Stephen Roberts quote: discussion?

[TechBear_Seattle]

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts

I have been using this quote on the Usenet group alt.atheism in response to many of the trolls who post there. (We can discuss troll-baiting in a different thread.) I like the quote: I think it is respectful, gets my point across and lets people think about it rather than take a "circle the wagons and dig in" attitude.

Since this seems like a group interested in lively discussion, I would like to solicit the opinions of others on the quote, particularly from those more religiously inclined than I am.

[Bloodblister Bob]

1. A very insightful and logical quote...

...while is why believers will dismiss it immediately as the work of satan.

[Lerkfish]

5. Hey! I'm a believer and I like that quote.

sorry to prove you wrong, there.

although, its inaccurate in my case: I believe all beliefs are valid, all are attempting to understand and deal with our place in the universe. I respect all the variations of faith or the myraid turnings from faith.
IMHO God created us all with free will and made us all different from each other. To me, then, God treasures both diversity and those who turn to him freely.

However, I think the Roberts quote is pithy, to the point, respectful instead of judgemental, and allows the other person to know where everyone stands, as equals who choose different belief systems (or nonsystems).

I applaud that quote because it is an honorable way to put it.

[jedicord]

2. Succinct way to put it.

That's why I consider myself a Deist (though not virtually). I can't shake that there is some higher power, whether it be a Supreme Being, karma, spirits, magic spaceship, whatever.

How can Christians claim to know the one true God, when there are so many other religions that worship other gods? I believe they all actually believe and worship the same higher power.

[papau]

3. Perhaps you could tell us a bit about Stephen Roberts and the context

for that quote?

In any case, The logical difference between zero and all other real numbers seems lost in that quote. "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike" is a rejection of the debate, IMHO. Of course the theist always asks that given the atheist professed lack of knowledge about God, it would help if the atheist did not try to apply their "logic" to something they assert they know nothing about. Which leads us to Stephen Colbert from The Daily Show and his definition:

Atheism, a religion dedicated to its own sense of smug superiority.

But then Voltaire was on point also:

God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom (1764)

Or Chesterton (1922):
If there were no God, there would be no Atheists."

But I like best Einstein (Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930, pp. 1–4.)
"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Please note that Al never did define what he meant by God and Religion - perhaps only "faith" in the rational would be the atheist interpretation I would assume.. but Al did say he did NOT believe in a personal God.

In any case there are many web sites devoted to discussions of faith and indeed specific to atheism.

[cosmik debris]

6. Jerkin' your chain just for fun

Who is to say that it would be "all real numbers"? Shouldn't that be an infinite number? Can you put a limit on the number of gods? Do you not hold out hope that we will discover new gods in the future just as we have done in the past? Jus' thinkin' out loud.

[papau]

10. If everyone a priest is a winner, why not everyone a god? - and Discovery

is always a good!

:toast:

:-)

[trotsky]

7. The focus of the quote:

There are literally hundreds of gods that YOU don't believe in. What are the reasons why you reject those?

On edit:
BONUS QUESTION: Would your non-belief of each of those other gods constitute a faith or religion of its own?

[cosmik debris]

8. Hey! that's great

Now my belief that black cats don't cause bad luck can become a tax free religion!

[papau]

11. Is it best judgment- or just a preference for a certain flavor - I really

do not know the answer.

All I do know is that everyone makes their own decision and is entitled to that decision being given respect - and not just a smug "your wrong and this is why and why won't you be smart and agree with me" response.

Intangibles are important, along with value judgments and decisions on the quality of sources.

Does that answer your question?

Bonus response: Will their every be a question by an atheist on DU that really wants a response beyond "see how smart I am"?

[trotsky]

13. Interesting.

I would invite you to take a close look at many of your posts and see if you can find a 'smug "your wrong and this is why and why won't you be smart and agree with me" response'. Pay particular attention to the threads where you are chiming in with your opinions on why atheism is a religion or type of faith and how atheists deny gods exist and how everyone else is wrong and why won't we agree with you.

