Crosspost, addressed @lilbuddha
You would think so, but while this thread has been grinding away, she's posted on the Creation thread in Dead Horses with a comment that of course creation is by evolution.
No, I phrased it as a question about whether it was by accident or design, not a categorical statement.
Creationists on the Ship getting such an easy ride, not.
And looking for a link earlier through some of the earlier threads on these boards, I found the same stuff from SusanDoris repeated on those threads as more recent ones. Not that I'm going to be able to link and evidence that until later.
I wouldn't bother if I were `you. I am consistent! That is one of the reasons I don't tell lies - I'd never remember what they were, and I'd forget I'd done it and assume I'd been truthful in the first place. Life is complicated enough as it is without adding extra complexity.
Please state exactly what you think my 'initial premise' was. And I ask this genuinely, not with any confrontational tone or anything.
I didn't state anything. I invited you to complete the statement "Holding an hypothesis that is not proven 100% by material, tangible measurable means is unacceptable because ..." in an effort to help you locate your blind spot.
Because ISTM that this is your basic issue with anyone who says "I think this is the way things work" - which on the Ship means those who think things work with the help of a God.
So it seems to me that it might be helpful to examine this as an initial premise. One of two things can result: either your position will be strengthened by proving the soundness of of the initial premise, or you might find that you have an opportunity to adopt a new premise that will better support your position going forward.
In any case I personally find it's always helpful to organize one's thinking in this manner. There's no shame in discarding a position that doesn't hold water. I do it all the time. I'm the first one to say "Oh balls, I'm all wet. Your way of reasoning makes much more sense."
I'm not invested in being right. I'm invested in crafting a way of looking at the world that makes the most sense to me and satisfies my need for cognitive harmony. I need this very much because there is the other side of me, the one that pipes in information from unknown sources (see: the spider story), and I have my hands full integrating this information with already established premises.
Occasionally information comes in that can't be integrated and I am forced to demolish entire structures with deeply embedded roots and rearrange them. In other words, observations disprove the hypothesis and so the hypothesis must be abandoned, and a new one adopted.
In this respect I am my own scientific experiment.
It is up to those who believe in and claim that any such God/etc exists to provide the 99.9% proof that one does. I know this is often said, but maybe that Is because it needs saying ... ... although you'd probably wish it wasn't by me!!
OK, so my issue with your posts is that they don't stay within the context of the particular discussion.
For instance on the war thread when discussing the Just War concept, the relateable, contextual/helpful tac is to discuss whether Jesus' teachings support that concept. It isn't helpful to say that he didn't exist. Or that, if he did, he wasn't likely divine. People believe he did, so discussing the concept within their belief is more effective/relateable/helpful to that subject.
It is how I discuss anything within a particular belief system. I discuss the internal logic, otherwise the discussion is very short and extremely repetitive.
An aside, Susan Doris: how does your reader deal with BBcode, like italics and bold? I ask because I use them in attempt at more effective communication, but will not use that with you if they make it more ineffective.
But why in all that is holy would you continue asking the same - or very similar - question when you know in advance that you are not going to like the answer?
If that's not crusading or trolling, that's got to be madness.
But why in all that is holy would you continue asking the same - or very similar - question when you know in advance that you are not going to like the answer?
If that's not crusading or trolling, that's got to be madness.
As I've said, I seriously doubt SD is trolling. Doesn't have that feel to me. Nor does she come across as mad. I do not know what her process is. If she discussed with the facility she has used on this thread, I do think there would be less complaint.
You know, I don't think SusanDoris is crusading or trolling, or seeing it as a game she wants to win. If we all said to her 'Gosh, you're right, no evidence of God; we're all switching to atheism,' I think she'd find that interesting in itself as a phenomenon, but not a victory as such. And then she wouldn't want to stay here - we'd be boring then! She'd want to find a new group of Christians.
I think she genuinely wants a discussion about the issue, but yes, it's the same discussion she wants to keep having. Some people do have one issue they feel the need to keep discussing - the need to express their view, their understanding. Because it's somehow an unresolved issue in their mind, maybe - the fact that others have a view that doesn't make logical sense to them. So they discuss, not to win, not to convert others, but because they need to keep having the discussion. I do actually understand this, and have done it myself in the past - in real life it gets met with a terse 'We've discussed that already!' or 'Not that again!' So more easily gets quenched than on a discussion board, where there are lots of different people and not everyone realises the discussion has been had multiple times.
I know it is very common for people to enter a discussion with a desire to win on some level, and to put down/belittle those who disagree, as a kind of one-upmanship thing. I honestly don't think this is what SD is generally doing though, from my observations of her posts. I think she wants to discuss the issue itself, in an impersonal way. And in her mind it is illogical/unreasonable to believe in something that can't be experienced tangibly and proved scientifically, so sometimes she says this, but I don't think to insult us - more because it's part of her thought process and she isn't thinking of what it implies about the people she is talking about, and how it can be read as rude.
SusanDoris is welcome to correct me if I am misreading her.
Since Ingo has unshipped himself, we probably shouldn't use him as an example of wildly inflexible religiosity. Especially since we have active Shipmates who'd easily stand proxy.
By the way, by 'free rein' I meant sort of knowing that there would be no disagreement or people asking what would be considered awkward questions. I can't think of a phrase I could have put in its place.
So you think that without SusanDoris, nobody will disagree with us or ask us awkward questions? You think far too highly of yourself.
Being charitable, I suspect they'd quickly realise that they had nothing to talk about.
