Who likes this new mediocre format?

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
Just doubled the length of the comments. We'll see how this works out.

VanDisease writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

is there anyway to make previous posts/questions accessible? like i want to immediately search for questions in 2015 without having to scroll all the way to that year. maybe archives for different years?

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Van]

Hi Van. I added year "category" buttons to the search as requested.

mchasewalker writes:
While eliminating any credit for contribution? WTF? I'm trying to promote you and your book? According to your own creed, if you teach someone to think logically you teach them to think logically for a life time. But, now, you're saying that if two people debate and it's not interesting to others it doesn't matter. Well, debate starts between two people. If others don't want to listen that's up to them. But why negate the entire forum? The brilliance of the site is to get others to think!

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To mchasewalker] ”While eliminating any credit for contribution?” What do you mean by this?

Colin P writes:
Dr Bo, I agree with Michael, on a site where you have built up an academic image, and had various well-qualified people contribute, I don't think you should set an arbitrary limit. Also, I've searched for a comment to a past reply but it has gone. When you changed the site did you discard comments that didn't fit the original new limit? On the plus side, I like the way we can see further old questions by just scrolling down. Much better than the old 3 questions per page format.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Colin P] Thank you for your input, Colin. Perhaps there is a way I can set much larger limits to prevent long rants yet long enough for the 95% of us who can be concise in our communication. I can even limit the *view* of the comments to a few sentences then offer a "more" link so readers aren't forced to read longer comments if they so choose not to.

Mark Halvorson writes:

It's amazing we have to remind extremely smart people that this is Bo's site and he can do whatever he wants here that's true to his purpose and values.   It's easy for any of us to go to GoDaddy right now and get a domain for $12 a year, and managed Wordpress site for $1 a month, and install buddyPress for free and boom, you have your own forum and you can run it according to your purpose and values. 

Bo is here donating his free time to clarify, and whatever else he pleases.

Bo is very polite, empathetic, considerate and a model for us all.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Mark Halvorson]

I appreciate the kind words, Mark. Thank you. I certainly don't mind and welcome any feedback that will make this site the best it can be.

Jack writes:

I am fine with the format. And I do not think it's mediocre because of a limitation of quantity. Quantity is not quality.

Richard Aberdeen writes:

Perhaps if comments were allowed to be twice as long, I wouldn't have been accused of making up a definition for God, which I copied in part directly from Oxford, Webster and Google Search.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Richard Aberdeen]

Extra space wouldn't have saved you there. Omitting key aspects (just about 20 extra words) of a definition drastically can change the definition. Your omission of all the theistic/Christian aspects of "God" changed the God of theism to a god of deism (creation only). In fact, "creator of the universe" alone does not have to be a being, does not have to intelligent, does not have to be timeless, eternal, etc. This could very well describe Einstein's or Spinoza's "God." The difference between something that created the universe and "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe" is significant.

Vaughan writes:

[To Richard Aberdeen]

I think long-winded copy and paste stuff could be resolved with a link to the source and subsequently ignored. Arguing for an imaginary god seems like a futile exercise, and there are a gazillion religions that all KNOW they have the right god. If the best god anyone can come up with needs a lot of obfuscation, it is probably indicative of the hollowness of the claim.

I claim to have several ring spanners, and they all have holes in one end, and the opposite ends are open. I call them my HOLY spanners. You can ask anyone you trust to come and verify the existence of them, and you have probably had to use one to open a beer, so you know they exist. I await the evidence for the god claim being as tangible. Religious claims are probably best left on mythology websites.