The Gospel

[delphi_ote]

No need to be defensive.

Passive-aggressive personality disorder is a chronic condition in which a person seems to passively comply with the desires and needs of others, but actually passively resists them, becoming increasingly hostile and angry.

 

[Pauliesonne]

Passive-aggressive personality disorder is a chronic condition in which a person seems to passively comply with the desires and needs of others, but actually passively resists them, becoming increasingly hostile and angry.

You could be describing me!

( NO JOKE )

 

[Cleon]

Cleon.
I need a real apology after that. Nothing in size 1 font. A real one.

Very well. At the next TAM I will allow you to buy me a beer.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

But anyway, there are plenty of assumptions to go around in any scriptural interpretation.

That is one of my points. Instead of going with a straight interpretation (i.e. read the scripture within the cultural context without any outside additions) people always make, usually vast, assumptions or miraculously determine that the scripture really means what they want it to mean.

Back to your example, it is forced. You have to make base assumptions that what are reported as the last words are really the last words. And that is just the first of many instances you force fit scripture to conform to your predetermined beliefs.

Ossai

 

[Cleon]

You could be describing me!

( NO JOKE )

( NO KIDDING )

 

[Ladewig]

Bunnies are WAY cuter than kitties.

Not that one. Keep your creepy, one-eyed carpet bunny off this forum.

 

[kmortis]

Very well. At the next TAM I will allow you to buy me a beer.

Gee, what a sweet deal.

 

[Cleon]

Gee, what a sweet deal.

See? You should learn my method of apologizing. It does wonders for your disposition.

 

[ceo_esq]

Hey. Look at you being all intellectually dishonest and skipping the "sign above Jesus' head by positing that each author saw only a little bit of the sign" example.

"Intellectually dishonest?" Please. Do tell us what you think it's an an example of, and why it's relevant.

Sorry to ruin your erection, but I posted "post hoc" instead of "ad hoc." I'm sure you'll find another way to stimulate yourself being pedantic in your next post, though.

Nice. Dare we hope for something less sophomoric in your next post?

That is one of my points. Instead of going with a straight interpretation (i.e. read the scripture within the cultural context without any outside additions) people always make, usually vast, assumptions or miraculously determine that the scripture really means what they want it to mean.

Well, people certainly tend to do that here, yes. But on the other hand I'm not sure if an objectively "straight interpretation" exists.

Back to your example, it is forced. You have to make base assumptions that what are reported as the last words are really the last words. And that is just the first of many instances you force fit scripture to conform to your predetermined beliefs.

It's not a force fit, by any stretch of the imagination. Naturally, we could do one of those instead, but this one practically glides together by itself, in comparison. ("Last words reported" and "reported last words" being distinct concepts helps greatly.) I scrupulously assumed for the sake of argument the truth of every statement in those texts; you seem to be suggesting I didn't.

Also - what "predetermined beliefs"? The challenge was directly posed to integrate the "last words" accounts into a single narrative that explicitly contradicted none of them, and I responded. Now I get grumblings and backpedalling about assumptions and strained interpretations.

 

[Ducky]

No need to be defensive. I made no "reasoning to assume your motives", nor any accusation that you are out to punish anyone. In fact, I didn't even connect you to the recipe-and-kitten set.

You most certainly did. Here is the quote:

It was a revelatory slip, though - "derailing a troll" rather than "derailing a troll's thread"? One could be forgiven for suspecting that you actually believe that arbitrary thread derails, into completely unrelated areas, operate to punish trolls.

Now are you going to honestly reply that you did not infer my intention to "punish" trolls? Couching your accusation in terms you feel you can weasel out of later does not in any way mean you did not make those accusations. Your intention was to drop a bit of poison in the well about what you perceive as an intention on my part to "punish" trolls. Since you make this accusation, I would like you to either provide evidence of my motives, or drop the whole accusation.

I already explained how forced derail attempts tend to be a gratuitous waste of other people's time. You may personally feel that way about the whole thread, of course. That's fine, but irrelevant.

So is your problem with derailing a troll thread after is has jumped the shark. Follow your own advice and go read another thread.

"Be civil and polite more often than not"?

Would you care to provide evidence that I am not? Otherwise, drop the snarky tone in that.

Hardly. When did "police action" become synonymous with "earnest recommendation"?

