Really frustrated

[CraigD]

I addressed this with you already. Did you miss it?

That link didn't work for me, I think this might be it:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/10414-does-god-exist-59.html#post228122

Even in your quote it works fine for me and goes to the post where I provided links to vBulletin and hosts to Nutron so she can build here own community. You link just takes me to the last page of that thread.

I experienced the exact issue Modest did.

C1ay's link directed me to the top of page 15 of that thread (page 15 being when the thread is split with the 10 posts per page Hypo default).

Modest's link took me directly to C1ay's post where he directed Nutronjon to vBulletin sites.

 

Either way, following one of the above two urls will get readers there. :shrug:

Must be a problem on my end, I apologize. Your link takes me to page 15 while the post is on page 59. I assumed this was because the difference between our two links:

 

/forums/theology-forum/10414-does-god-exist-15.html#post228122

/forums/theology-forum/10414-does-god-exist-59.html#post228122

Ok, I'm guessing you have something other than default posts per page set in your display options. I didn't realize that would have an effect on links in this way.

Is there a way to update the permalink logic such that personal posts per page setup doesn't influence the url directing users to that specific post?

The best way I know to avoid this problem – due, as all seem to have surmised, to differences in members # posts/page options – is to use description of post markup instead of description of post.

 

Another neat difference between and is that opens links in the same window, sparing browser window/tab clutter.

 

There’s also a [thread] markup for pointing to a thread, but it seems to offer little advantage over ..

 

I’ve used for a long time, with good results. Since post numbers are short enough that you can usually manually read and enter them from your browser’s status bar faster than you can copy the urls of threads via the quote button, etc., it’s quicker for me, too.

 

Note that I edited C1ay’s original post to use . Nobody should be having any problems with the link now.

 

It would be super nifty if the post function could automatically convert refs to posts and threads to and [thread], but until that happens, manually entering markups can make your posts’ links nearly unbreakable. :)

[CraigD]

Look folks, the posters are very rarely the subject of threads, and the rule about insulting people needs to be changed, to avoid the problem that almost every forum has. Instead of a rule against insulting people, the rule needs to state that personal remarks making another poster the subject of discussion is a no no.

The “discuss posts, not posters” criteria is a pretty common one we mods use to deciding when people are crossing the rude/aggressive/etc. line. Another criteria is when a poster shows a pattern of posting that, while never technically breaking a rule, results in one or more reasonable members simply feeling angry or unhappy – hypography should be a friendly, happy forum. :hyper:

 

I’m a bit reluctant to replace the current rule’s wording with it, though, as we don’t want to suggest that nice, flattering ad-hominem posts are a no-no – sucking up and mutual admiration ;) at hypography is encouraged!

 

We’re always on the lookout for ways to edit the rules page to make it more readable and effective, and will take your suggestion under advisement, nutronjon. :)

[nutronjon]

The “discuss posts, not posters” criteria is a pretty common one we mods use to deciding when people are crossing the rude/aggressive/etc. line. Another criteria is when a poster shows a pattern of posting that, while never technically breaking a rule, results in one or more reasonable members simply feeling angry or unhappy – hypography should be a friendly, happy forum. :)

 

I’m a bit reluctant to replace the current rule’s wording with it, though, as we don’t want to suggest that nice, flattering ad-hominem posts are a no-no – sucking up and mutual admiration ;) at hypography is encouraged!

 

We’re always on the lookout for ways to edit the rules page to make it more readable and effective, and will take your suggestion under advisement, nutronjon. :shrug:

 

Thank you.

[nutronjon]

What exactly is the point in calling nature anything but nature? There in no ambiguity in this. The definition of nature is universally agreed on. "God" on the other hand is defined differently all over the world with few agreeing on a definition. Is it your point to needlessly introduce confusion into discussions of nature just for the fun of introducing confusion? Why use such a poor term to talk about nature when we already have a well defined term for that purpose?

 

I would love to discuss this with you, but this is not the place for that discussion. I also need to feel safe, before engaging in such discussions.

 

Is saying God is the stuff of universe and orgainzing forces, preaching and P? whatever that word is? I don't think so. I think preaching and P? means a whole lot more than making one statement. Please define preaching and P?. Did someone miss use these words to penalize me, to please someone who wanted to hurt me? Why is it okay to state there is no God, as though this is unquestioned fact, but the opposite is preaching and P?.