[papau]

16. My response to a raised fist is not to turn the other cheek - and indeed to

respond in kind. And the tone of the atheist posting, with a few exceptions, is as I described.

If this is the day you play the "atheist postings are pure and only trying to help" card, fine - whatever floats your boat.


So yes indeed you are wrong and I am correct and of higher logic/morals/good looks than you. If that is the way the subject is to be approached on DU - then that is the response you should expect.

[beam me up scottie]

21. Then why are your posts to us

frequently deleted?

I haven't seen an atheist tell you your faith or your definition of it was wrong.

Yet you constantly malign and insult us when we have shown nothing but respect for your beliefs.

Why?

[papau]

24. Get real - the fact that you whine and perhaps get a post deleted

- something I do not know for a fact as I do not go back and check on status - but I do not doubt you are truth telling - means what as to the tone of the atheist postings?


LOL - As you tell me you are trying to help me see the error of my beliefs (or as one post said -paraphrasing - I can't help you if you will not acknowledge I am correct), "(you) have shown nothing but respect for (my) beliefs".

Ya right - ridicule is the finest form of respect in some circles.

:toast:

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

26. Tsk. Such hostility.

Really, papau.

I never alert on your posts, they reflect the real you, after all.

[papau]

35. yes they do - feel free to alert all you want - wantever makes you happy

should guide your decisions - or do you have some other moral code?

[beam me up scottie]

38. You don't know?

After declaring that you were morally superior to me, you shouldn't even need to ask.

[papau]

44. :-) whatever

:-)

[trotsky]

40. That's anti-atheist prejudice.

It's a very common misunderstanding among believers that atheists have no moral code, or that their moral code could only consist of "do whatever makes you happy."

Some quotes from Albert Einstein, whom I believe you respect since you quote him too:

# I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
# Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.
# There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair.
# If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
# The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.
# Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
# Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
# Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience.

[papau]

45. I note only the smug tone of the atheist - as was noted on the TV bit

done by the Daley Show.

As to Einstein - I agree with him -

But if you come after me with bull shit "you did not turn the other cheek", I most certainly will respond that my morals/ethics are better than yours.

Why would you expect otherwise?

[beam me up scottie]

47. And you just did it again, this time to Trotsky.

"I most certainly will respond that my morals/ethics are better than yours."

Unbelievable.

[papau]

49. Unbelievable. that you do not see the mote in your own eye.

:-)

[trotsky]

53. You couldn't have misused a better bible verse, papau.

Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

[beam me up scottie]

55. He got it wrong ???

:spray:

Leave it to an atheist to know the correct verse.

:rofl:

[papau]

60. exactly - LOL - I do like the "misuse" - Thanks for the smile!

:-)

[trotsky]

50. Yeah, and the Daily Show is COMEDY.

You seem to have embraced your new quote from that skit like it's some sort of universal truth, and worse, have decided that it's so true that it justifies almost anything you want to say in response to atheists.

It's like you're a kid on the playground. "But teacher, they did it first!"

I honestly have never met a left-leaning Christian who was so willing (and evidently EAGER) to discard "Turn the other cheek."

[Az]

54. Goals

If someone comes after me with "bullshit" I take it upon myself to try to explain to them why exactly it may be bullshit. I wonder to myself why they may think such a thing were true. Where does their motivation for such a thought come from. Are they deliberately trying to be malicious? If not then perhaps it is the result of a misunderstanding. If that it the case then it certainly seems to me the best path would be to work to correct the misunderstanding rather than sit there and trade emotional blows with them.

There is a gut level reaction to when we are hurt to return the pain. This is understandable and even is demonstrably functional at a basic level. The Tit for Tat method of resolving interaction and confrontation is demonstrably effective. But it can be improved upon.

If you have the means and ability to examine the words or actions of the person you have been hurt by you may be able to discern their motivation. It is unlikely that their's is from pure maliciousness. Most people act on what they believe to be the good or right thing to do. Thus trying to discern what causes them to think that their position is good or right may be the first order of approach.

