Oh, C'MON, MsRobyn

[Julie]

This isn't going to be all that vitriolic, so if you enjoy cagefights you'll have to start something yourself.



In this thread, I'm trying to have a conversation about canonization.

mozg comes along with such lines as this:

I won't throw out science and pander to Catholic sensibilities. They can call whoever they want to a saint, and they will. And I am free to call them all disgusting, greedy, hateful scum.

Boozahol Squid, P.I. replies:

If you want to call Catholics disgusting, greedy scum, then why the hell are you posting in a thread about canonization? I mean, other than blatant trollery?

You know, you can have an intellectual conversation about something you disagree with, even if it requires accepting (for the purposes of discussion) ideas that are anethma to you. If someone is discussing whom the Republicans are going to nominate for President in 2008, could you really not add anything other than 'They're all a bunch of assholes'?

Then you reply:

That said, mozg has the same right to post in this thread as you do, whether she's Catholic or not. She's not threadshitting, she's simply voicing her view on the subject, however strongly.

C'mon. What she was doing was absolutely 100% prime grade-A threadshitting. She's not interested in Catholic sensibilities but she's in a thread about canonization for Bo's sake. What in the flying fuck is more Catholic than that?

When I asked her what she thought the thread would be about, she answered (this was after your reply, so I'm not saying this should have been part of your judgment):

I figured we'd be talking about a bunch of immoral people playing it up like they have the high ground because of their connection to a shared imaginary friend.

Now, I don't know if we should have a rule against threadshitting, but what she's doing is absolutely threadshitting.

[Harlequin]

Yeah, that's a prime example of threadshitting alright.

[mozg]

I'm interested in what kind of bullshit the power structure in the Vatican holds up to be a prime example of moral, ethical, godly behavior. That I'm interested in it because I find it to be more ammunition for the idea that religion has long outlived its place in the world does not indicate a lack of interest.

I'm interested in it from the perspective that making saints out of people who are corrupt, greedy, hateful and unethical demonstrates that the organization who chooses to honor these people with these qualities is demonstrating its own corruption. I'm interested in it from the perspective that if people like Mother Teresa were doing what is called 'God's work', what does that say about the god that these people worship?

What does it say about the people who worship a god whose work is done by a woman who thinks children are better off being warehoused in orphanages than raised by people who used birth control, while telling poor people who live in squalid conditions barely able to feed themselves let alone become educated, raise their standard of living, and control the size of their family to one that they can afford to care for that they will burn in hell forever if they use condoms.

Because to me, the idea that this woman is potentially a saint, says a hell of a lot about the kind of people who would revere her.

[What Exit?]

If that was all she came into the thread to post I would agree with you Julie, but it looks like she mainly came in to challenge Mother Theresa as a Saint and backed up why she thought so. It appeared to be Boozahol Squid, P.I. who moved the thread to an abortion debate.

She was not actually shitting on the idea of Saints but objecting to the:

A discussion of canonization requires that you bring with it Catholic sensibilities in regards to matters such as abortion. Terminating a pregnancy is killing a child.

The thread clearly got hijacked but more by Boozahol Squid, P.I. than mozg

This is all just in my opinion as a poster. I don't mod The Crucible.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

So there's this thread going on in The Crucible. It's a thread supposedly about canonization of Catholic saints. This topic is rather broad, and there are plenty of avenues that can be discussed and debated. However, one poster decided to step in, and instead of approaching the topic in good faith, decided to take the opportunity to attack, first, one aspect of Catholic belief, and then, later the Church (and its worshippers) itself.

Now I understand that amongst our group of posters, the RCC isn't the most popular of institutions. I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of posters here are pro-abortion, pro-contraception, and generally wary of institutionalized religion. There is plenty of room, in both the Crucible, or in the Thunderdome, for people ot make those arguments. However, I really feel that if that avenue is taken every time some aspect of the Church is brought up, posters are allowed to hijack a thread to assault it, we'd lose out on the benefits of honest open discussion. There's a reason to discuss even those things which we all agree aren't true (e.g.: Was the rage of Achilles in the Illiad justified?) without someone stepping in to declaim the foundations of the discussion itself (Achilles is a fictional character! Homer was a collective group of poets!)