 

Thie the meaning of preaching and P? and a question of it the rules were misused, is the subject of this thread, and unfortunately it got mixed with another subject of ruining threads by making a poster the subject of the thread. I made the second complaint because immediately when I attempted to spread into other threads, I come back to person attacks and I am not the subject of the threads. The two subjects should not have been put in one thread, as the two subjects are different.

 

The rule against offending or insulting people is applied only when a moderator wants to apply the rules, and this inconsistancy leads to repeated violations of the rule. It is like saying no u turns can be made at a intersection, and then ignoring everyone making u turns, except racially different people. The problem is not stopped when it is a matter of whim. By the way, this is the forum rule of which I speak, not my own idea of how a forum should operate.

 

This is actually politically significant. Fourms are run like kindoms of old, with moderators enforcing the rules differently depending on their relationships with the people involved. Justice also requires leeway, and tyranny is the literal application of law. What is just is uncertain here, and this is up for discussion and should not make enemies. I hope to return to intellectually appealing discussion, instead of several personal attacks. Can we agree moderators act on whim, depending on their feelings and what the power structure allows?

[InfiniteNow]

Wow. Talk about changing the subject to avoid the question. :)

[Mercedes Benzene]

The rule against offending or insulting people is applied only when a moderator wants to apply the rules, and this inconsistancy leads to repeated violations of the rule. It is like saying no u turns can be made at a intersection, and then ignoring everyone making u turns, except racially different people. The problem is not stopped when it is a matter of whim. By the way, this is the forum rule of which I speak, not my own idea of how a forum should operate.

 

Okay, let me repeat myself for you in a more concise manner.

Here, rules mean rules. I don't know where you come from that you would think otherwise. We enforce them whenever they are violated. If you disagree with the rules, you may leave, just as you are free to leave this country if you do not like federal laws. Same thing.

So please decide if you want to be a lawful citizen of Hypography or not.

[InfiniteNow]

I am a bit confused about why it is wrong to saying God is the stuff of the universe and organizing forces, without saying this a point of view or a possibility every time, and it is not wrong to say, God doesn't exist- as a matter of fact?

 

When one asserts that "purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns" it is not logically equivalent to saying that "unicorns and leprechauns don't exist."

 

 

One statement assumes a priori the existence of the entity, and then further posits some result of that existence.

 

The other statement says that there is zero evidence or reason to accept the existence of said entity, and therefore it can be logically assumed not part of reality until empiricism shows otherwise.

 

Inherent in the second is the willingness to change one's mind. That same willingness does not apply to a mind which has already decided these things exist despite the absence of evidence, need, or explanatory power.

 

What INow said is right nutron.

 

It is NOT un-scientific to hypothesize that something unobservable does not exist, because it is a falsifiable hypothesis.

 

It IS un-scientific to hypothesize that something unobservable DOES exist, because this hypothesis is not falsifiable.

 

It is as simple as that.

 

What's missing in this situation is a reasonable scientific explanation for why it becomes necessary, beneficial, or in any way logical to assign the label of *god* to what is being observed in nature. It is therefore relegated to a personal opinion. This has been explained in countless ways by numerous people.

 

<...>

 

What I find really frustrating is that this simple concept has to be reiterated ad infinitum.

 

Yes, but I am still a bit confused about why it is wrong to saying God is the stuff of the universe. :shade:

 

:) :naughty: :xx: :umno: :hammer: :lol: :rant:

 

Why is it okay to state there is no God, as though this is unquestioned fact, but the opposite is preaching and [prostyletizing]?

 

:doh::hihi::doh::hihi::doh:

 

 

Really frustrated, indeed. :naughty:

[CraigD]

Moderation note: Several posts originally appeared in this thread were moved to the Theology forum thread 15572, because they began addressing questions concerning the idea of God, rather than complaints and complements about hypography and/or its administration.

[C1ay]

I would love to discuss this with you, but this is not the place for that discussion. I also need to feel safe, before engaging in such discussions.

 

Is that now your claim for not having answered this question which has been asked of you in the Theology forum numerous times? It looks like you are avoiding the question.