Screwtape, sorry my net speak is limited.
Don't remember who Codd is, but I really didn't like DaveDave, I couldn't stand the bloke
- I really couldn't understand the hype, I think he was a nasty piece of work TBH. Maggie probably does have her positive traits (as I'm sure DaveDave did too), but to be honest, I shouldn't be figuring out ways to *best* interact with people who react to things they don't like explosively. If they want to throw their toys out of the pram because somebody isn't rubbing them in the right way then it's their problem. If I don't like how somebody's interacting with me, I either deal with it or talk to them about it, not throw hissy fits at people. I'd say that's the reasonable thing to do.
Well, nothing wrong with avoiding annoying people. And forums ban people based on the objectives of the forum in question. This is an atheist forum with an objective to promote "naturalism
I get along with maggie fine; we dont agree on evrything. i consider her a friend and have seen she has a compassionate side. I am not supplying facts on her intereactions with other users but simply acknowledging that there were atheists with whom she didn't get along. I did casually observe that she insulted some of them in the course of the arguments. Explosive isn't a word that comes to mind wrt her for me but again, I wasn't involved. I'd say, if one wanted to learn about church history, theology or cats/dogs, that maggie is knowledgible. Given that I'm mostly an atheist adn she is a catholic, obviously I am likely to disagree with her reasoning on the existence of God.
In terms of DaveDave, explosive might be a word That does work. I have not chatted with him for over a year. I found him a useful resource on genetics.
. He is very passionate lol about pushing disbelief. There were some other issues he felt strongly about. I am not sure about his full point of view. He argues that homosexuality is not likely to be genetic. His view may have been misunderstood tho; he doesn't say its a "choice" but that perhaps a combination of factors are invollved. He doesnt pretend to know what those factors are or whether they are chemical,psychological or whatever. His view seems to have been that the question wasn't settled by the science yet. His concern with the gay gene involved the fertility question. For the record, Dr. Colins of the human genome project did believe that twin studies suggested a genetic component exists but davedave was skeptical of the interpreation of said studies ...
Back on the topic of Mooby, if he exists, he seems to dispute Descartes but I get the impression he is quite knowledgible in a few areas including American history. Of course one may argue, that is because i am not knowledgible on US history