I should admit, at this point, that I'm a Catholic. I get irritated quickly when people dismiss the fundamental ideas of the sacredness of life as espoused by the Church as a misogynistic ploy to control all women, or that there is no morality in religion, only deception and vice. I responded quickly,and harshly, to the poster in question. After a few moments, I also reported his post, as I felt that not only did he deserve to be called out on trolling the thread (and by that, I mean that he wasn't honest in responding to any part of the discussion so far, but was trying to introduce totally irrelevant thoughts on the nature of the Catholic Church), but that also, it would do good to have an official word on somewhat respecting the nature of an OP.

And I get this response:

I realize that this is a rather heated topic, and people on different sides have strong opinions on it.* That said, mozg has the same right to post in this thread as you do, whether she's Catholic or not.** She's not threadshitting, she's simply voicing her view on the subject, however strongly. *** Which means you're not junior modding.**** You are, however, accusing someone publicly of trolling and engaging in ad hominem attacks, neither of which are acceptable. ***** If you have an issue with her, take her to Thunderdome. That's what it's for. ******

My asterisks added, for ease of response, point by point.

* Canonization of Saints isn't a heated topic. That's what the thread began as, and that's what it continued as until mozg came in and responded to the thread as if it was "Catholic Church: Threat or Menace?" There's a place to discuss the canonization of saints, and it seems reasonable that The Crucible be one of them. However, you can't have a real discussion about that issue unless you allow for the fact that discussion of the internal matters of the Catholic Church require at least a hint of understanding that the RCC operates on its own rules. What would you say if a Q&A thread opened up on a question of tax law, and a Libertarian started railing against the idea of taxes in their own right? No matter the right or wrong of their opinion, it's not the right place to weigh in on it.

** I don't have a problem with non-Catholics weighing in on the issue. In fact, I welcome the response of someone like Claptree: he made his opinion known, but understood the fact that they didn't want to involve himself in the discussion at hand. If Claptree had wanted to spend the time to discuss how MT wasn't a good candidate for sainthood based on her inappropriateness for the qualifications involved, it would have been even better. However, those qualifications, inevitably, get wrapped up in Catholic dogma. So he left, without trying to change the nature of the thread itself.

*** What is threadshitting, then, other than an attempt to wrangle a topic completely off-base, and attack the bases of the posters that are probably most interested in the topic?

**** Thanks. This would be about the only point that I might agree with you on.

***** There isn't actually a rule against calling someone a troll on this board. I thought ex post facto lawswere one of the things we were trying to get away from on the SDMB. I also didn't engage in any ad hominem attacks. The closest of which, I think, might have been asking if she was Der Trihs. That wasn't an attack, but instead, an honest question: his unrelenting style of refusing to acknowledge the foundations of thought different to his own seemed quite familiar. If mozg turned out to be that same poster, I would have done what I did to DT on the Dope, and just ignored any posts she made.

****** I don't really have any interest in flaming another poster. I do have an interest in making sure that DoMeBo doesn't become a hostile environment to theists who want to have a discussion that doesn't involve the essential 'Your God is a fuckwad' argument that some strident atheists like to interject in these arguments to shut down discussion of matters which require acceptance of certain 'ground rules'.



So yeah. I reported a post. MsRobyn backed up a threadshitter. And the threadshitter has now posted again, in an attempt not to respond to anything even remotely related to the OP, but instead, as an attack on the religion that's the foundation thereof. Wouldn't it be more effective to have those sorts of comments moved to their own thread, and allow an uninterrupted thread to continue based upon its own OP's merits?

[Liberal]

This is sad, because there was a discussion about this early on. And now it's beginning to creep in, even on the front page.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

This is sad, because there was a discussion about this early on. And now it's beginning to creep in, even on the front page.

Sorry, Lib. Can you link to what you're talking about?

[MsRobyn]

If all mozg came to say was that "ZOMG!!111!!! MOTHER TERESA SUXXORS!!11!! THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SUXXORS!!!11!!" I'd agree with you.

But she posted this, in which she used Mother Teresa's own quotes against her to advance what I perceived as a legitimate point, that there are some people -- Catholic and non-Catholic -- who oppose Mother Teresa's canonization. Given Mother Teresa's visibility and status in the eyes of the world, this not an unreasonable position to take. I know mozg can be abrasive, but she took an honest position and defended it. I will agree that she should have treaded more lightly, however.