Loving couples are torn apart on a daily basis of arguing this emotional style of confrontation. When one is hurt they feel the need to return the hurt. And because the initial offender felt justified in hurting the other in the first place the situation merely escalates. If such patters can tear apart loving couples imagine the strife it can cause we who barely know each other.

It is awalys possible to find hurt in another person's statement. It takes effort to try to see what they are attempting to convey. You really can choose the path of the conversation. And it all depends on what you want it to be.

[papau]

61. We agree - and one must decide if the large effort required is worth

it.

ignore - or the ignore button - is easier but seem even more dis-respectful. But replying to bull with an analysis of motivation takes both effort - not a real problem - and time - a very real constraint.


it all depends on what you want it to be - and of you feel a real conversation is possible with that particular person on that particular topic.

[Az]

27. I do not understand you

You seem to see the nonsense of ridicule for what it is, useless and pedantic. Yet you seem to turn to it readily. What do you hope to gain from it? Are you just trying to boost your ego at the expense of others?

If you know that anger and hostility are pointless why do you embrace such tactics? A humble and ignorant atheist would like to know.

[papau]

39. AZ - you are on point as always - and correct this time -

I refused to go the down the acting/actor path in business or in life, but that has indeed led to anger and hostility being my reaction to legacy farts being given the tokens of "success",

I taught my kids that if my goal was to have more when I die, my decision was a stupid decision and I should have learned to suck up as was expected.

I think it was not the wrong decision for me, but I am upset that it has and will hurt the kids economically - I do not fear the estate tax!!!!!!

I regret the anger I feel - and am calmer now than I was when younger - and know that useless and pedantic is only the start of the negative results - including wasted energy - that result from anger. But That is the personality still despite many years of trying to change.

Self-esteem/ego boosting - or defense of Self-esteem/ego if that is a better description - is certainly a driver in ones reactions.

"A humble and ignorant atheist" - now those are fighting words :-)

[Az]

52. Locked swords

I find that the path to a productive conversation is enabled by a desire to have a productive conversation. It is eminently easy to take a conversation down a destructive path. A gifted conversationalist can even make it look like they are not the one leading it down that path. Sometimes it is even unintentional.

It comes down to exercising the direction you truly wish to go. If you wish to find common ground with another it can be done, even admist clashing ideologies. I dread what the world would be like if such negotiations were not possible.

But it is all contingent on wanting to make progress.

[papau]

63. true-and a decision about if the"other side" wants only to be in your face

or to have a discussion.

[Zenlitened]

70. Too subtle, Az, much much too subtle.

:D :hi:

[trotsky]

23. Sorry, didn't mean to upset you.

Just wanted to try and take advantage of an opportunity to help you see things from a different point of view. I am intrigued, however, at how readily you reject one of your savior's most notable teachings - turning the other cheek. In fact, you seem almost proud of yourself for bashing atheists when you perceive they are bashing you.

[beam me up scottie]

25. Why, yes he does, doesn't he?

Just look at the kindly response I received.

[papau]

28. I'm a street kid that came up poor and was well under a 100 IQ until

standardized tests were given in the 8th grade and I became a genius. I was lucky to have a reasonably large sized body at a young age - and learned early on that there are those that only understand a punch in the face - and will be in your face until that punch is thrown.

"you seem almost proud of yourself for bashing atheists when you perceive they are bashing you." - nope - not proud - but that is the standard treatment/response in my part of the real world. I also shoot guns/hunt, have a license for concealed carry, and never take a gun out until I am pretty sure I will be shooting with it, but Violence is not something I like, and is to a large extent something I try to avoid - good grief I am an anti-war Dem - but there are limits to how far I will go out of my way to avoid conflict, perhaps especially in an atheist discussion.

In any case, as an aside - as was your "intrigue" in my putting limits on turning the other cheek -guess you wanted to point out that I am not perfect in my following Christ - any help you can give re getting a concealed carry in Florida would be appreciated as the Mass permit is not honored in Florida.

[trotsky]

29. You kinda scare me, papau.

Being backed into a logical corner, you come out with:

a) Declarations of your genius-level IQ, large physical stature, and willingness to hit someone whom you think will only understand hitting.
b) Beams of pride over your gun ownership and ability to use them.
c) Somewhat of a threat? Can I help you get a concealed carry permit in Florida? I'm perplexed by that one.

To tell you the absolute truth, right now I'm glad I don't live anywhere near you.

[papau]

34. likewise -

:-)

:toast:

:-)

Today's chore is writing to the Florida Sec of State and to a Sheriff in Florida -

your postings come in the middle of these efforts - so no connection to your postings - except timing - and I could use some help since the Florida application starts with one being a resident of Florida - and I am not. Almost( well most) all states honor each others permits - but not Florida

[Az]

37. Not sure I want you armed in Fla

Particularly with their shoot first ask questions later policy. You seem to present an image of one that is threatened by atheists. I wouldn't want that to be cause for you to do more than shooting off your mouth.




Mostly posted as tongue in cheek.

[beam me up scottie]

36. Me too.

I don't recall ever needing to bring up the subject of violence or firearms when discussing theology.

Is this a new debating tactic?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

46. What are you talking about?

Your comment makes no sense.
:shrug:

[papau]

48. Now is that transference ?? - so many buzz words to learn

:-)

[Az]

31. I don't recall you proclaiming what your beliefs were

But I am always curious about those that do claim to follow, love, and believe in Jesus and yet turn their back on that belief in many ways. I kind of get the impression that if Jesus were real he probably looks kinder on those that were never convinced of his existance rather than those that claim to love him and yet reject him. I dunno... it just seems problematic to me.

[papau]

42. That may be true - if Jesus were real.

sigh....

:-) :-(

[arwalden]

73. What A Strange Message.

[cosmik debris]

69. All that heat and so little light

I still haven't heard an explanation of th OP's point that theist don't use the same rules of logic for the questions "Do black cats cause bad luck?" as they do for the question "Does God exist?"

Are there two sets of rules, or are the rules suspended for all discussions of God?

[Az]

9. He is a friend of mine, what would you like to know

Haven't talked to him in some time but he used to be part of our debate group back in the day. He is not particularly famous beyond his quote which took a life of its own. He is a reasonable person and confident about his reasoning skills. Anything else you need to know?

[papau]

12. He is referred to as a "businessman" in my sources, with no listing

of accomplishments beyond the quote.

Indeed the context of the quote appears to have been lost to history.

Do you have that context? If not, where is he working now so that I might drop him a line?

[Az]

14. He maintains a website

He used to have a link to descibing how the quote took on a life of its own. I don't recall the url but if you google his name you should find it quite quickly. He really is just another guy on the net that managed to get a few seconds of fame because something he said resonated with enough people.

[papau]

15. Thanks - I found his website - based on the resume I think I'd like him!

A BS in Physics (Astronomy and computers focus) Clemson University January 1987 - December 1991 plus some grad courses at Virginia Tech plus among other accomplishments awarded "Erskie" for Best Supporting Actor as "Smike" in Nicholas Nickelby - 1985, and Membership in Alpha Psi Omega, National Honor Society for Acting - 1987, and Founded the Washington Metropolitan Area LEGO User’s Group (WAMALUG) to promote LEGO as a hobby (http://wamalug.org) - 1999



http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.htm
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts


...Yep, that's me! I am the author of the above quote which has become a bit of a popular statement throughout the net (and some in the real world too).

...I first used The Quote as a tag line for postings on the newsgroups alt.atheism and talk.atheism at some point before October 1995. I don't remember exactly when I started using it, and unfortunately lost my mailer that would have contained the archive. The earliest records that DejaNews.com have is back to 1995, and by October 1995 it apeared 'widespread' in taglines, so I must have originated it sometime before then

...The Quote is an original quote that came from an online debate I was having with religious people in the newsgroups. I used the a similar comparison in a debate when my opponent wondered why I ignored the evidence for god, and in return, I wondered why my debate opponent chose to ignore the evidence for Shiva, or Zeus, or any of the other possible gods.

