It is rather hard to keep both sides content when their way of reasoning, their acceptance of evidence, etc, are completely polarized to each other. It's downright impossible to have no bias towards a side in this topic, and the quality, level of bias, and ignorance of a post can look very differently from the either side of the debate. Add a few years of debating the same thing.. It doesn't surprise me tensions are rising, by the very nature of the debate itself.
Oh, and a note to Buz, Percy already had responded to Chuck a few times constructively. He posting the original list that concerned fundamentalists , and gave a unique response that took the list and reworded it to reflect the way atheists themself viewed the point Chuck. After that, Chuck was the first to accuse Pery that the moderation was lopsided, and he has not yet responded to any of the critiques of the list. No offense Buzz, but there's a bit of nuance in this because of these posts before Percy's last post.
I admit he did not use the ''childish'' himself, but the tone of the list was pretty condescending overall, although it's based on a atheist list which had the same tone, but that list was made by somebody else entirely off the site. To conclude, this accusing is going into circles, and I think we're beyond pinpointing a scapegoat.
I think the cheers/jeers system is not helping the atmosphere here though, glaring red - signs tend to tick people off far to easily, although the green jeers feel positive and encouraging. Maybe keep the cheers and thrash the jeers?
Edited by WSW24, : better message title
Edited by WSW24, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