When I looked at the entire thread after getting Boozy's report, I didn't see threadshitting. I saw someone complaining about a position they didn't agree with. My problem with it wasn't the issue of Boozy vs. mozg, or their respective arguments. It was what I perceived to be rather uncivil behavior on Boozy's part. I have no objections if the OP wishes to frame the debate and attempts to keep it within that framework. I do have an objection to another poster who attempts to hijack the debate so it's on his terms, and then tries to exclude another poster for not following those terms. And that's the basis of my comment.

[CRSP]

He's talking about Oakminster's article, here. There's an ongoing discussion on the subject in Jibba Jabba.

[Sarahfeena]

I think Liberal's actually referring to prr's "Principles of Discourse" thread: http://domebo.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=758

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

[quote=What Exit?]If that was all she came into the thread to post I would agree with you Julie, but it looks like she mainly came in to challenge Mother Theresa as a Saint and backed up why she thought so. It appeared to be Boozahol Squid, P.I. who moved the thread to an abortion debate.

She was not actually shitting on the idea of Saints but objecting to the:

A discussion of canonization requires that you bring with it Catholic sensibilities in regards to matters such as abortion. Terminating a pregnancy is killing a child.

The thread clearly got hijacked but more by Boozahol Squid, P.I. than mozg

This is all just in my opinion as a poster. I don't mod The Crucible.[/quote:w0ovitiu]

The problem is, that objection to a Roman Catholic rite (canonization) requires Roman Catholic sensibilites. What sense does it make to argue against one of the postulates of the organ that canonizes in a debate about canonization? I'm reminded of my first class on Lobachevskian geometry, when a student remarked "Come on, parallel lines don't meet!"

What benefit can possibly be gained by railing against postulates?

[Liberal]

And please let me apologize for addressing these issues where people are offended. I know that at least one poster is bothered by a "free speech" angle, which mystifies me, but there you go.

[Exy]

I think the mod note was perfectly fair, but can I say something? MsRobyn, in that particular note, came across to me at least as very lecture-y and kind of unpleasant. Boozahol Squid's crime here was pretty minor -- I think it would probably help maintain the general good feeling around here if the moderators made a real effort NOT to sound like the ones on the SDMB always did. Every other message board I've been to, the moderation is normally more casual and friendly than it was on the SDMB. The SDMB mods may think it's okay to sound like a schoolteacher scolding an 8 year old, but most places manage fine with moderators just piping up when necessary to remind people of the rules.

I'm not saying MsRobyn was cruel or over some sort of line or anything. I just think people should really make an effort not to emulate the SDMB mods because the general tension there was there between moderators and everyone else is not something I'd like to see here, and it's not something I ever really saw at other fora. We're all adults. People will say things that are against the rules but for the most part they don't need to be lectured.

[Sarahfeena]

If that was all she came into the thread to post I would agree with you Julie, but it looks like she mainly came in to challenge Mother Theresa as a Saint and backed up why she thought so. It appeared to be Boozahol Squid, P.I. who moved the thread to an abortion debate.

I disagree. mozg brought up abortion, giving MT's views on it as a reason she should not be canonized. Booz merely pointed out that this is a rather weak argument considering the Church's stance on abortion.

[Harlequin]

OK, I read the entire thread instead of just bits and pieces, and I no longer think it was threadshitting. Questions were asked and mozg answered them, she didn't just pop in to shit all over the topic.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

I disagree. mozg brought up abortion, giving MT's views on it as a reason she should not be canonized. Booz merely pointed out that this is a rather weak argument considering the Church's stance on abortion.

That really was the point of my objection, for what it's worth.

[What Exit?]

[quote=Boozahol Squid, P.I.][quote="What Exit?":3s905rdp]If that was all she came into the thread to post I would agree with you Julie, but it looks like she mainly came in to challenge Mother Theresa as a Saint and backed up why she thought so. It appeared to be Boozahol Squid, P.I. who moved the thread to an abortion debate.

She was not actually shitting on the idea of Saints but objecting to the:

A discussion of canonization requires that you bring with it Catholic sensibilities in regards to matters such as abortion. Terminating a pregnancy is killing a child.

