Do "believers" only believe because they are conforming? [ATHEISTS ONLY]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's an issue of conformity so much an issue of sentimentality, emotional attachment (even if the experience growing up was negative).

It's very hard for someone to discard completely religious ideas they were raised on just like it's difficult for someone to cut ties with family, even when that family is cruel to them and their experience was unhappy.

It is the familiar. It's very difficult to walk away from the familiar.

It's not so much an issue of conforming to an ideal because that implies that you have to actively do something. It's the fact that inertia takes hold, as does a fear of having to completely remake your worldview.

It's far easier to simply fall back on what has been handed to you and sort of drilled into you, even if you aren't completely satisfied with it.

I think it's the same with all aspects of life, not just religion. Even people who aren't really suited or happy with typical family life end up walking the same path that they grew up seeing (getting married, buying a house, having kids).

It's not so much that they are actively conforming but, rather, that it takes a lot more effort and energy and uncertainty to forge an unfamiliar path.

This all makes a lot of sense.

Holds true for me too - wasn't brought up with religion so I do find that comfortable. And while I'm not dissatisfied I really haven't put any effort into exploring other paths. There just never seemed to be any point IMO.

OP

This presumes that theists don't actually believe, instead they're all doing it for the hegge/comfort and are lying to boot. So instead it doesn't make sense and it's also insulting. Two birds, good job.

Not that PP. no, that's not what PP is saying. Though likely *some* theists (not all!) do it for that reason. Stop trying to be reductionist to assume that all people who fall under a certain label get there the same way. It's just as faulty logic applied to human belief systems as it is when applied to dogs (all German Shepherds are dogs but not all dogs are German Shepherds).

Exactly.

p.s. Hegge is my new favorite word. Did you read The NY Times article about it?

Yup, read the NYT article! Although top op still looks to be making sweeping statements to me. There's definitely a language barrier here. Or maybe too much carelessness with language on both sides. I can't tell who gets more butt hurt about seemingly innocuous statements, theists or atheists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

I didn't notice any of this, only the insults flying back and forth between the sides. Can you point out anything that actually verges on being clever (if we can agree to call parroting clever)? The "atheists only" just makes this a circle jerk imo.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/608392.page

6 posts down on page 17

23:08, a little further down on that same page was also....inspiring.

OK, so now we're digging out individual stupid posts from 20-page threads and starting completely new threads just to mock them?

How many new threads can we expect from both sides today?

Is it because these little wars are so much more fun than, you know, actually talking to each other? Is it because the "faith vs reason" debate has no answer and so it's ultimate boring? Because it's so much more amusing to hold grudges and launch little salvos based on single dumb posts buried in long threads?

Yeesh

I said I didn't think OP should have posted this but if you want to know why they did it that page is it

That doesn't make it a mature thing to start a thread this dumb. Tell the offending theist pp why she's wrong in a response on that thread. Oh wait, lots of people did that, including theist I think (although I don't care enough to go back there and check).

Why start a pointless tit-for-tat here? It just escalates the ugliness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Parody poster here. Of course I noticed. Did people not notice? I've been reading this thread through the filter of everyone being aware of that - I guess that was me making the same assumption (i.e. knowing the backstory) that I've accused others of. My bad.

So does that mean some folks are being serious in being offended? The lack of tone and identifying users really makes it hard to follow along.

What part of other threads were "for believers only"?

Oh well, I'm a Christian and even I think some believers here need to be set straight. Not sure mockery is effective or appropriate. But when the subject is your own atheism I can totally see how you need to get involved! You

I've reproached off-base or nasty believers on this and other threads. 5-6 Christians piled into the table scraps poster in the other thread, including me and a minister. I almost never see one of you challenging a nasty atheist.

Now if only, instead of perpetuating these little wars, you guys would rein in the jerks in your own midst.

It's like you guys enjoy perpetuating these little wars. You find the faith vs. reason debate boring because ultimately there's no answer. So instead you start mockery threads like this one. And you disrupt, or stand by while others disrupt, threads between people of faith on things like free will or whatever. What's the point of mockery circle jerks like this one? You're part of the problem.

I'm the PP you quote and have been involved in both threads. From your statement and tone I believe you have been as well and I believe you are being disingenuous in this posting. But assuming I'm wrong and this is honest, then the other poster did a good job of linking to the "believers only" post from the other thread. And my interpretation of the point of this thread was as a parody to call out the ridiculousness of a POV that tries to understand the other side by only asking its own side.

As I posted somewhere else (I believe in a different thread) I'm not actively reining in obnoxious atheists *because I'm not normally here.* these threads pulled me in from recent topics but I don't actively follow posts in the religion forum so wasn't a part of those discussions.

As for the faith vs reason arguement, you're right for me about that - I do find them boring because obviously neither side stands a chance of changing the others mind. That said I find *discussions* about it quite interesting. Faith or the lack thereof does a lot to influence worldview. We stand a far better chance of understanding one another and reaching compromises that improve life *in the here and now* if we acknowledge that and have the conversations. And ultimately for me that is the point of all of it. What happens after death is unknowable, but hopefully we can all agree that we live together in this world at this time. So let's try to work together to make it a better place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

Parody poster here. Of course I noticed. Did people not notice? I've been reading this thread through the filter of everyone being aware of that - I guess that was me making the same assumption (i.e. knowing the backstory) that I've accused others of. My bad.

So does that mean some folks are being serious in being offended? The lack of tone and identifying users really makes it hard to follow along.

Different poster -- I noticed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Parody poster here. Of course I noticed. Did people not notice? I've been reading this thread through the filter of everyone being aware of that - I guess that was me making the same assumption (i.e. knowing the backstory) that I've accused others of. My bad.

So does that mean some folks are being serious in being offended? The lack of tone and identifying users really makes it hard to follow along.

What part of other threads were "for believers only"?

Oh well, I'm a Christian and even I think some believers here need to be set straight. Not sure mockery is effective or appropriate. But when the subject is your own atheism I can totally see how you need to get involved! You

I've reproached off-base or nasty believers on this and other threads. 5-6 Christians piled into the table scraps poster in the other thread, including me and a minister. I almost never see one of you challenging a nasty atheist.

Now if only, instead of perpetuating these little wars, you guys would rein in the jerks in your own midst.

It's like you guys enjoy perpetuating these little wars. You find the faith vs. reason debate boring because ultimately there's no answer. So instead you start mockery threads like this one. And you disrupt, or stand by while others disrupt, threads between people of faith on things like free will or whatever. What's the point of mockery circle jerks like this one? You're part of the problem.

I'm the PP you quote and have been involved in both threads. From your statement and tone I believe you have been as well and I believe you are being disingenuous in this posting. But assuming I'm wrong and this is honest, then the other poster did a good job of linking to the "believers only" post from the other thread. And my interpretation of the point of this thread was as a parody to call out the ridiculousness of a POV that tries to understand the other side by only asking its own side.

As I posted somewhere else (I believe in a different thread) I'm not actively reining in obnoxious atheists *because I'm not normally here.* these threads pulled me in from recent topics but I don't actively follow posts in the religion forum so wasn't a part of those discussions.

As for the faith vs reason arguement, you're right for me about that - I do find them boring because obviously neither side stands a chance of changing the others mind. That said I find *discussions* about it quite interesting. Faith or the lack thereof does a lot to influence worldview. We stand a far better chance of understanding one another and reaching compromises that improve life *in the here and now* if we acknowledge that and have the conversations. And ultimately for me that is the point of all of it. What happens after death is unknowable, but hopefully we can all agree that we live together in this world at this time. So let's try to work together to make it a better place.

people's minds do change, though, both towards and away from religion, influenced by outside arguments or internal thinking or both. Choosing one's religion isn't always an option, but when it is, people seem to bounce around a fair amount.

[Anonymous]

I just think it's the path of least resistance. I don't know how people question god, are presented with zero evidence, and yet come to the conclusion that not only does he exist, but he has very specific rules that if you don't follow will damn you to hell. It's absurd. It's comforting to believe and people are too lazy to face the truth that we are alone and insignificant in the universe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

I didn't notice any of this, only the insults flying back and forth between the sides. Can you point out anything that actually verges on being clever (if we can agree to call parroting clever)? The "atheists only" just makes this a circle jerk imo.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/608392.page

6 posts down on page 17

23:08, a little further down on that same page was also....inspiring.

OK, so now we're digging out individual stupid posts from 20-page threads and starting completely new threads just to mock them?