...I then slightly refined and shortened it the next day to the 'modern' form it is now to use in a tagline. Within days, The Quote was in use by others in their taglines (I added my name as an attribute a few weeks later when people asked me if it was my original quote).

...About a month later, I made another variation of the quote that also appears sometimes: "We are all atheists, some of us just believe in fewer gods than others"... but it never quite got the popularity of the original :-)

...So there it is, my only contribution to the net, and its brief, but interesting history

[Az]

18. Yep, he is a big lego maniac

Almost got me to go to one of his lego conventions. Timing wasn't right though. Had an anime convention that weekend to go to. And though lego is cool, anime is cooler.

[papau]

19. My atheist son-in-law should meet him - they certainly have similiar

interests. And I vouch for the son-in law being a good guy.

:toast:

:-)

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. A short bio, or link to, would be nice

I've been using the quote for some years, and every web search turns up either the quote itself or thousands of different "Stephen Roberts."

Better yet, get registered with the Wikipedia. The Wikiquotes page for Atheism offers a link to Stephen Roberts, but there is no article there. You would do a great service if something informative was made available.

[Az]

57. Info

I knew Stephen as WubWub on IRCs Dalnet debate group #atheism. We both were admins there for several years together. We also had another notable atheist in our group for a time named George Smith. Though his presense was a bit limited.

Stephen was I would say in the same veing of debater as I. Namely we tried to refrain from adhom attacks. He really is just another guy on the net.

You can rear what he has to say about the quote here http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.htm

And this is his website http://freelink.wildlink.com

[TechBear_Seattle]

58. Thank you n/t

[xchrom]

4. i love that quote.

and i'm a christian -- but a little quirky.

and i thoroughly understand most, if not all, anger directed by aetheists toward religion and the spiritual.

i would not want the struggle of being an aetheist and trying to raise a family in this society for example -- it's silly to see religion dripping from everything all around you.

[kwassa]

17. Who is dismissing all other possible Gods? Not me.

They are all aspects of God. None of the literal explanations of God hold water for me in the first place, there are merely successive attempts to grasp the nature of God.

[papau]

20. Amen

:-)

[Az]

22. But that is rejection of them

You reject the claims that they are the one (or multiple) true gods. Instead of accepting them as is you roll them into a different god. Although you see each of them as an attempt to explain the unexplainable some of them are quite clear that they are being specific and do not accept any other gods.

Of course the problem does come from our human perspective. I imagined the parable of the 7 blind men trying to identify an elephant is relevant (hey! I made a rhyme!). But I assure you if you try to explain to a fundamentalist hindu that their gods are the same gods of the Iroquois you are going to have a bit of an argument on your hands.

[papau]

32. The path to God can be many - but I interpret Jesus saying none shall

reach God except through Jesus as meaning that Jesus's wisdom is the path for those that hear and understand it - which I think includes me.

For others I can see how Jesus's wisdom (Sophia in Greek) can be found on other paths.

I have found it impossible to get a Hindu to argue about which God is better, more important, or more like another God. They do not argue.

But they do kill those that tell them that they are stupid, not logical, and are worshiping wrongly, and should acknowledge someone else's logic/belief as superior or else face ridicule.

I like and I think understand those who are Hindu.

[Az]

33. There are fundamentalist hundus as well

Most of them do not emigrate to the States. They are quite adimant about their beliefs. The more open minded hindus often see their gods as ideals rather than entities. But this is simply not how some of the more strident believers approach the matter.

The matter still stands. In redefining anothers belief you are rejecting it. Not in a strident angry way. But it is rejection of the fundamental belief.

For what its worth such an approach is superior to outright rejection and denial. But it is still a rejection of the core notion of the belief.

[papau]

41. we all demand coherent thought - and then define it differently - in the

process we redefine that which we see as incoherent so as to make it coherent and something you can respond to.

