Who owns this discussion group?

[MineralMan]

Who is the leader of this discussion group?

I've come and gone in this group more than once. The erstwhile "leadership" of it has changed a number of times. It's interesting, but also frustrating, because the group is specifically designed to have no leader at all. It's a freeform discussion group with a very interesting, if controversial, topic. Religion is always on the edge of being a hot-button issue.

If anyone thinks he or she is the "leader" of the group, that person makes a real mistake. There is no leader here. If there were, the group would disintegrate into self-praise rather than lively discussion. It has done that a couple of times, and I've left. I like discussing religion and topics related to religion. It's an interest of mine.

I hope to continue participating in an open discussion format.

But, now, I have to take myself, minor cold and all, out and clear the snow from my driveway and walks. I'll return before long.

[guillaumeb]

1. Was a claim made?

I obviously missed that post.

But, if I were asked, I would say that the owner of the site determines the TOS.

[trotsky]

2. There are certainly some who fancy themselves in that role.

Even going so far as to bash non-believers for participating at all. I mean it's the RELIGION group, right?

Even more odious are those who insist a FOX News style "fair and balanced" approach MUST be followed, and that you are only allowed to criticize religion if you also praise it in equal amounts.

It's a discussion board. It's leaderless. People are going to talk about what they want to talk about, and the more of a stink you raise because you don't think they're talking about what you want them to, generally the worse your experience is going to be. Welcome to the Internet.

[guillaumeb]

7. Another claim?!?

This one:

Even more odious are those who insist a FOX News style "fair and balanced" approach MUST be followed, and that you are only allowed to criticize religion if you also praise it in equal amounts.

An interesting, if unintended, illustration of what you claim to oppose.

[trotsky]

8. Ooh looks like I hit a nerve again.

[guillaumeb]

9. No, but you are being consistent. eom

[trotsky]

10. Consistently hitting nerves indeed.

Guilty as charged!

[guillaumeb]

11. If you prefer to think so, feel free.

[trotsky]

12. Well, you responded. You tell me. n/t

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. Based on number of authored posts recently I would say YOU

just kidding.

Why would you want to engage in this discussion is beyond me.

Says the guy who insults Christians all the time which is counterproductive and stupid (talking about me, not you).

I could discuss this, where do you want to start?

Let's see, I have been a catholic, a born again christian and now an atheist. Oh my.

(to be clear MM is my friend, I am just giving him shit in a friendly way, and i am talking about MYSELF as the one who insults Christians needlessly)

[SWBTATTReg]

4. I wouldn't think anyone 'owns' this topic, and no one ever will, period.

No one person or entity deserves it. It belongs to ALL of us...

[Igel]

5. Those are two very different question.

Who owns it? Skinner, pretty much.

Who leads it? Nobody. Some dominate by post count or by verbal aggression and in that sense "lead" for a brief time, until they get pointed ignored. Others are in charge of specific posts, and "lead" in that narrow sense.

[MineralMan]

6. And both are, more or less, rhetorical, really.