Strawman. You can do better. Perhaps you'd prefer to quote the membership agreement again?

If we were shooting for "Be civil unless your interlocutor has, in your opinion, earned otherwise", there probably would be no need for a guideline to remind in the first place.

I'm still trying to figure out how it is your place to determine this for the forum. There are moderators. If you have a problem, I then invite you to report the post, rather than use your passive aggressive tendencies to be the equivalent of the kid on the playground that tells all the other kids how to behave. Are you going to report me to the recess monitor? Please don't tell your mom on me. That would be terrible.

I have the impression that you direct terms like "idiot", "moron", and "jerk" at other people here significantly more often than the average poster does. Do you honestly not notice it, or care?

Provide your evidence that I direct those insults more than the average poster. Otherwise, I'll accept your apology now.

 

[delphi_ote]

"Intellectually dishonest?" Please. Do tell us what you think it's an an example of, and why it's relevant.

If by "us" you mean "you," sure. I presented a direct textual contradiction, and how it could be made "logical" using exactly the same technique you used previously. You pretended like it never happened...

At any rate, they do not arrange the information in the text into any kind of internally consistent pattern, or demonstrate that an apparent textual contradiction does not necessarily exist, the way I think can be done with the last words of Jesus.

... because you are a weasel who hides behind pedantics rather than adding anything substantive to a discussion.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes. Possible, but not logical. It's possible to explain away the miracle of the resurrection by saying Jesus wasn't really dead at all, and to explain away the Red Sea by saying they crossed a shallow part of the Reed Sea, or even explain away the previously mentioned contradictions in the sign above Jesus' head by positing that each author saw only a little bit of the sign.

But the authors made their meanings clear. Leave post hoc reasoning to apologists.

Yes, but weren't the guys in The Matrix capable of flying?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes, but wasn't the guys in The Matrix capable of flying?

Iacchus, The Matrix, like The Bible is a work of fiction.

 

[Pauliesonne]

Iacchus, you REALLY need Michael Shermer!

 

[slingblade]

Passive-aggressive personality disorder is a chronic condition in which a person seems to passively comply with the desires and needs of others, but actually passively resists them, becoming increasingly hostile and angry.

Is resent the same as resist, in this case? I often feel this way about certain tin god superiors, who must be obeyed if a paycheck and continuing employment is desired, but I do what I'm told. I just don't always like how I'm told, and though I comply, I resent it.

I don't do this with people I consider peers or equals, or who don't own both the "company store" and my soul . . . but with superiors, sometimes you have to pucker up at both ends.

Does any of this mean I'm also passive-aggressive, do you think? I've often wondered. Thanks for giving a definition I can understand, as well. That was helpful.

 

[ceo_esq]

Now are you going to honestly reply that you did not infer my intention to "punish" trolls? Couching your accusation in terms you feel you can weasel out of later does not in any way mean you did not make those accusations. Your intention was to drop a bit of poison in the well about what you perceive as an intention on my part to "punish" trolls. Since you make this accusation, I would like you to either provide evidence of my motives, or drop the whole accusation.

Sorry, fowlsound, but the absence of an accusation stands. This should have been obvious, given that (unless I've missed something) you weren't responsible for the type of posts to which I was alluding. On the other hand, you do have a tendency, conscious or otherwise, to punish trolls and assorted others by insulting them, though under what theory of punishment is unclear.

So is your problem with derailing a troll thread after is has jumped the shark. Follow your own advice and go read another thread.

I'm still interested in reading this thread, so advice tailored to someone who isn't is of limited utility.

Would you care to provide evidence that I am not? Otherwise, drop the snarky tone in that.

No one's suggested that you aren't civil and polite more often than not. In fact, it would be hard to think of many posters who fall short of that very modest standard. The implied question was whether the relevant standard is really "Be civil and polite more often than not".

Strawman. You can do better. Perhaps you'd prefer to quote the membership agreement again?

You said I twice acted as the police, though all I did was earnestly urge you to reconsider your means of expressing yourself. I think one may reasonably infer that you hold these things to be equivalent on some level; if that is the case, kindly clarify how that is so. If not, then you presumably had no intelligible point to make at all by saying that.

I'm still trying to figure out how it is your place to determine this for the forum. There are moderators. If you have a problem, I then invite you to report the post, rather than use your passive aggressive tendencies to be the equivalent of the kid on the playground that tells all the other kids how to behave.