How many new threads can we expect from both sides today?

Is it because these little wars are so much more fun than, you know, actually talking to each other? Is it because the "faith vs reason" debate has no answer and so it's ultimate boring? Because it's so much more amusing to hold grudges and launch little salvos based on single dumb posts buried in long threads?

Yeesh

Guess you had to be there. Personally I'm done posting new threads. I don't think the unhinged theist will ever stop so it's pretty pointless. I was all fired up about how ridiculous he was last night when I posted.

OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"That said, I don't think PP should go to church if she disagrees with it. Even if she just thinks it's s waste of her time and would rather find peace sitting in her garden with a cup of coffee. I find your tone offensive, and I say that as a believer."

Of course as you call yourself a believer, I understand perfectly why an atheist "faking it" in church for their mom's sake would be very offensive to you. But that's not the issue. The issue is why it would be offensive to the atheist, who thinks the whole religion thing is a sham anyway. If an atheist believes everything going on in a church is a giant delusional sham anyway, the sham isn't made any worse by an atheist pretending to be part of it.

Why not? If it would make the atheist's mom happy, why not go to church and sit there next to mom for an hour? To an atheist, it should be exactly like going to a movie you don't want to see with your mom, just to keep her company and to make her happy. As far as I am aware that doesn't violate any ethical principals.

PP here. I never said I would find it offensive for an atheist to sit in church faking it. I wouldn't.

But, faking it means going through the motions of kneeling and standing and singing and reciting at the right times. That's a lot to ask. I take your point that it might make her mom happy, but is lying to her mom really a good answer?

I never said the atheist at church with mom would have to go through all the ritualistic kneeling standing preying stuff. All I said was "sit next to mom in church" to make her happy by keeping her company. You know, mom already knows her offspring doesn't believe any of this religious mumbo jumbo. But actually caring enough about mom to show her respect by sitting next to her during the service would probably be a meaningful gesture to show that atheist cares enough about atheist's mom to overcome their irrational hostility to all things religious for an hour or two once in a great while.

Or, ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

I didn't notice any of this, only the insults flying back and forth between the sides. Can you point out anything that actually verges on being clever (if we can agree to call parroting clever)? The "atheists only" just makes this a circle jerk imo.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/608392.page

6 posts down on page 17

23:08, a little further down on that same page was also....inspiring.

OK, so now we're digging out individual stupid posts from 20-page threads and starting completely new threads just to mock them?

How many new threads can we expect from both sides today?

Is it because these little wars are so much more fun than, you know, actually talking to each other? Is it because the "faith vs reason" debate has no answer and so it's ultimate boring? Because it's so much more amusing to hold grudges and launch little salvos based on single dumb posts buried in long threads?

Yeesh

Guess you had to be there. Personally I'm done posting new threads. I don't think the unhinged theist will ever stop so it's pretty pointless. I was all fired up about how ridiculous he was last night when I posted.

OP

I'm the other atheist who criticized you for posting this but I totally understand why you did. That poster is a nut job. Chime in over in website feedback, I think the troll atheists who hang out here all the time are giving the rest of us a terrible rep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

I didn't notice any of this, only the insults flying back and forth between the sides. Can you point out anything that actually verges on being clever (if we can agree to call parroting clever)? The "atheists only" just makes this a circle jerk imo.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/608392.page

6 posts down on page 17

23:08, a little further down on that same page was also....inspiring.

OK, so now we're digging out individual stupid posts from 20-page threads and starting completely new threads just to mock them?

How many new threads can we expect from both sides today?

Is it because these little wars are so much more fun than, you know, actually talking to each other? Is it because the "faith vs reason" debate has no answer and so it's ultimate boring? Because it's so much more amusing to hold grudges and launch little salvos based on single dumb posts buried in long threads?

Yeesh

I said I didn't think OP should have posted this but if you want to know why they did it that page is it

That doesn't make it a mature thing to start a thread this dumb. Tell the offending theist pp why she's wrong in a response on that thread. Oh wait, lots of people did that, including theist I think (although I don't care enough to go back there and check).

Why start a pointless tit-for-tat here? It just escalates the ugliness.

