood that stories, ideas, thoughts and opinions that are shared or discussed on forums or anywhere for that matter are in fact competing with one another for acceptance. Complacency is a mechanism that yields to to resistance out of indifference. That also becomes a competing player in the evolution of a society. They are all selectable choices that have a definite impact on life moving forward. I know, 'we won't be here', but future generation might be.

Ahso!;1481941 wrote: Of course you do. I imagine you see the "whacko" in everyone.


Would that be wacko or w(h)acko ?

Bruv;1481945 wrote: Would that be wacko or w(h)acko ?You're asking the wrong person. I didn't invoke the term, LM did. He might have your answer.

Ahso!;1481944 wrote: Because it's how the species evolves; it can evolve to become religious believing or it can evolve to become reality based thinkers. But not both because they conflict too much, as evidenced by the mush we hear coming from religious apologists.

It may not be understood that stories, ideas, thoughts and opinions that are shared or discussed on forums or anywhere for that matter are in fact competing with one another for acceptance. Complacency is a mechanism that yields to to resistance out of indifference. That also becomes a competing player in the evolution of a society. They are all selectable choices that have a definite impact on life moving forward. I know, we won't be here, but future generation might be.


By talking on forums ?

One wonders how we got so far before Tim Berners-Lee

Ahso!;1481946 wrote: You're asking the wrong person. I didn't invoke the term, LM did. He might have your answer.


Twas you sir that noted any difference.......I could link to it if you insist.

Bruv;1481948 wrote: Twas you sir that noted any difference.......I could link to it if you insist.Go on, show me where I called anyone wacko. In what post did the term first appear?

Ahso!;1481886 wrote: You mean that those religious types whose beliefs and/or behaviours regarding religion or "God" which are dissimilar to yours are W[h]ackos? There is no degree of distortion (or as you say "w[h]acko") when it comes to belief in Gods in my book. It all qualifies. Perhaps I mean that with all the myths or illusions humans are prone to become captive of, religion and God has proven one of the worst. But then, it always appears that way from the outside looking in. Right? I assume those with just the right balance would know.


Not the first use........who mentioned 'first use' ?.........just the pedantry about spelling.

You're really stretching there, Bruv. In that reply to LM I was asking him to define "whacko". My choice of words was "distortion" which is totally different than applying a label to individuals as LM did.

Fail!

Ahso!;1481951 wrote: You're really stretching there, Bruv. In that reply to LM I was asking him to define "whacko". My choice of words was "distortion" which is totally different than applying a label to individuals as LM did.

Fail!


Talking to you is like talking to the religious w(h)ackos, except it is a different sort of w(h)ackery.

If LM were to subject himself to his own standards he'd issue a standing open apology to everyone on this forum for the insult.

Bruv;1481952 wrote: Talking to you is like talking to the religious w(h)ackos, except it is a different sort of w(h)ackery.Yes, Bruv, your failure is my fault.

Ahso!;1481955 wrote: Yes, Bruv, your failure is my fault.


Glad you can admit it...........you make me laugh.....thanks for that.

Bruv;1481956 wrote: Glad you can admit it...........you make me laugh.....thanks for that.Well, one of us should.

Ahso!;1481953 wrote: If LM were to subject himself to his own standards he'd issue a standing open apology to everyone on this forum for the insult.


Standards? I am one of the few here who does not take himself so seriously as to have such standards.

LarsMac;1481958 wrote: Standards? I am one of the few here who does not take himself so seriously as to have such standards.You're a gem. One person who doesn't take anything you post seriously is me. Good for you that it's intentional on your part.

Just what is insanity, though. On the whole we probably perceive it as something which breaks away from the norm. However, in one way or another we are all total individuals, therefore there is no 'norm'. Therefore we are all insane. However, when you get 2 total weirdoes that are alike, under the First Past The Post system, they would be the 'norm', making them the only sane ones, therefore having the majority.