The thread clearly got hijacked but more by Boozahol Squid, P.I. than mozg

This is all just in my opinion as a poster. I don't mod The Crucible.[/quote:3s905rdp]

The problem is, that objection to a Roman Catholic rite (canonization) requires Roman Catholic sensibilites. What sense does it make to argue against one of the postulates of the organ that canonizes in a debate about canonization? I'm reminded of my first class on Lobachevskian geometry, when a student remarked "Come on, parallel lines don't meet!"

What benefit can possibly be gained by railing against postulates?[/quote:3s905rdp]
I was strictly addressing Julie's complaint in the OP about thread shitting. I don't see the thread shitting. Her debate might be off but that is up to you to try and make your point. You seem to have a good one.

On preview: Thank you Harlequin.

[What Exit?]

If that was all she came into the thread to post I would agree with you Julie, but it looks like she mainly came in to challenge Mother Theresa as a Saint and backed up why she thought so. It appeared to be Boozahol Squid, P.I. who moved the thread to an abortion debate.

I disagree. mozg brought up abortion, giving MT's views on it as a reason she should not be canonized. Booz merely pointed out that this is a rather weak argument considering the Church's stance on abortion.

This is form the Op and all I was commenting on: 100% prime grade-A threadshitting.

It does not look like threadshitting to me. The abortion hijack or side debate is a seperate issue and I think more on Boozahol Squid, P.I. than mozg. Not that his point was wrong, in context I respect his point.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

I was strictly addressing Julie's complaint in the OP about thread shitting. I don't see the thread shitting. Her debate might be off but that is up to you to try and make your point. You seem to have a good one.

On preview: Thank you Harlequin.

Let me make my point as basic as I can:

In a debate regarding the beliefs of one group, should another group's interpretation matter?

In another manner: Should Paul's commentary on the Gospels be used as a basis on a discussion of the Talmud?

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

It does not look like threadshitting to me. The abortion hijack or side debate is a seperate issue and I think more on Boozahol Squid, P.I. than mozg. Not that his point was wrong, in context I respect his point.

Okay. If I want a debate on Catholic Dogma, where should I post it? Not a general discussion of whether or not Catholic Dogma is worth a jack shit, but whether it applies to X scenario, is there a place on this board where that can be discussed?

[What Exit?]

[quote=Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

I was strictly addressing Julie's complaint in the OP about thread shitting. I don't see the thread shitting. Her debate might be off but that is up to you to try and make your point. You seem to have a good one.

On preview: Thank you Harlequin.

Let me make my point as basic as I can:

In a debate regarding the beliefs of one group, should another group's interpretation matter?

In another manner: Should Paul's commentary on the Gospels be used as a basis on a discussion of the Talmud?[/quote:25ylpd0q]
How does that make what she did threadshitting? I don't really care about the rest or I would have posted in that thread. I have a soft spot for Pope JP II and I hope he gets his sainthood but I don't care enough to debate it.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

How does that make what she did threadshitting? I don't really care about the rest or I would have posted in that thread. I have a soft spot for Pope JP II and I hope he gets his sainthood but I don't care enough to debate it.

Then, really, you shouldn't comment on a debate thread about him being canonized.

[What Exit?]

[quote=Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

It does not look like threadshitting to me. The abortion hijack or side debate is a seperate issue and I think more on Boozahol Squid, P.I. than mozg. Not that his point was wrong, in context I respect his point.

Okay. If I want a debate on Catholic Dogma, where should I post it? Not a general discussion of whether or not Catholic Dogma is worth a jack shit, but whether it applies to X scenario, is there a place on this board where that can be discussed?[/quote:16cc6vxy]
What was wrong with where it was? I think you are missing my point, I don't see anything particularly wrong in that thread. I am commenting on the threadshitting charge and only as a member.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Okay. If I want a debate on Catholic Dogma, where should I post it? Not a general discussion of whether or not Catholic Dogma is worth a jack shit, but whether it applies to X scenario, is there a place on this board where that can be discussed?

What was wrong with where it was? I think you are missing my point, I don't see anything particularly wrong in that thread. I am commenting on the threadshitting charge and only as a member.[/quote]
When I see your name, I only think of a wonderful evening I spent watching a Yankees-Indians playoff game, not as a mod.