I'm op and I never claimed to be mature. I just wanted to call out the unhinged theist for some of his more ridiculous comments. I saw one theist say something about him....not nearly as many who +1ed his earlier nonsense. Unless he just +1s himself...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"OK the bit about child-free people is just mean. My sister and her DH are child-free by choice and have never once said these things. "

Then how do you know they are "child-free by choice"? Because at some point they did justify it, or attempted to justify it, to you, as something other than "we don't have kids."

You actually proved the point I was trying to make so thanks PP!

You're embarrassing religious people like me. My sister and her DH freely say they're "too selfish" to have kids and would rather spend their money on early retirement, lots of travel, and his private plane. Happy now?

What makes you think I'm "religious"? It doesn't bother me at all if you're embarrassed. That's entirely your issue. I pointed out that childfree people tend to be incredibly defensive about something they claim not to be very concerned about, just like a lot of atheists are. And your "refutation" was actually to give a perfect example proving the point. And by being so defensive about it, you're just emphasizing the point. Thanks once again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

On that other thread, an atheist specifically made the claim that his/her views were required to be listened to before someone else could formulate their own opinion. That atheist wasn't simply saying "Hey I disagree with you, and here's my opinion." In that thread, and if you read the quotes from it carefully, you will clearly see that no one told that atheist that they had no right to participate in the discussion. That atheist was saying that no one is permitted to disagree with that atheist, or rather to formulate an opinion disagreeable to that atheist, without hearing the atheist's opinion first. Because, you know, we're not allowed to formulate our own opinions based on whatever we choose as inputs to those opinions.

All those quotes are saying is that whoever posted them has the perfect right to formulate their own opinion without mandatory consideration of someone else's opinion. We all have that right, always. Nothing in those quotes suggests that the disagreeable atheist is not entitle to also state his/her own opinion based on whatever they want to base it on. Nothing in those quotes suggested any attempt to exclude the belligerent atheist entirely from the discussion, or from posting whatever they want to post.

Completely different from the way the OP in this thread attempted to misrepresent it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just think it's the path of least resistance. I don't know how people question god, are presented with zero evidence, and yet come to the conclusion that not only does he exist, but he has very specific rules that if you don't follow will damn you to hell. It's absurd. It's comforting to believe and people are too lazy to face the truth that we are alone and insignificant in the universe.

I can see this. OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

Wow - so many respectful theists popped on here to show that they care. I'm touched. Looks like the unhinged theist (who still somehow can't reply properly?!) chimed in too. So kind.

Just can't stay away, huh? Why are you so drawn to atheists? Makes you start to wonder....

So, OP, where in that other thread that you've deliberately miscontrued to troll theists with this thread, do you see anyone telling atheists that they aren't welcome to participate in that other thread discussion? All the quotes say is that whoever posted them isn't obligated to take into consideration someone else's opinion as a prior condition to formulating their own opinion. In the other thread, an atheist got very upset that someone expressed an opinion about atheists without bothering to listen to the upset atheist's opinion first. The response to the atheist was that there is no obligation to listen to his point of view before someone else forms their own point of view. No one told anyone that they couldn't participate in the thread and fully express their opinions. The atheist was upset, and you are very upset, at being told that someone thinks your opinions aren't that important or necessary. But no one told you that you couldn't express them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

I didn't notice any of this, only the insults flying back and forth between the sides. Can you point out anything that actually verges on being clever (if we can agree to call parroting clever)? The "atheists only" just makes this a circle jerk imo.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/608392.page

6 posts down on page 17

23:08, a little further down on that same page was also....inspiring.

OK, so now we're digging out individual stupid posts from 20-page threads and starting completely new threads just to mock them?

How many new threads can we expect from both sides today?

Is it because these little wars are so much more fun than, you know, actually talking to each other? Is it because the "faith vs reason" debate has no answer and so it's ultimate boring? Because it's so much more amusing to hold grudges and launch little salvos based on single dumb posts buried in long threads?

Yeesh

Guess you had to be there. Personally I'm done posting new threads. I don't think the unhinged theist will ever stop so it's pretty pointless. I was all fired up about how ridiculous he was last night when I posted.

OP

I'm the other atheist who criticized you for posting this but I totally understand why you did. That poster is a nut job. Chime in over in website feedback, I think the troll atheists who hang out here all the time are giving the rest of us a terrible rep

I did chime in earlier on there but now that thread has gone nuts.