Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

So that's a "no" on accommodating other people's desires when it comes to formatting your posts in a manner which makes them readable, then? "Do as I say, not as I do", eh?
 
surreptitious57 said:
Regarding reasonableness. Now obviously not everyone is reasonable but I
only meant it for those who are otherwise the principle becomes redundant
And the same also applies to making some one uncomfortable. For less it is
justifiable then it is not acceptable. All of the counter examples given above
are outside the boundaries of what is reasonable or acceptable which is why
they were suggested and is also why I reject them. And the golden rule also
Obviously it can not be applied to those incapable of displaying any empathy
since that would invalidate it. So it is impossible get any universal consensus
on what is reasonable or acceptable or whether one should do unto others as
they do unto them. But one can still get majority consensus on basically what
is. Which may not admittedly be totally perfect but is as close to it as possible
It is within this framework one must be working from and not a philosophically
perfect ideal. Because they are only perfect in principle but never so in practice
Click to expand...

np;dr
 
surreptitious57 said:
Regarding reasonableness. Now obviously not everyone is reasonable but I
only meant it for those who are otherwise the principle becomes redundant
And the same also applies to making some one uncomfortable. For less it is
justifiable then it is not acceptable. All of the counter examples given above
are outside the boundaries of what is reasonable or acceptable which is why
they were suggested and is also why I reject them. And the golden rule also
Obviously it can not be applied to those incapable of displaying any empathy
since that would invalidate it. So it is impossible get any universal consensus
on what is reasonable or acceptable or whether one should do unto others as
they do unto them. But one can still get majority consensus on basically what
is. Which may not admittedly be totally perfect but is as close to it as possible
It is within this framework one must be working from and not a philosophically
perfect ideal. Because they are only perfect in principle but never so in practice
Click to expand...

Are you hitting <ENTER> in order to keep your sentences within the Reply window? Because they automatically wrap around and are much easier to read when they automatically wrap. Throw in the lack of punctuation and seemingly random capitalization combined with starting sentences with and, so, but, and which, and I am unable to wade through them.
 
The formatting of my posts is not something I have much control over
And so whether anyone reads or replies to them is not an issue for me
Since they are totally at liberty to do as they wish with regard to them
But all this has got nothing to do with the subject matter of the thread
 
surreptitious57 said:
The formatting of my posts is not something I have much control overAnd so whether anyone reads or replies to them is not an issue for me
Since they are totally at liberty to do as they wish with regard to them
But all this has got nothing to do with the subject matter of the thread
Click to expand...

To the highlighted: Really? Then who is controlling the formatting of your posts?

To the rest: Obviously, pointing out your failure to do what you direct others to do has as much to do with the subject matter of the thread as your directives do.
 
S
o l
ong
as th
e post
s don't
start sp
elling out
something
like "all wo
rk and no p
lay makes J
ack a dull b
oy" I think
we should
just go w
ith the f
low of
thing
s. IM
HO.
~J
R
 
surreptitious57 said:
The formatting of my posts is not something I have much control over
Click to expand...

Any idea why the forum software works differently for you than for everybody else? Are you using an unusual browser or operating system? Perhaps if you give more details we can help.

And so whether anyone reads or replies to them is not an issue for me
Since they are totally at liberty to do as they wish with regard to them
But all this has got nothing to do with the subject matter of the thread
Click to expand...

A wise man once said "if you are doing something to someone else and they do not like it then you must stop doing it", but if that's not a philosophy that you find you can agree with, then that's fair enough, I suppose.
 
I shall see if I can try and make them somewhat more acceptable
Although that shall take me more time and is why I do not bother
This matter is now closed since it has nothing to do with feminism
You are not going to get a great insight into Rebecca by analysing
my posting style. Which is a boring thing to comment on any way
 
wareyin said:
Are you hitting <ENTER> in order to keep your sentences within the Reply window? Because they automatically wrap around and are much easier to read when they automatically wrap. Throw in the lack of punctuation and seemingly random capitalization combined with starting sentences with and, so, but, and which, and I am unable to wade through them.
Click to expand...

I have no problem understanding them based on the formatting, starting sentences with conjunctions, etc. For example I had no problem understanding Joe Random's post whatsoever. I do have trouble understanding some of them based on the actual content, though.