I think that a thread that's a question on whether or not X person meets the qualifications of Z should be a conversation on X, not on Z. That's all.

[Liberal]

The problem is, that objection to a Roman Catholic rite (canonization) requires Roman Catholic sensibilites. What sense does it make to argue against one of the postulates of the organ that canonizes in a debate about canonization? I'm reminded of my first class on Lobachevskian geometry, when a student remarked "Come on, parallel lines don't meet!"

What benefit can possibly be gained by railing against postulates?

Fantastically put. That is the very crux of the problem, the misunderstanding of which is sadly more wide ranging than one would think among people of our calibre.

[prr]

As an aside, I have added this topic, threadshitting, to my general principles of discourse for this community to clarify, apart from particular issues in this thread. It will be helpful, I hope, to talk about things in terms of the principles we mean to apply generally around here.

[mozg]

In a debate regarding the beliefs of one group, should another group's interpretation matter?

I think they absolutely are in this case, because the Catholic church and its leadership want to have a seat at the table when it comes to advising governments, shaping political policy, and influencing laws outside the Vatican City.

Every time a 'community panel' regarding some moral or ethical topic is devised (such as politicians debating things like abortion, availability of birth control, and sex education), you're going to see religious leaders expected to be given a seat on the panel.

I think if they want their opinions to be heard in my government, then they open themselves up to criticism of what they hold out as their ideals. That includes people (me included) saying that if you elevate those who are greedy and hateful, and those who increase suffering through their words and deeds, then that reflects upon you too.

If a saint is godly, and godly is how Catholics are supposed to be, then I say they either need to change their definition of ethical, moral, and good deeds and words, or they need to stop claiming that they need to be consulted as an authority on what is ethical, moral and good. Because quite frankly, the idea that Mother Teresa was an ethical, moral and good person in word and deed is very, very disturbing to me.

Since it has been agreed that her deeds and her words are congruent with what the Catholic church's official stance is, I think it's far past time that everyone took a very critical look at the ideals they hold out, and the harm they do to this world.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

In a debate regarding the beliefs of one group, should another group's interpretation matter?

I think they absolutely are in this case, because the Catholic church and its leadership want to have a seat at the table when it comes to advising governments, shaping political policy, and influencing laws outside the Vatican City.

Every time a 'community panel' regarding some moral or ethical topic is devised (such as politicians debating things like abortion, availability of birth control, and sex education), you're going to see religious leaders expected to be given a seat on the panel.

I think if they want their opinions to be heard in my government, then they open themselves up to criticism of what they hold out as their ideals. That includes people (me included) saying that if you elevate those who are greedy and hateful, and those who increase suffering through their words and deeds, then that reflects upon you too.

If a saint is godly, and godly is how Catholics are supposed to be, then I say they either need to change their definition of ethical, moral, and good deeds and words, or they need to stop claiming that they need to be consulted as an authority on what is ethical, moral and good. Because quite frankly, the idea that Mother Teresa was an ethical, moral and good person in word and deed is very, very disturbing to me.

Since it has been agreed that her deeds and her words are congruent with what the Catholic church's official stance is, I think it's far past time that everyone took a very critical look at the ideals they hold out, and the harm they do to this world.

This is a very interesting piece. I just wish you'd propose it in a separate thread that isn't dedicated to internal matters of the Church. If you do so, I promise I'll do my best to engage you on it.

[Sarahfeena]

[quote=Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

In a debate regarding the beliefs of one group, should another group's interpretation matter?

I think they absolutely are in this case, because the Catholic church and its leadership want to have a seat at the table when it comes to advising governments, shaping political policy, and influencing laws outside the Vatican City.

Every time a 'community panel' regarding some moral or ethical topic is devised (such as politicians debating things like abortion, availability of birth control, and sex education), you're going to see religious leaders expected to be given a seat on the panel.

I think if they want their opinions to be heard in my government, then they open themselves up to criticism of what they hold out as their ideals. That includes people (me included) saying that if you elevate those who are greedy and hateful, and those who increase suffering through their words and deeds, then that reflects upon you too.