I think I have stayed with saying agnostic and atheist as one is incoherent, and not tried to redefine others belief.

But in the debate if a given result comes from the logic of the other person debating, and they try to weasel - in my eye - from that conclusion by redefining their position into incoherence - well then I do point that out.

Granted those convinced that agnostic/atheist is coherent will disagree.

[kwassa]

56. I think the word "fundamental" might have different meanings

Everyone brings their personal subjectivity to their religion, regardless of the degree of specificity that the religion demands. It is inevitable and inescapable. This is how there are liberal and conservative Catholics, a highly scripted, demanding, and ritualized religion. This is true of many other faiths, as well.

BUT what I don't agree with is that it is a rejection of anything that is remotely CORE to a faith, or the core notion, as you put it. The core of Christianity, to me, is Matthew 22:37 - 22:40 where Christ is asked what the greatest of the Commandments is and says:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.This is the first and great commandment.
And the second like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

The rest is details.

Rejection of absoluteness is not rejection of a faith, but perhaps a greater understanding of it.

[Az]

59. Identity would seem to be critical

Particularly when the have no others issue arises. Love your god but make sure its the right god. If I love my SO that does not mean I love Bill O'Rliely. It is the specific identity and individual I love. If you deny Thor as a sepcific and individual identity.... well you have rejected Thor... and he has this hammer... I would be careful in the next thunderstorm if I were you.

[papau]

65. I am a friend of LOKI - but it was Zeus that threw those bolts in Greece

and I have an in with his elder brothers, Poseidon and Hades.

Then again in the East we have "fate" and "luck" to worry about - a Calvinist view of our chances to get to oneness.

Indeed there are many paths - I chose my path - and I do not worry, think about, or often discuss the other paths that I know of - nor do I ponder what paths I do not know of.

[Az]

66. I think you are caught up in the heat of debate

I don't think this particular argument was directed at you nor do I think your answer (witty though it was) was really an answer to it. In fact you seem to be suggesting much of what I am trying to comment on that your particular god (whatever it may be) is unique to your path and is not the same god of others.

[papau]

71. Please share how you determine if two person's view of God is the

same or is different.

On second thought - forget it - adieu till the next thread.

[Az]

72. You listen to them

Or in our case you read what they type. If they seem to be describing different things you may on the outside chance come to the conclusion that they may be talking about different things. Unfortunately work on the mind reading device is still in the preproduction stage. We can't agree on what color the logo should be. These things do take time.

[papau]

64. Those are the core thoughts indeed - and Jesus taught respect for the

law and wisdom/stories of the Old Testament - but allowed interpretation of that law/stories.

:toast:

:-)

[TechBear_Seattle]

51. It seems I was wrong

It was not my intention to spawn a flame war, and I am very disappointed at the poster who took personal offense at the item I had offered for meaningful discussion. I think this thread should be locked before things get further out of hand.

[papau]

62. right - not your intention to spawn a flame war - you just wanted folks to

see the truth of the statement.

Or did you just want to discuss the statement and choose to wait to put your two cents in until later?

No matter - Twas A noble desire.

[TechBear_Seattle]

67. And you know my motives how?

I posted because I thought it was an interesting, non-confrontational and thought provoking quote that would spark civil discussion. Certain people seem to have gone out of their way to prove me incorrect.

[Az]

68. It has in the past

We actually used that idea quite often in discussions. How did some theists defend their rejection of other gods while defending their's? Its a valid line of inquiry. It recasts that issue in another light to help others see alternative ways of thinking about the matter.

Not everyone comes to the discussion table fully verse in all the worlds beliefs. Sometimes an simple question posed such as this one can help people think in new ways.

[trotsky]

74. No, you were not wrong.

And if you think this is a flamewar, you haven't read enough R&T threads. ;-)

It's a topic worthy of discussing.

[Az]

75. To really describe a R&T flamewar

You have to be able to talk about particle physics and nuclear reactions. :evilgrin:

[intheflow]

76. Locking.

Discourse run amok!