Was this really necessary?

[Ocelot]

Here's the fulcrum on which my opinion balances - was it the street sign which first named these heroes as "the seven in heaven" or was that a sobriquet that had already been in use prior to it's adoption as a street sign?

In answer to my own question...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/triborough/4672385210/
http://fallenbrothers.com/community/archive/index.php/t-1874.html

It appears that these firefighters were dubbed the "Seven in Heaven" long before the state recognised them.

As their flack has already said about San Francisco "Besides, that’s naming a city after a person, not after an idea or a religious precept."

The city is naming a Street after a group of people not a religious idea or precept. The fact that the group have been dubbed with a name with religious conotations is not the work of the state. Suggesitons for alternative names are rather moot at this stage.

I therefore don't expect that the New York Atheists would win their proposed suit though IANAL. I suspect that they know this too and will simply accept the publicity that has come their way from the initial complaint and take it no further.

After all publicity would seem to be their main objective.

 

[3point14]

In answer to my own question...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/triborough/4672385210/
http://fallenbrothers.com/community/archive/index.php/t-1874.html

It appears that these firefighters were dubbed the "Seven in Heaven" long before the state recognised them.

As their flack has already said about San Francisco "Besides, that’s naming a city after a person, not after an idea or a religious precept."

The city is naming a Street after a group of people not a religious idea or precept. The fact that the group have been dubbed with a name with religious conotations is not the work of the state. Suggesitons for alternative names are rather moot at this stage.

I therefore don't expect that the New York Atheists would win their proposed suit though IANAL. I suspect that they know this too and will simply accept the publicity that has come their way from the initial complaint and take it no further.

After all publicity would seem to be their main objective.

Even the sort of publicity that makes them seem like a bunch of insensitive dicks? Surely that can't be good for them at all?

 

[Lamuella]

this news item has given me the psychic ability to be able to uncannily predict the main subject of the next forwarded email I'm going to get from my father in law's lovely but completely nuts girlfriend.

 

[Ocelot]

Even the sort of publicity that makes them seem like a bunch of insensitive dicks? Surely that can't be good for them at all?

I didn't say it was good for me, good for atheists in general or even that the objective was in their own enlightened self interest. Just that it's an objective they seem to have.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-regarding-potential-seven-in-heaven-lawsuit/

NYC Atheists is not concerned about any “bad” public relations we would get by filing a suit. We have found the opposite to be true: We got 25 new members in the first week the story broke. Apparently a lot of people who have been silent are encouraging us now with their money and their presence in our ranks.

Apparently it's a great way of recruiting more Dicks

 

[3point14]

I didn't say it was good for me, good for atheists in general or even that the objective was in thier own enlightened self interest. JUst that iot's an objective they seem to have.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-regarding-potential-seven-in-heaven-lawsuit/



Apparently it's a great way of recruiting more Dicks

Apologies, it was in reference to them, not to you. I didn't mean it to come across as having a go at you.


As it is, apparently I'm wrong and this sort of publicity does work.

 

[Leif Roar]

As it is, apparently I'm wrong and this sort of publicity does work.

Well, if the purpose of the organization is just to get more members, then sure. If they have a broader purpose of advancing or protecting the rights and interests of atheists, though, this seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face.

 

[excaza]

I think the suggestion that you weren't responding to anyone in the thread is patently absurd. If you weren't responding to anyone in the thread, then why did you write something in the thread?

Did you just click randomly on a thread, not read it, write a rant and then, by happy coincidence, discover that the rant you'd posted fitted the thread you'd picked. If that's the case I recon you might want to apply for the million dollars.

If you fail to see how your posting in the thread is responding to someone in the thread then I'm afraid I just can't help you at all.

So I have to specifically address someone in every thread I post in, even if I'm commenting solely on the topic of the thread and not what anyone has actually said about it?

 

[Ocelot]

Apologies, it was in reference to them, not to you. I didn't mean it to come across as having a go at you.

No appology necessary I didn't take it as a dig I was just highlighting the differences between their apparent point of view and the alternatives.

As it is, apparently I'm wrong and this sort of publicity does work.

Depending upon your measure of sucess. If you measure in terms of money and members then it's a sucess. If you wish to reduce predudice against atheist then playing up to negative stereotypes might not be the best strategy.