If a saint is godly, and godly is how Catholics are supposed to be, then I say they either need to change their definition of ethical, moral, and good deeds and words, or they need to stop claiming that they need to be consulted as an authority on what is ethical, moral and good. Because quite frankly, the idea that Mother Teresa was an ethical, moral and good person in word and deed is very, very disturbing to me.

Since it has been agreed that her deeds and her words are congruent with what the Catholic church's official stance is, I think it's far past time that everyone took a very critical look at the ideals they hold out, and the harm they do to this world.

This is a very interesting piece. I just wish you'd propose it in a separate thread that isn't dedicated to internal matters of the Church. If you do so, I promise I'll do my best to engage you on it.[/quote:3b37jo50] Seconded.

[NinetyWt]

This is a very interesting piece. I just wish you'd propose it in a separate thread that isn't dedicated to internal matters of the Church.

Thirded.

[ulfhjorr]

So there's this thread going on in The Crucible. It's a thread supposedly about canonization of Catholic saints. This topic is rather broad, and there are plenty of avenues that can be discussed and debated. However, one poster decided to step in, and instead of approaching the topic in good faith, decided to take the opportunity to attack, first, one aspect of Catholic belief, and then, later the Church (and its worshippers) itself.

[snip]

So yeah. I reported a post. MsRobyn backed up a threadshitter. And the threadshitter has now posted again, in an attempt not to respond to anything even remotely related to the OP, but instead, as an attack on the religion that's the foundation thereof. Wouldn't it be more effective to have those sorts of comments moved to their own thread, and allow an uninterrupted thread to continue based upon its own OP's merits?

Wow, you're kidding, right? Because if not, your self-admitted irritation has severely warped your perspective. The first post I see in that thread by mozg was nothing more than a contribution to the discussion about Theresa's legacy that was already taking place. Sure, her comments weren't all happy and loving toward religion, but what the fuck does that matter? Mozg was injecting fairly specific commentary on a fairly specific point of discussion in the thread. If anything, you were the one to derail things by then attacking her beliefs about religion, as all her posts going forward that you seem to be taking exception to are responses to those attacks.

[TheFlame]

To me, the crux of this argument is whether the following comment (in post #13) was appropriate for the thread

The greatest destroyer of peace today? Religion is responsible for more hatred, torture, mutilation and killing. You want suffering? Just take a look at a holy war.

Would this provocative comment be considered acceptable in all Crucible threads pertaining to religion? If not, but it was acceptable in this particular one, why?

[Chimera]

Fourthed.

That's what I had been arguing for previously. The original discussion should remain on-track and side issues, flames, nitpicking or single-issue assaults (you get the idea) should be placed in a new thread for the purposes of discussion.

[Liberal]

The thread was derailed as of post #13.

The greatest destroyer of peace today? Religion is responsible for more hatred, torture, mutilation and killing. You want suffering? Just take a look at a holy war.

A classic red herring.

[Sarahfeena]

Wow, you're kidding, right? Because if not, your self-admitted irritation has severely warped your perspective. The first post I see in that thread by mozg was nothing more than a contribution to the discussion about Theresa's legacy that was already taking place. Sure, her comments weren't all happy and loving toward religion, but what the fuck does that matter? Mozg was injecting fairly specific commentary on a fairly specific point of discussion in the thread. If anything, you were the one to derail things by then attacking her beliefs about religion, as all her posts going forward that you seem to be taking exception to are responses to those attacks.

I think what we have are two different perspectives on what the thread is supposed to be about. Some (including the OP) are thinking that it's a thread about whether or not certain people have met the Catholic criteria for being made a saint. Others think that the question is whether the criteria are appropriate, ethical, morally just, etc. Two different topics, one thread. Makes it tough to have a meaningful conversation.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Wow, you're kidding, right? Because if not, your self-admitted irritation has severely warped your perspective. The first post I see in that thread by mozg was nothing more than a contribution to the discussion about Theresa's legacy that was already taking place. Sure, her comments weren't all happy and loving toward religion, but what the fuck does that matter? Mozg was injecting fairly specific commentary on a fairly specific point of discussion in the thread. If anything, you were the one to derail things by then attacking her beliefs about religion, as all her posts going forward that you seem to be taking exception to are responses to those attacks.