BTW, I support starting sentences with "and", "but" and "so". It's little different from starting them with "additionally", "however", and "thus". When used well these types of starters increase clarity by immediately giving the reader an idea of the sentence's relationship to the preceeding text.
 
I shall strive to make my posts clear as I can from now on whilst allowing for
the limitations I have to work within. Now it would help if others did not post
ridiculous hypotheticals just to win internet points. Since that is unnecessary
and adds nothing of substance to the thread. So every one please be serious
 
surreptitious57 said:
I shall see if I can try and make them somewhat more acceptable
Although that shall take me more time and is why I do not bother
This matter is now closed since it has nothing to do with feminism
You are not going to get a great insight into Rebecca by analysing
my posting style. Which is a boring thing to comment on any way
Click to expand...

WOW, that Triggers ME!!!
 
surreptitious57 said:
I shall strive to make my posts clear as I can from now on whilst allowing for
the limitations I have to work within.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you told us what those limitations were, we could help you find a solution.

I assume that you do post with the intention of people paying attention to what you say? You certainly seem to be saying that you'd rather people paid attention to the content of your posts rather than the format in which you post them. So if you let us work with you to find a solution, then that could only be beneficial for everybody.
 
surreptitious57 said:
I shall strive to make my posts clear as I can from now on whilst allowing for
the limitations I have to work within. Now it would help if others did not post
ridiculous hypotheticals just to win internet points. Since that is unnecessary
and adds nothing of substance to the thread. So every one please be serious
Click to expand...
.

You're still not striving enough. What limitations? Your own bloodymindedness or some sort of lack of intelligence? Do you have some sort of physical disability? Others pointing out the obvious in your post and suggesting solutions to make your posts more readable (even if not actually more intelligible or coherent) is not "ridiculous hypotheticals".
So far You're the one being ridiculous.
 
d4m10n said:
Not exactly on my to do list.

Her centrality to the deep rifts is incidental, IMO.
Click to expand...

Why do you post links to google searches which will change over time, which will differ to different people depending on their search history, and which can be ambiguous as to what exactly you're pointing to (the first 7 links could be the one that you think is relevant, but it's impossible to know without clicking on all of them and then reading the attached articles), rather than just linking to whatever it is that you're actually wanting to point people towards? I went to the first link there and searched for Watson's name, but there's only one hit, and that's in a comment, and doesn't seem to fit your characterisation of her being central to anything. I'm not going to read all 6 of the other articles that you might be trying to reference, so for all the good it does you might as well not have bothered to provide any links at all.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Why do you post links to google searches which will change over time, which will differ to different people depending on their search history, and which can be ambiguous as to what exactly you're pointing to. . . rather than just linking to whatever it is that you're actually wanting to point people towards?
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that there is exactly one thing that I wanted to point people towards?

The phenomenon referred to as "deep rifts" goes back for years and has become a term of art at FtB. It means, roughly, the division of (American) movement atheism into Atheism Plus and Atheism Less.
 
cornsail said:
No. No, I did not. I said no one has said that coffee always means sex, just that it meant sex under the circumstances of EG anecdote. Saying that it's something people have said is very different from saying it's something that is true.



I never defended her assumptions.



I mean you just quoted me above saying that coffee shouldn't be assumed to mean sex under those circumstances. That means I don't think she was right to do so. If you go back to post #2424 and follow the exchange you'll see that I've said that from the beginning.

My only defense of RW was WRT the claim that she had said "never approach a woman you're interested in" (something you've admitted was hyperbole).
Click to expand...
This is going around and around.

Is asking for coffee and talk a request for sex? No.
Can RW read minds? No
Was asking for coffee and talk a request for sex under those circumstances? According to RW it was.
So what was RW going on besides her imagination?

And if the answer is who knows, then how is any guy supposed to know when it is OK to ask a girl out for coffee and talk?

If the question is unanswerable, then you are essentially saying it's never OK because there is no way to know when it is or isn't OK.
OR
It's always OK because there is no way to know when it is or isn't OK.
 
cornsail said:
Of course one should not ask someone to their room for coffee if one knows that the person doesn't like receiving those kinds of offers. I don't think anyone has (or would) argue otherwise. But to echo other posters, your proposal falls apart quickly when generalized to other situations. ...
Click to expand...
RW made a big deal of saying the guy should have known she wouldn't like the request.

That clearly wasn't a valid assumption given he did ask.

So again she's faulting guys for not reading women correctly. That's a ridiculous expectation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom