He’s the man who thinks some people are less than human. (I find that hard to forget or see past - looks like it’s just me though.)
So what were you reacting to? Seems to me you just dragged up a long-dead thread for no good reason. This is the internet. No one remembers anything for more than a week.
Colin, do you remember when you first joined the Ship, earlier this year? You wanted to know if you could ask us questions for research for your novel, and people were explaining that this is an online community, where we have open-ended discussion. And you said you had no experience of online community and no interest in open ended discussion.
Well, I have quite a bit of experience of various online communities, and people behave in a similar way to 'real life' communities. They get to know each other. Getting to know each other means observing and remembering what people say, how they treat people, what their views are, etc. Many people stay in online communities for years, and form friendships. They decide who they like and who they dislike, who they want to interact with and who they don't, just like in any group of people, and this is based on their observations of people. It changes over time because most people change and develop over time. Every new thing you say, people will process together with what they already have observed of you, and they build up a sense of who you are, and how/whether to interact with you.
Of course, most people don't remember the details of everything you've ever said, but if you say something that evokes an emotional reaction (especially if you say something that shocks or upsets people, and leads them to see you as a nasty person), people are going to remember - that sort of thing sticks in people's minds. I appreciate you say you don't have good emotional intelligence, but this aspect of human nature is something very basic that can be learnt in an intro to psychology class/book. I realise you've said you're not interested in developing your emotional intelligence, but learning the basics of psychology would actually help you become a better writer - it would give your characters more depth and complexity - in addition to making you less confused by people's reactions to you here.
Well, I have quite a bit of experience of various online communities, and people behave in a similar way to 'real life' communities. They get to know each other. Getting to know each other means observing and remembering what people say, how they treat people, what their views are, etc. Many people stay in online communities for years, and form friendships.
Indeed we have even had several "ship weddings" -- people who first met on the Ship of Fools community, and went on to get married.
He’s the man who thinks some people are less than human. (I find that hard to forget or see past - looks like it’s just me though.)
So what were you reacting to? Seems to me you just dragged up a long-dead thread for no good reason. This is the internet. No one remembers anything for more than a week.
Colin, do you remember when you first joined the Ship, earlier this year? You wanted to know if you could ask us questions for research for your novel, and people were explaining that this is an online community, where we have open-ended discussion. And you said you had no experience of online community and no interest in open ended discussion.
Well, I have quite a bit of experience of various online communities, and people behave in a similar way to 'real life' communities. They get to know each other. Getting to know each other means observing and remembering what people say, how they treat people, what their views are, etc. Many people stay in online communities for years, and form friendships. They decide who they like and who they dislike, who they want to interact with and who they don't, just like in any group of people, and this is based on their observations of people. It changes over time because most people change and develop over time. Every new thing you say, people will process together with what they already have observed of you, and they build up a sense of who you are, and how/whether to interact with you.
Of course, most people don't remember the details of everything you've ever said, but if you say something that evokes an emotional reaction (especially if you say something that shocks or upsets people, and leads them to see you as a nasty person), people are going to remember - that sort of thing sticks in people's minds. I appreciate you say you don't have good emotional intelligence, but this aspect of human nature is something very basic that can be learnt in an intro to psychology class/book. I realise you've said you're not interested in developing your emotional intelligence, but learning the basics of psychology would actually help you become a better writer - it would give your characters more depth and complexity - in addition to making you less confused by people's reactions to you here.
I have had experience of an online community in the forums on the old Authonomy web site run by Harper Collins. What was new is the open-ended kind of discussion here and the length of time the community has been running.
It might be pertinent that having lived in some twenty towns cities and villages scattered across ten countries my experience of real-world communities has often been transient and some of my oldest friends are Facebook friends who I've never actually met.
If people dislike something I say they can ignore it and ignore me. I'm quite happy being ignored. What is odd is revisiting stuff and turning it over again.
I am actually quite good at creating characters, as proven by feedback (other than on here) to my writing.
Thank you for your thoughts, but really I am fine.
Well, yes, people are free to ignore you if they choose, but they also have the option to get angry with you and express this here in Hell if they choose. Which is pretty standard human behaviour - not really so odd. We clearly don't live in a world where everyone just ignores people whom they find rude/insulting/ignorant.
Colin, I remember you posting your writing and asking for feedback, and if anyone said anything negative, you simply told them they were wrong, because people elsewhere had told you your writing was good. This is the kind of stasis I am referring to in general about your mindset.