Nope, I'm not kidding. The first post in the thread by mozg (in particular, the bit I responded to) involved her commentary not on the validity of canonization, but on some more abstract theory of who is a good person or not.

My issue is that abstract theories about good people have nothing to do with canonization. Canonization has everything to do with following the strictures of the Catholic Church.

[Julie]

I think the mod note was perfectly fair, but can I say something? MsRobyn, in that particular note, came across to me at least as very lecture-y and kind of unpleasant. Boozahol Squid's crime here was pretty minor -- I think it would probably help maintain the general good feeling around here if the moderators made a real effort NOT to sound like the ones on the SDMB always did. Every other message board I've been to, the moderation is normally more casual and friendly than it was on the SDMB. The SDMB mods may think it's okay to sound like a schoolteacher scolding an 8 year old, but most places manage fine with moderators just piping up when necessary to remind people of the rules.

I'm not saying MsRobyn was cruel or over some sort of line or anything. I just think people should really make an effort not to emulate the SDMB mods because the general tension there was there between moderators and everyone else is not something I'd like to see here, and it's not something I ever really saw at other fora. We're all adults. People will say things that are against the rules but for the most part they don't need to be lectured.

Agreed fully. I didn't want to put that in the OP because I didn't want this to come off as an attack on MsRobyn, so I'm glad you brought it up in a great, non-attacking way.

[Sarahfeena]

I just posted the following in the ADF thread, but I think it's actually more relevant here:

I think what we have are two different perspectives on what the thread is supposed to be about. Some (including the OP) are thinking that it's a thread about whether or not certain people have met the Catholic criteria for being made a saint. Others think that the question is whether the criteria are appropriate, ethical, morally just, etc. Two different topics, one thread. Makes it tough to have a meaningful conversation.

[NAF1138]

To me, the crux of this argument is whether the following comment (in post #13) was appropriate for the thread

The greatest destroyer of peace today? Religion is responsible for more hatred, torture, mutilation and killing. You want suffering? Just take a look at a holy war.

Would this provocative comment be considered acceptable in all Crucible threads pertaining to religion? If not, but it was acceptable in this particular one, why?

I was just thinking the same thing. That is really what got the ball rolling, and while reading the thread that is the line that made me stop. But in the context of the post as a whole I do think that it is fine.

Speaking as a poster and not a mod (not my forum) the problem is really that it sets up a secondary debate, and even a tertiary debate about abortion, that has nothing to do with the OP and that should have been splintered off into it's own thread. I don't think that any single instance is threadshitting on its own, but collectively the posts (from both sides) serve to derail the thread in a way that makes it hard to recover from.

I think it was the right call not to warn for threadshitting, but I think that the response to Boozy was out of proportion. I would have prefered to see a request to keep the thread on topic and to start splinter threads if there was a wish to debate abortion of the relative evils/benetfits of the Catholic church.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

I just posted the following in the ADF thread, but I think it's actually more relevant here:

I think what we have are two different perspectives on what the thread is supposed to be about. Some (including the OP) are thinking that it's a thread about whether or not certain people have met the Catholic criteria for being made a saint. Others think that the question is whether the criteria are appropriate, ethical, morally just, etc. Two different topics, one thread. Makes it tough to have a meaningful conversation.

Yeah. If this was addressed by TPTB, and it was decided that the latter was always acceptable, I'll slink off and accept a warning. It would make me think that this place is more unfair than the Dope, for what it's worth.

[LurkMeister]

In a debate regarding the beliefs of one group, should another group's interpretation matter?

I think they absolutely are in this case, because the Catholic church and its leadership want to have a seat at the table when it comes to advising governments, shaping political policy, and influencing laws outside the Vatican City.

Every time a 'community panel' regarding some moral or ethical topic is devised (such as politicians debating things like abortion, availability of birth control, and sex education), you're going to see religious leaders expected to be given a seat on the panel.

I think if they want their opinions to be heard in my government, then they open themselves up to criticism of what they hold out as their ideals. That includes people (me included) saying that if you elevate those who are greedy and hateful, and those who increase suffering through their words and deeds, then that reflects upon you too.

