User talk:Aziraphale/Arbitration

From Conservapedia

Others?

Is this open to others to offer comments, or is it by it's nature of being a dispute or for whatever reason limited to Conservative and Ungtss? Philip J. Rayment 11:19, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd love to open it up to other opinions, if Aziraphale + Conservative are okay with that. Ungtss 11:31, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Hi Philip,

Well, first of all, I don't think there are any established rules at CP for this process. Perhaps we'll set some precedent but at the moment I'm just using my best judgment.

I welcome the opinions of others, and yours in particular. :) That said, I'm fearful of two things: scope creep and drawing out the process. So please, yes, comments are welcome. I hope to put this to bed by Monday, Tuesday at the latest and, (not being a sysop, I'm trying to keep my focus on resolving the communication issues between Ungtss and Conservative and providing Andy with my best recommendation. Aziraphale 11:41, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Primary

It looks as if one of the parties isn't going to show. Pity. Samwell 13:29, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Hey now, everyone's internet usage is different. Conservative posted what he may have seen as a succinct summation of his argument ~17 hours ago; he hasn't made any edits in ~15 hours. I appreciate useful commentary, but the whole point of this arbitration is to drain the emotion out of the process. Please try to edit yourself before sniping. Aziraphale 13:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT) <-that's a request for this page, not life advice :D

You are absolutely correct...I totally missed that. Might I then suggest you format a "side-by-side" section so everyone can see what and where disagreement(s) arise. Samwell 14:08, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

No worries, Samwell. As for the formatting, if I can figure out how to wikify what you're describing I'll do so. In the meantime, the topics and subtopics hopefully will help keep thoughts on particular subjects discreet from each other. Aziraphale 14:23, 7 September 2007 (EDT) <-Az also springs eternal...

I'll do a short section to let you know how the code looks.

• I can give you a URL so you can copy the code for doing that...--şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 14:57, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Samwell, and TK - that would be great.

That said, if what you (Sam) were asking for is a breakdown of the entire argument on talk:atheism, well, I think that would be counter-productive. Given the feedback from Philip J Rayment and TK on that page, as well as my own reading, I think that the conversation veered far from its original purpose. As such, re-hashing all of it here doesn't seem productive for our purposes. Now, if somebody was just trying to make sense of the entire talk page, it would be very valuable to break it out as Samwell has demonstrated.

Still, when I can focus on this window with a little more concentration (multi-tasking with work tasks at the moment) I think breaking out any conversations on User:Aziraphale/Arbitration like this would be a good idea. Aziraphale 15:57, 7 September 2007 (EDT) <-that's all I got tuh say about tha-at...

Well, I was going by Conservative's post, which seemed to indicate that his arguments were already at Atheism's talk page. If that was the case then the side-by-side would be the way to go since it didn't look like he was going to want or need any further input. If he changes his position in regard to input on the arbitration page then this format might well be rendered moot. Samwell 16:53, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Conservative	Ungtss
{Place Conservative's arguments here}	{Place Ungtss' arguments here}
Conservative I believe that Ungtss's alleged quest for neutrality is not genuine. Why? Because Ungtss made the argument that based on ex-atheist Christian testimony that they once did disbelieve in the existence of God we should say that atheists disbelieve in the existence of God. In short, while we should note that some theists disbelieve that bona fide atheists exist we should state that atheist do exist (actually disbelieve in the existence of God). Thus, we should not be neutral. However, Ungtss seems to dislike certain material like the material regarding the average atheist's uncharitableness and similar material as it seems to chaffe against his liberal notion of what the esssential nature of man is like. I would also point out that Ungtss refuses to answer the question: "Is atheism a sin?" Conservative 16:55, 4 September 2007 (EDT)	Ungtss Please read what I wrote again, carefully. I'm not selling what you think I'm selling. I never made that argument. I listed a number of reasons, to which you never responded. My primary concern is with the tone of the article and clarity. The article sounds bizarre and paranoid as is, and we lose credibility instantly. The Bible verse says "The fool says in his heart, there is no God." That means, Conservative, that some people say in their heart that there is no God. Your evidence for the claim "there are no bona fide atheists" is the unsubstantiated opinion of theists. My evidence for the claim "at least some atheists are bona fide" is the personal experience of former atheists. Please read again what I wrote. I'm not selling what you think I'm selling. I'm suggesting that we choose simplicity and clarity, rather than changing every "believes" to a "claims to believe," which carries a hostile and paranoid tone. When have I ever objected to having that material in the article? Ungtss 17:51, 4 September 2007

Be sure to include the ending code or it'll continue to split. Samwell 14:50, 7 September 2007 (EDT)