 

[3point14]

So I have to specifically address someone in every thread I post in, even if I'm commenting solely on the topic of the thread and not what anyone has actually said about it?

Not specifically. At that point you're addressing everyone that reads the thread. you're still addressing those in the thread. Repeated assertions that you weren't addressing anyone in the thread seem sort of silly.

If you're just responding to the thread title then you're responding to the OP. Which is posted by someone in the thread.

 

[triforcharity]

I think the suggestion that you weren't responding to anyone in the thread is patently absurd. If you weren't responding to anyone in the thread, then why did you write something in the thread?

Are you, or any other athiest in this thread suing the NYC government? Yeah, maybe you are, but I doubt it.

So, if you'll look at my original post, you will see that I was clearly commenting on the athiests that are the ones suing.

Sorry if you cannot understand that.

If you fail to see how your posting in the thread is responding to someone in the thread then I'm afraid I just can't help you at all.

Thanks for your concern. I don't recall asking for your help, but maybe you're reading into things.

Are any of the posters in this thread suing NYC? Answer that and you will understand why I wasn't addressing posters here.

 

[DC]

cool down: i think most atheists and theist in this topic actually agree with eachother, to sue is stupid.

 

[3point14]

Are you, or any other athiest in this thread suing the NYC government? Yeah, maybe you are, but I doubt it.

So, if you'll look at my original post, you will see that I was clearly commenting on the athiests that are the ones suing.

Sorry if you cannot understand that.



Thanks for your concern. I don't recall asking for your help, but maybe you're reading into things.

Are any of the posters in this thread suing NYC? Answer that and you will understand why I wasn't addressing posters here.

Then why did you write it here?

 

[caniswalensis]

Hey guys, no need to quibble over words & phrases. Sometimes things are meant one way and taken another. It's the nature of print.

There is too much bickering over nothing in these forums as it is.

If someone misunderstands you, then just explain it to them nicely. I like to throw in something along the lines of: "Sorry, I really did not mean it that way."

If I misunderstand someone, then I say something similar to that as well.

Nobody really cares who is at fault in the misunderstanding, and so what if they do? It is easy to mis-state your idea or mis-read someone else's. I just do not worry about such small things if I can help it.

I hope this makes sense.

Regards, Canis

 

[DC]

Then why did you write it here?

why did the OP post it here as nobody here is involved in it?

 

[Ocelot]

So, if you'll look at my original post, you will see that I was clearly commenting on the athiests that are the ones suing.

Ahem

All the athiests here are free to attack me, and call me a fool, etc. etc. etc. IDGAF.

Also it appears that when you are attacked ydgaf

 

[Complexity]

cool down: i think most atheists and theist in this topic actually agree with eachother, to sue is stupid.

Except for me, of course.

 

[3point14]

why did the OP post it here as nobody here is involved in it?

To discuss it?

Rather than to write something not in response to anything and not directed at anyone. Seems rather unproductive, but each to their own.

 

[DC]

To discuss it?

Rather than to write something not in response to anything and not directed at anyone. Seems rather unproductive, but each to their own.

him being a religious Firefighter doesn't make his rant replicable?
and its very well on topic, because his reaction to it is most propably similar to many other religious people's reaction. So he actually gives a nice example of the reaction such a case will bring.

 

[3point14]

him being a religious Firefighter doesn't make his rant replicable?
and its very well on topic, because his reaction to it is most propably similar to many other religious people's reaction. So he actually gives a nice example of the reaction such a case will bring.

Absolutely.

I agree with the thrust of his point. I wouldn't have used quite so many asterisks, but I agree it's just not a good fight to fight and not really going to achieve anything. It's also going to annoy a lot of people who don't really have strong opinions either way.

I just think it's odd to write something on a public forum and then claim that it is neither in response to anything nor directed at anyone. Still, as I say, each to their own.

 

[triforcharity]

I just think it's odd to write something on a public forum and then claim that it is neither in response to anything nor directed at anyone.

And you STILL have yet to even come CLOSE to understanding my post.

I was not addressing ANYONE in this thread, or any posters who may come to this board. I was commenting strictly on the NYC Athiests.

Please do try to follow along, and understand what I have explained to you already. If something I said causes you confusion, please feel free to ask for clarification.