Moderation, like litigation, should be a last resort, don't you think? Why you would object to that principle is beyond me. What I am doing is not moderation; it is clearly not my place to enforce, nor would I be independently capable of it anyway. On the other hand, because every forum member is effectively the beneficiary of every other forum member's commitment to civility, why on earth would it not be any poster's place to remind you, or me, of this if we overlook it?

Provide your evidence that I direct those insults more than the average poster. Otherwise, I'll accept your apology now.

We're not in court, fowlsound. I said I have the impression that you do those things. Still, I think my impression is realistic. A quick targeted search of the forum over just the last two weeks suggests that you used the term "idiot" seven times to refer, apparently in earnest, to a poster other than yourself. You used the term "moron" five times under like circumstances. In both cases, you did this more than any other poster on the forum. The number of times the average poster insulted another forum member in the same terms, during the same period, falls somewhere between zero and one. Arguably, you are in a position better suited to offering apologies than to accepting them.

 

[kmortis]

Ceo,
I'm insulted. I go out of my way to be more offencive than Fowl. What do I have to do to take back that title?

If I were to refer to trolls as "flabberghasted nutjobs", would that count more than just "idiot" or "moron"? Can I use veiled vulgarity to take the lead? How about thinly masked parodies?

I mean, I am one of the kitty/recepie posters. Why not? If a thread has lost it's point, and has no hope of return, then cannot we take liberty to increase the cuteness (through kitty pix) or the information base (with recepies) of the general fora?

As you say, we're not in court, so why do you insist on reducing everything to a humorless, lifeless discussion, ya flummoxed babboon (you like that? I made it up just for you. Feel special)?

 

[Ducky]

Sorry, fowlsound, but the absence of an accusation stands. This should have been obvious, given that (unless I've missed something) you weren't responsible for the type of posts to which I was alluding. On the other hand, you do have a tendency, conscious or otherwise, to punish trolls and assorted others by insulting them, though under what theory of punishment is unclear.

In the same paragraph you state that you are not accusing me of anything then accuse me of "punishing" trolls. What evidence of my motives do you have? I would imagine any such evidence you have as to what goes on in my head, and my motives as such would qualify for the million dollar prize. You can withdraw the statement you feel I "punish" trolls and apologize. You have no way of determining the truth of that impression.

I'm still interested in reading this thread, so advice tailored to someone who isn't is of limited utility.

Considering I'm not the only offender of derailing a troll thread, I'd say you're 1) appealing to the wrong person and 2) irrelevant to the way this thread has progressed.

No one's suggested that you aren't civil and polite more often than not. In fact, it would be hard to think of many posters who fall short of that very modest standard. The implied question was whether the relevant standard is really "Be civil and polite more often than not".

I beg to differ, you have twice. The rest of that is a non-sequiter.

You said I twice acted as the police, though all I did was earnestly urge you to reconsider your means of expressing yourself. I think one may reasonably infer that you hold these things to be equivalent on some level; if that is the case, kindly clarify how that is so. If not, then you presumably had no intelligible point to make at all by saying that.

I earnestly urge you to reconsider your snobbish behavior or asking people to recionsider theirs. That you are still denying your initial threat of forum rules, and subsequent actions along those veins shows you are not only acting to attempt to police others' actions on this forum, but you are doing it in a rather snobbish and weasely way.

Moderation, like litigation, should be a last resort, don't you think? Why you would object to that principle is beyond me. What I am doing is not moderation; it is clearly not my place to enforce, nor would I be independently capable of it anyway. On the other hand, because every forum member is effectively the beneficiary of every other forum member's commitment to civility, why on earth would it not be any poster's place to remind you, or me, of this if we overlook it?

blah blah blah blah. You're not my keeper. Keep your crap to yourself. Or have you not considered the rude nature of telling everyone else how to act? I can with confidence say you're off point here. It is not your job to tell me how to act.

We're not in court, fowlsound. I said I have the impression that you do those things. Still, I think my impression is realistic. A quick targeted search of the forum over just the last two weeks suggests that you used the term "idiot" seven times to refer, apparently in earnest, to a poster other than yourself. You used the term "moron" five times under like circumstances. In both cases, you did this more than any other poster on the forum. The number of times the average poster insulted another forum member in the same terms falls somewhere between zero and one. Arguably, you are in a position better suited to offering apologies than to accepting them.