If a saint is godly, and godly is how Catholics are supposed to be, then I say they either need to change their definition of ethical, moral, and good deeds and words, or they need to stop claiming that they need to be consulted as an authority on what is ethical, moral and good. Because quite frankly, the idea that Mother Teresa was an ethical, moral and good person in word and deed is very, very disturbing to me.

Since it has been agreed that her deeds and her words are congruent with what the Catholic church's official stance is, I think it's far past time that everyone took a very critical look at the ideals they hold out, and the harm they do to this world.

I'm sorry, but having read the initial thread, this thread, and the above quote, I still don't understand how a discussion of Catholic Church beliefs and policies is relevant to a discussion of whether or not someone is worthy of canonization. If I were to go into a thread on whether or not someone on American Idol should or should not have won and started raving about how American Idol is an example of the dumbing down of American television and culture, wouldn't that be an example of threadshitting? How is this any different?

If you have a problem with the beliefs of the Catholic Church, or the way that religion seems to be pervading society today, fine. As a matter of fact, I agree with you on many of the issues you mention above. But, as several others have pointed out, start your own thread about it instead of hijacking someone else's.

[CRSP]

Yeah, my first reaction was "threadshitting", now I've read the thread a few times, and the surrounding discussions, and I'm not so sure. I think the better option would have been to split the thread, forming a new topic, and gently remind posters to try to keep on topic. I think thread splitting should generally be prefered, when dealing with threads that wander off topic.

[CRSP]

Also, speaking as a poster, I don't think strident atheism in the Der Trihs mould is really all that helpful. If you're trying to persuade people to adopt your position (and if you aren't, why are you posting in TC?), then nobody is going to be convinced by being belittled or insulted.

[NAF1138]

Yeah. If this was addressed by TPTB, and it was decided that the latter was always acceptable, I'll slink off and accept a warning. It would make me think that this place is more unfair than the Dope, for what it's worth.

Come again?

ETA: It doesn't look like you have actually gotten anything official. I am not sure what official would mean or look like, but I do know that there aren't notes on your profile. I started a topic in The Hive so we can clarify some of this and we don't turn this place into SDMB redux with the lack of clarity in mod actions.

[Chimera]

Yeah. If this was addressed by TPTB, and it was decided that the latter was always acceptable, I'll slink off and accept a warning. It would make me think that this place is more unfair than the Dope, for what it's worth.

I don't necessarily think that you need to think of it as a warning of any kind at this point or take it so negatively. This discussion proves that we're still working out how we want this board to work and that thread is our first real test case. So insomuch as that is concerned, I want to thank you for creating it.

Once decided, and if it's decided against you, then it shouldn't be so much "OK, I was warned and I'm sulking over it", but "Ok, now we know how it works on this board" and "Fair enough, next time I'll create a new thread". Then, going forward, it shouldn't be so much as "Mod Warning", but "Mod advice to take it to a new thread".

[NAF1138]

Also, speaking as a poster, I don't think strident atheism in the Der Trihs mould is really all that helpful. If you're trying to persuade people to adopt your position (and if you aren't, why are you posting in TC?), then nobody is going to be convinced by being belittled or insulted.

I agree, but we are going to get people like that and I don't know that we want to push them away any more than we want to push away the religious. As long as people are good about keeping to the debate topic we should be ok though.

[What Exit?]

I am missing a piece. Was the objection about threadshitting or about hijacking the thread into another debate?

The canonization thread was clearly hijacked off the clear intent of the canonization thread. This I agree with. It seems as if this thread has changed into a second complaint about the side debates in the canonization thread.

It seems too late to do it cleanly but the thread can be split with this software into two separate debates.

[What Exit?]

Can we split the canonization thread and merge this one and the thunderdome thread?

[MsRobyn]

As I said in the Thunderdome thread, I'm OK with the OP of the thread framing the discussion, and with trying to keep the discussion along those lines.

That said, however, I have re-considered my comments to Boozy in the original thread. I will edit them appropriately. I furthermore promise not to moderate a) at 4:00 a.m., or b) before I've had my coffee.

I will also merge the two threads.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

I am missing a piece. Was the objection about threadshitting or about hijacking the thread into another debate?

Perhaps my entire issue is that I don't really see the difference between the two. Hijacking one debate into another does seem a little threadshitty, especially because the second debate is kinda based on opposition to some of the founding thoughts of the first.