So what were you reacting to? Seems to me you just dragged up a long-dead thread for no good reason. This is the internet. No one remembers anything for more than a week.
"The Internet is Forever" is such a common trope it is referenced in songs, on the telly and in almost every celebrity/politician's past indiscretion. And the thread about your position is just a month old.
People typically remember disturbing things for a long time and your contributions on that thread are disturbing.
BTW, Russ is a troll, one who likes to attempt to frame repellent philosophy as rational. If you are agreeing with him...
They live authentic lives in the face of adversity.
Positions such as Collin Smith's are not at all concerned with understanding this.
One could have such a position for different reasons, but accepting his position as he frames it, his is not one of compassion.
In other words, I do not think he cares what their internal lives are, much less that they might consider living worth while.
There are many non-religious people who also find his views repugnant. Iain Macleod once said of Enoch Powell he was “driven mad by the remorselssness of his own logic”, can’t think why that comes unbidden to mind ...
I was thinking of IngoB actually ...
I quite liked IngoB. I had the sense with him, though, that if his logic took him to conclusions that most people would instinctively find repellant, he would take that as proof that our instincts are wrong, rather than that his logic is wrong.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. Relying on our moral instincts means, in practice, remaining imprisoned by the moral assumptions of our own time and place, meaning that morality can never evolve. But you do have to be very, very sure of the quality of your own powers of reasoning to do that sort of thing.
Most people, dumb as a post to very intelligent, do not reason themselves into a moral position. They do, however, rationalise the positions they are in.
There are many non-religious people who also find his views repugnant. Iain Macleod once said of Enoch Powell he was “driven mad by the remorselssness of his own logic”, can’t think why that comes unbidden to mind ...
I’m also minded to quote a Dragonage NPC: “You have chosen a path whose steps you do not dislike because it leads to a destination you enjoy.”
An atheist effectively freely chooses what moral code they wish to adhere to, what ethical system they wish to reason with.
Yeah, I don't think so. We are products of loads of factors, we choose far less than we like to think. We have the ability to choose, but circumstance has a lot of influence.
@Colin Smith I started the Less than Human thread way back when, to discuss what you appeared to be implying on another thread. We had a discussion, it appears my suspicion about what you implied was correct. I ran out of emotional energy to persue the argument.
Sometime later we have another eugenics thread, (in which the arguments are already annoying me), and then you popped up on a hell thread.
And I suddenly felt extremely angry with you, and with the way we’d had a terribly civilised discussion about how you feel about those you think are subhuman, and somehow we had all moved on and treated that as if it were perfectly normal. Something we wouldn’t have done, if you were asserting people were subhuman on the grounds of skin colour or some other more common prejudice. But actually, hate is hate - and denying people’s humanity is hatred and I do think the views you hold about this are evil.
This place is one of the best places in cyberspace. We can be honest in ways you would not find in other boards.
I wonder if Colin has learned anything about what faith is in his time in the Ship? I would have to judge that he hasn’t as the opinions he puts forward have changed very little. Regularly contributing on here changes how you think. It is truly iron sharpening iron. I feel that Colin does not want to change or is afraid to. No one forced anyone to post on the Ship. But you have to take it for what it is. We have supported each other trough rough times (9/11 and 7/7 come to mind).
I think Colin will either change or leave.
The Ship is an incredible place, where one can discuss just about everything imaginable, with a host of people with differing points of view from just about everywhere on Earth. The Ship has broadened my horizons and opened my perspectives. Shipmates go out of their way to support one another; I am grateful to the people here who care about others. I've met several of my best friends on the Ship.
@Colin Smith, if you find that the Ship is not to your taste, I don't know what's keeping you here. But you really shouldn't toss out outrageous comments about people you consider disposable and then act surprised when you're called on your views.
The Ship is an incredible place, where one can discuss just about everything imaginable, with a host of people with differing points of view from just about everywhere on Earth.
I like the Ship, but this is rather exagerrated. On the Ship you can discuss about everything imaginable, with a host of mostly aging, higher middle class people from a segment of the Anglo-Saxon world.
On the Ship you can discuss about everything imaginable, with a host of mostly aging, higher middle class people from a segment of the Anglo-Saxon world.
OK, I admit aging - though I like to think I could pass for 65 in the dusk with the light behind me. But 'higher' middle class? Irish peasant with a veneer of literacy.
As I look forward to my 2.8 percent Social Security increase (which might just cover lunch at a burger emporium where no tipping is required), my retirement plan is winning the lottery. This would no doubt work better if I could also afford tickets.
My father was a machinist and my mother a nurse. I’m the first to finish university. Def. not upper, probably not middle. We work with refugees and their life is largely ours.
It’s fairly difficult to determine SES of people over the internet based just on conversations. This difficulty is compounded by the varying nationalities at play here. Middle-class is materially different in the UK than it is in the US, than it is in Canada, etc., though I couldn’t describe how they precisely differ. People also have a tendency to self-report lower than what a metric may describe them as.
But, really, the point is that Colin Smith is a twit.
ooh ooh. I call myself a kulak in a desperate attempt to have some working class street cred rub off, knowing that I won't pass otherwise. My wife gets understandably annoyed when I try to do this, as she is genuinely working class and knows what it means. I'm just a middle class boy with choices slumming it.
Well, yes, people are free to ignore you if they choose, but they also have the option to get angry with you and express this here in Hell if they choose. Which is pretty standard human behaviour - not really so odd. We clearly don't live in a world where everyone just ignores people whom they find rude/insulting/ignorant.
I am actually quite good at creating characters, as proven by feedback (other than on here) to my writing.
So is Kazuo Ishiguro, if all you want is emotionally blank cyphers.
All successful writers are good writers.
I may not like what they've written and may prefer the work of writers who are far less successful, but to suggest they are not good writers is ridiculous.
Well, yes, people are free to ignore you if they choose, but they also have the option to get angry with you and express this here in Hell if they choose. Which is pretty standard human behaviour - not really so odd. We clearly don't live in a world where everyone just ignores people whom they find rude/insulting/ignorant.
In the online world that's exactly what I do.
Yes, maybe you do. But clearly not everyone is you. And people who don't do as you do aren't automatically odd. If you think outside of yourself for a sec, you must surely realise the daftness of seeing yourself, and your own personal preferences and practices, as the standard of human normality.
Colin, I remember you posting your writing and asking for feedback, and if anyone said anything negative, you simply told them they were wrong, because people elsewhere had told you your writing was good. This is the kind of stasis I am referring to in general about your mindset.
That was a bruising experience. In retrospect I shouldn't have posted the material but having chosen to do so I should have explained my intentions better as I think there was a massive misunderstanding of my intentions.
The work I presented was part of a farce full of ridiculous characters and ridiculous situations and those in various writing groups know that and approach it as such. I think I had implied here that it was meant as a serious depiction of the church and churchgoers.
And to be fair, it wasn't so much "anyone saying anything negative" it was a whole wall of insults and suggestions I take up another "hobby".
Perhaps that wasn't surprising given my attitude to religion is based on Father Ted and The Life of Brian, but I live and learn.
Dan Brown immediately springs to mind as a best-selling author whose books are really terribly written, all considerations of the subject matter aside.
This place is one of the best places in cyberspace. We can be honest in ways you would not find in other boards.
I wonder if Colin has learned anything about what faith is in his time in the Ship? I would have to judge that he hasn’t as the opinions he puts forward have changed very little. Regularly contributing on here changes how you think. It is truly iron sharpening iron. I feel that Colin does not want to change or is afraid to. No one forced anyone to post on the Ship. But you have to take it for what it is. We have supported each other trough rough times (9/11 and 7/7 come to mind).
I think Colin will either change or leave.
"Colin" will stay for as long as he is amused or interested in being here.
I didn't come here to be changed in any way. I also wasn't interested in 'faith', as such, as I have my own beliefs for that.
I wanted to use this place as a resource for information, much as I would use Archive.org or wikipedia. I wanted to know the routines, habits, and attitudes, of regular churchgoers to provide background material for a character. The piece I am working on is a farce full of ridiculous characters and ridiculous situations and about as realistic a depiction of real Christianity as Fawlty Towers is of the hotel trade so there's no need for great psychological depth.
That means I had questions like:
How often and under what circumstances does a Christian pray?
Do you sense an answer from God or is it more like speaking into a void and hoping someone is listening?
How often do you read the Bible?
How do church services work?
Is your church a happy place or full of internal divisions?
How does the PCC work, if you have one?
And so on, and so on.
Obviously the answer to many of those would be it depends on the individual, but I was just after a rough guide to flesh out the character.
Some of those questions I answered by going back through all the Secret Worshipper reports and others I have answered through observation and engagement with people here.
I am actually quite good at creating characters, as proven by feedback (other than on here) to my writing.
So is Kazuo Ishiguro, if all you want is emotionally blank cyphers.
All successful writers are good writers.