Out of how many posts overall? You're not doing well to prove your point. 12 posts out of my entire week's activity isn't proving that I use those terms any more or less than the average poster, which was your statement. You can apologise now, since you obviously cannot support your assertions with fact. Did you actually search every other poster's past week's activity for those words, or are you asserting more unfounded accusation? I am guessing you're just trying to cover up the fact that your statement of my use of insulting terms is an unfounded adhom with no supporting evidence.

 

[ceo_esq]

In the same paragraph you state that you are not accusing me of anything then accuse me of "punishing" trolls. What evidence of my motives do you have? I would imagine any such evidence you have as to what goes on in my head, and my motives as such would qualify for the million dollar prize. You can withdraw the statement you feel I "punish" trolls and apologize. You have no way of determining the truth of that impression.

You certainly punish them in the sense of subjecting them to rough (verbal) treatment; I should think that is clear on the face of things. I hope we may reasonably exclude the possibility that this is some kind of reward, and also the possibility that it is completely arbitrary, capricious and unrelated to any perceived fault in the troll's conduct. I note that you justified an earlier insult to me on the basis that I had "earned" it; may we not extrapolate that you think the people you subject to verbal abuse have earned it in some fashion (especially considering that the alternative explanations would seem to cast even less credit on you)? Certainly your behavior seems consistent with this, but your thoughts on the matter are known to you alone except to the extent you deign to share them. Hence, these are only impressions, albeit reasonable ones.

I beg to differ, you have twice. The rest of that is a non-sequiter.

Where? And, how so?

I earnestly urge you to reconsider your snobbish behavior or asking people to recionsider theirs.

That's a cute diversion - blame the person who raises an objection. Not too relevant to the guidelines in this case, though, I think.

That you are still denying your initial threat of forum rules, and subsequent actions along those veins shows you are not only acting to attempt to police others' actions on this forum, but you are doing it in a rather snobbish and weasely way.

This almost, but not quite, makes sense.

blah blah blah blah. You're not my keeper. Keep your crap to yourself. Or have you not considered the rude nature of telling everyone else how to act? I can with confidence say you're off point here. It is not your job to tell me how to act.

I'm sorry if you find rude my reminding you of how we have all already agreed to act, but as rudeness goes, I think it doesn't begin to compare with your penchant for invective.

Out of how many posts overall? You're not doing well to prove your point. 12 posts out of my entire week's activity isn't proving that I use those terms any more or less than the average poster, which was your statement.

No, my statement was that I had the impression that you did. I was referring to how often you use such expressions in absolute terms, not as a percentage of how many posts you've made. It should be fairly clear, to anyone without a vested interest in denying it, that it there is some reasonable basis for that impression.

You can apologise now, since you obviously cannot support your assertions with fact. Did you actually search every other poster's past week's activity for those words, or are you asserting more unfounded accusation?

I searched for all posts containing the pertinent terms over the past two weeks, sorted them by poster name, and examined the posts by those posters appearing most frequently in the list in order to ascertain the context.

I am guessing you're just trying to cover up the fact that your statement of my use of insulting terms is an unfounded adhom with no supporting evidence.

Would that it were so. Barring a problem with the forum search software, the evidence is strong that over the past two weeks, as of the time I searched, the number of times you called another poster an idiot or a moron was greater than the number of times any other poster (much less the average poster) did so. Make of that dubious distinction what you will.

 

[delphi_ote]

I'm still interested in reading this thread, so advice tailored to someone who isn't is of limited utility.

But you're going to do it anyways and ignore posts that are on topic.

A quick targeted search of the forum over just the last two weeks suggests that you used the term "idiot" seven times to refer, apparently in earnest, to a poster other than yourself. You used the term "moron" five times under like circumstances. In both cases, you did this more than any other poster on the forum. The number of times the average poster insulted another forum member in the same terms falls somewhere between zero and one.

I can't believe you called my post "sophomoric." Do you count the number of swear words in movies, too? You actually wasted the time search the number of times someone called someone else an idiot?

You are an idiot idiot idiot idiot diot idiot idiot idiot moron moron moron moron moron moron.

I win.