I may not like what they've written and may prefer the work of writers who are far less successful, but to suggest they are not good writers is ridiculous.
Not even wrong.
The measure of a successful writer is a how many books they've sold. That's it. It would be lovely to think there's a one-to-one correlation between talent and success, but there are abundant examples to show that's not true.
The piece I am working on is a farce full of ridiculous characters and ridiculous situations and about as realistic a depiction of real Christianity as Fawlty Towers is of the hotel trade so there's no need for great psychological depth.
Narrator: He neither understood the hotel trade, nor Christianity.
Colin, I remember you posting your writing and asking for feedback, and if anyone said anything negative, you simply told them they were wrong, because people elsewhere had told you your writing was good. This is the kind of stasis I am referring to in general about your mindset.
That was a bruising experience. In retrospect I shouldn't have posted the material but having chosen to do so I should have explained my intentions better as I think there was a massive misunderstanding of my intentions.
The work I presented was part of a farce full of ridiculous characters and ridiculous situations and those in various writing groups know that and approach it as such. I think I had implied here that it was meant as a serious depiction of the church and churchgoers.
And to be fair, it wasn't so much "anyone saying anything negative" it was a whole wall of insults and suggestions I take up another "hobby".
Perhaps that wasn't surprising given my attitude to religion is based on Father Ted and The Life of Brian, but I live and learn.
True, some people were rude to you, and their comments weren't constructive. I think that was because you had already been annoying people though, and you'd been interpreted as a bit rude. If you'd developed better rapport with people, the comments may have been more constructive - except, actually, probably not, because I think you'd been told this wasn't a forum for posting writing and getting feedback, so the very act of posting it was seen as inappropriate, maybe. Ah well, you're still here - you didn't leave in misery and shame. I think, to be fair, a lot of people did try to be friendly and help you understand the purposes and function of the community.
The piece I am working on is a farce full of ridiculous characters and ridiculous situations and about as realistic a depiction of real Christianity as Fawlty Towers is of the hotel trade so there's no need for great psychological depth.
Narrator: He neither understood the hotel trade, nor Christianity.
That's my point. For the purposes of the thing I am writing I don't need to understand Christianity. All it needs to do is resemble what most people think Christianity is like.
This place is one of the best places in cyberspace. We can be honest in ways you would not find in other boards.
I wonder if Colin has learned anything about what faith is in his time in the Ship? I would have to judge that he hasn’t as the opinions he puts forward have changed very little. Regularly contributing on here changes how you think. It is truly iron sharpening iron. I feel that Colin does not want to change or is afraid to. No one forced anyone to post on the Ship. But you have to take it for what it is. We have supported each other trough rough times (9/11 and 7/7 come to mind).
I think Colin will either change or leave.
"Colin" will stay for as long as he is amused or interested in being here.
I didn't come here to be changed in any way. I also wasn't interested in 'faith', as such, as I have my own beliefs for that.
And there is the problem Colin. Other atheists on the ship will take part in threads and try to understand the arguments. If you participate you can’t help but be changed.
We are not here to be jesters in your own private court. On a lot of boards we are discussing serous matters. You are free to come and go as you please. You are free to comment what you please, as long as it complies with the Ship Ten Commandments. If you want to be amused please go to the Circus. The Circus on the Ship.
The piece I am working on is a farce full of ridiculous characters and ridiculous situations and about as realistic a depiction of real Christianity as Fawlty Towers is of the hotel trade so there's no need for great psychological depth.
Narrator: He neither understood the hotel trade, nor Christianity.
That's my point. For the purposes of the thing I am writing I don't need to understand Christianity. All it needs to do is resemble what most people think Christianity is like.
Dan Brown immediately springs to mind as a best-selling author whose books are really terribly written, all considerations of the subject matter aside.
I was going to offer 50 Shades of Grey as evidence of the same principle.
(Disclaimer: I haven't read said opus in full. I have read sufficient extracts on the web to conclude that the writing is terrible, however.)
I am actually quite good at creating characters, as proven by feedback (other than on here) to my writing.
So is Kazuo Ishiguro, if all you want is emotionally blank cyphers.
All successful writers are good writers.
OK. So if English is the language in which you write, you should learn how the words in it work.
Good ia a word with more than one definition and its meaning varies by context.
If I say 'That author is good.' then I am expressing an opinion and it is neither correct nor incorrect.
If I say 'That author is a good writer.' then there is more than opinion in the term good. Writing is a skill-set that has standards and guidelines by which a work can be evaluated. Whilst it is perfectly possible to stray beyond them and still be a good writer, those guidelines are still a framework with which to understand the deviation. There is, of course, the argument that those standards and guidelines are variable, especially over time. However, since your level of engagement is "successful = good", there is no point in going into a nuance you don't appear to have the capability to process.
Comments
Colin, do you remember when you first joined the Ship, earlier this year? You wanted to know if you could ask us questions for research for your novel, and people were explaining that this is an online community, where we have open-ended discussion. And you said you had no experience of online community and no interest in open ended discussion.
Well, I have quite a bit of experience of various online communities, and people behave in a similar way to 'real life' communities. They get to know each other. Getting to know each other means observing and remembering what people say, how they treat people, what their views are, etc. Many people stay in online communities for years, and form friendships. They decide who they like and who they dislike, who they want to interact with and who they don't, just like in any group of people, and this is based on their observations of people. It changes over time because most people change and develop over time. Every new thing you say, people will process together with what they already have observed of you, and they build up a sense of who you are, and how/whether to interact with you.
Of course, most people don't remember the details of everything you've ever said, but if you say something that evokes an emotional reaction (especially if you say something that shocks or upsets people, and leads them to see you as a nasty person), people are going to remember - that sort of thing sticks in people's minds. I appreciate you say you don't have good emotional intelligence, but this aspect of human nature is something very basic that can be learnt in an intro to psychology class/book. I realise you've said you're not interested in developing your emotional intelligence, but learning the basics of psychology would actually help you become a better writer - it would give your characters more depth and complexity - in addition to making you less confused by people's reactions to you here.
Indeed we have even had several "ship weddings" -- people who first met on the Ship of Fools community, and went on to get married.
I have had experience of an online community in the forums on the old Authonomy web site run by Harper Collins. What was new is the open-ended kind of discussion here and the length of time the community has been running.
It might be pertinent that having lived in some twenty towns cities and villages scattered across ten countries my experience of real-world communities has often been transient and some of my oldest friends are Facebook friends who I've never actually met.
If people dislike something I say they can ignore it and ignore me. I'm quite happy being ignored. What is odd is revisiting stuff and turning it over again.
I am actually quite good at creating characters, as proven by feedback (other than on here) to my writing.
Thank you for your thoughts, but really I am fine.
It's an opinion to have, I suppose.
I'd regard spending a day as you as horrifying torture that I might preferentially seek oblivion to escape from.
So is Kazuo Ishiguro, if all you want is emotionally blank cyphers.
People typically remember disturbing things for a long time and your contributions on that thread are disturbing.
BTW, Russ is a troll, one who likes to attempt to frame repellent philosophy as rational. If you are agreeing with him...
One could have such a position for different reasons, but accepting his position as he frames it, his is not one of compassion.
In other words, I do not think he cares what their internal lives are, much less that they might consider living worth while.
That's unfair. I find myself moved by Ishiguro's characters, even if some of them struggle to understand emotions.
And the parties forcing you to invest your valuable time here are . . .?
Sometime later we have another eugenics thread, (in which the arguments are already annoying me), and then you popped up on a hell thread.
And I suddenly felt extremely angry with you, and with the way we’d had a terribly civilised discussion about how you feel about those you think are subhuman, and somehow we had all moved on and treated that as if it were perfectly normal. Something we wouldn’t have done, if you were asserting people were subhuman on the grounds of skin colour or some other more common prejudice. But actually, hate is hate - and denying people’s humanity is hatred and I do think the views you hold about this are evil.
So I found this space to say so.
I would also say this place is unlike anything else I've found on the Internet. In a good way.
I find myself moved to anger by them, because I keep waiting for the moment they actually have an emotion, and then The End.
Agreed.
Me too. I like the honesty. And I like the way people who come across as condescending and/or cold and heartless are brought to hell and roasted.
I wonder if Colin has learned anything about what faith is in his time in the Ship? I would have to judge that he hasn’t as the opinions he puts forward have changed very little. Regularly contributing on here changes how you think. It is truly iron sharpening iron. I feel that Colin does not want to change or is afraid to. No one forced anyone to post on the Ship. But you have to take it for what it is. We have supported each other trough rough times (9/11 and 7/7 come to mind).
I think Colin will either change or leave.
@Colin Smith, if you find that the Ship is not to your taste, I don't know what's keeping you here. But you really shouldn't toss out outrageous comments about people you consider disposable and then act surprised when you're called on your views.
OK, I admit aging - though I like to think I could pass for 65 in the dusk with the light behind me. But 'higher' middle class? Irish peasant with a veneer of literacy.
But, really, the point is that Colin Smith is a twit.
EDIT: I am not slumming it in my marriage.
It is quite likely that the increase will be eaten up by an increase in Medicare premiums.
In the online world that's exactly what I do.
All successful writers are good writers.
I may not like what they've written and may prefer the work of writers who are far less successful, but to suggest they are not good writers is ridiculous.
Yes, maybe you do. But clearly not everyone is you. And people who don't do as you do aren't automatically odd. If you think outside of yourself for a sec, you must surely realise the daftness of seeing yourself, and your own personal preferences and practices, as the standard of human normality.
That was a bruising experience. In retrospect I shouldn't have posted the material but having chosen to do so I should have explained my intentions better as I think there was a massive misunderstanding of my intentions.
The work I presented was part of a farce full of ridiculous characters and ridiculous situations and those in various writing groups know that and approach it as such. I think I had implied here that it was meant as a serious depiction of the church and churchgoers.
And to be fair, it wasn't so much "anyone saying anything negative" it was a whole wall of insults and suggestions I take up another "hobby".
Perhaps that wasn't surprising given my attitude to religion is based on Father Ted and The Life of Brian, but I live and learn.
Dan Brown immediately springs to mind as a best-selling author whose books are really terribly written, all considerations of the subject matter aside.
"Colin" will stay for as long as he is amused or interested in being here.
I didn't come here to be changed in any way. I also wasn't interested in 'faith', as such, as I have my own beliefs for that.
I wanted to use this place as a resource for information, much as I would use Archive.org or wikipedia. I wanted to know the routines, habits, and attitudes, of regular churchgoers to provide background material for a character. The piece I am working on is a farce full of ridiculous characters and ridiculous situations and about as realistic a depiction of real Christianity as Fawlty Towers is of the hotel trade so there's no need for great psychological depth.
That means I had questions like:
How often and under what circumstances does a Christian pray?
Do you sense an answer from God or is it more like speaking into a void and hoping someone is listening?
How often do you read the Bible?
How do church services work?
Is your church a happy place or full of internal divisions?
How does the PCC work, if you have one?
And so on, and so on.
Obviously the answer to many of those would be it depends on the individual, but I was just after a rough guide to flesh out the character.
Some of those questions I answered by going back through all the Secret Worshipper reports and others I have answered through observation and engagement with people here.
Not even wrong.
The measure of a successful writer is a how many books they've sold. That's it. It would be lovely to think there's a one-to-one correlation between talent and success, but there are abundant examples to show that's not true.
Narrator: He neither understood the hotel trade, nor Christianity.
True, some people were rude to you, and their comments weren't constructive. I think that was because you had already been annoying people though, and you'd been interpreted as a bit rude. If you'd developed better rapport with people, the comments may have been more constructive - except, actually, probably not, because I think you'd been told this wasn't a forum for posting writing and getting feedback, so the very act of posting it was seen as inappropriate, maybe. Ah well, you're still here - you didn't leave in misery and shame. I think, to be fair, a lot of people did try to be friendly and help you understand the purposes and function of the community.
That's my point. For the purposes of the thing I am writing I don't need to understand Christianity. All it needs to do is resemble what most people think Christianity is like.
And there is the problem Colin. Other atheists on the ship will take part in threads and try to understand the arguments. If you participate you can’t help but be changed.
We are not here to be jesters in your own private court. On a lot of boards we are discussing serous matters. You are free to come and go as you please. You are free to comment what you please, as long as it complies with the Ship Ten Commandments. If you want to be amused please go to the Circus. The Circus on the Ship.
(fixed Hugal's shit... DT)
Narrator: He didn't understand farce, either.
I was going to offer 50 Shades of Grey as evidence of the same principle.
(Disclaimer: I haven't read said opus in full. I have read sufficient extracts on the web to conclude that the writing is terrible, however.)
Good ia a word with more than one definition and its meaning varies by context.
If I say 'That author is good.' then I am expressing an opinion and it is neither correct nor incorrect.
If I say 'That author is a good writer.' then there is more than opinion in the term good. Writing is a skill-set that has standards and guidelines by which a work can be evaluated. Whilst it is perfectly possible to stray beyond them and still be a good writer, those guidelines are still a framework with which to understand the deviation. There is, of course, the argument that those standards and guidelines are variable, especially over time. However, since your level of engagement is "successful = good", there is no point in going into a nuance you don't appear to have the capability to process.