Aquinas, whom IngoB adored, had five arguments for the existence of God. I'd assume they could discuss those until SD whipped out her stalwart "it's all in your mind" defense (or should I say offense).
Yeah: SusanDoris not as a millstone but as an immovable object, though we need nominations for the current job of irresistible force, as IngoB is no longer available.
Thank you for the question. Synthetic Dave reads everything, italic, capitals or bold, in exactly the same way! If I think there might be something different, I can greatly increase the magnification and perceive the difference, but it doesn't really help.
But why in all that is holy would you continue asking the same - or very similar - question when you know in advance that you are not going to like the answer?
I always like the answers because they are interesting to read, whether I agree, disagree, respond or not.
If that's not crusading or trolling, that's got to be madness.
It is, of course, neither of those things. It is an interesting activity and you may not have noticed, but I do express my gratitude for having this activity to turn to. I could, you know, make SofF an offer they couldn't refuse: find me another activity which I canactually do and partake in, and I'll leave SofF! But I'll still read it and, of course, might find the urge to join in and say something irresistible!
But why in all that is holy would you continue asking the same - or very similar - question when you know in advance that you are not going to like the answer?
If that's not crusading or trolling, that's got to be madness.
Isn't that the career in a nutshell of almost all academics?
Grats SusanDoris, this thread has proved beyond doubt that you are one of the most interesting and entertaining of shipmates!
You know, I don't think SusanDoris is crusading or trolling, or seeing it as a game she wants to win. If we all said to her 'Gosh, you're right, no evidence of God; we're all switching to atheism,' I think she'd find that interesting in itself as a phenomenon, but not a victory as such. And then she wouldn't want to stay here - we'd be boring then! She'd want to find a new group of Christians.
Absolutely right about the winning - there's no winning or losing, it is the communication that's the important thing. And no, I would not be looking for another group of Christians! I would not even ook for another message board - it's all messaging, tweeting etc these days and I can't do any of them.
I think she genuinely wants a discussion about the issue, but yes, it's the same discussion she wants to keep having. Some people do have one issue they feel the need to keep discussing - the need to express their view, their understanding. Because it's somehow an unresolved issue in their mind, maybe - the fact that others have a view that doesn't make logical sense to them. So they discuss, not to win, not to convert others, but because they need to keep having the discussion. I do actually understand this, and have done it myself in the past - in real life it gets met with a terse 'We've discussed that already!' or 'Not that again!' So more easily gets quenched than on a discussion board, where there are lots of different people and not everyone realises the discussion has been had multiple times.
No, I do not have a 'need' for that particular discussion, but do have a need for communicating with people who have interesting things to say.
I know it is very common for people to enter a discussion with a desire to win on some level, and to put down/belittle those who disagree, as a kind of one-upmanship thing. I honestly don't think this is what SD is generally doing though, from my observations of her posts. I think she wants to discuss the issue itself, in an impersonal way.
Correct and that's one of the reasons I never get involved in political argument.
And in her mind it is illogical/unreasonable to believe in something that can't be experienced tangibly and proved scientifically, so sometimes she says this, but I don't think to insult us - more because it's part of her thought process and she isn't thinking of what it implies about the people she is talking about, and how it can be read as rude.
However, it seems to me that those who join in a forum like this, and on Purgatory in particular, are prepared to read things that strongly challenge their own beliefs. If they had to stop and look up the details of that person's sensitivities, I think that would be me out of the door!
SusanDoris is welcome to correct me if I am misreading her.
By the way, by 'free rein' I meant sort of knowing that there would be no disagreement or people asking what would be considered awkward questions. I can't think of a phrase I could have put in its place.
So you think that without SusanDoris, nobody will disagree with us or ask us awkward questions? You think far too highly of yourself.
That, mousethief, is a post which is 100% incorrect.
But why in all that is holy would you continue asking the same - or very similar - question when you know in advance that you are not going to like the answer?
If that's not crusading or trolling, that's got to be madness.
Isn't that the career in a nutshell of almost all academics?
Grats SusanDoris, this thread has proved beyond doubt that you are one of the most interesting and entertaining of shipmates!
I sometimes used to think that IngoB was some kind of pre-programmed computerised loop-tape concocted by a wierd experiment somewhere in the bowels of the Vatican by ultramontane traditionalists out to take over the world ...
Some of his posts I scrolled past, others I found horrifically fascinating.
As far as rigidity goes (Ooh, matron!) there are some very inflexible Shippies who have swung across on ropes and spars from the old boards. I won't name them less I summon them from the bilges.
But why in all that is holy would you continue asking the same - or very similar - question when you know in advance that you are not going to like the answer?
If that's not crusading or trolling, that's got to be madness.
Isn't that the career in a nutshell of almost all academics?
Even if it is, we are not available subjects for observation by an academic. We are a group of people here for discussion.
Plus Susan is no academic.
Grats SusanDoris, this thread has proved beyond doubt that you are one of the most interesting and entertaining of shipmates!
Get a room. Susan is one of the most repetitive and tedious shipmates that we've ever known.
But why in all that is holy would you continue asking the same - or very similar - question when you know in advance that you are not going to like the answer?
I always like the answers because they are interesting to read, whether I agree, disagree, respond or not.
I don't agree with your self-preception. You beg questions that you already know the answers to and have pre-programmed responses for anyone who engages with you.
In fact anyone who responds to you is just playing along with a drama that has already been written because whatever they say simply strengthens the view that you had before you started.
If that's not crusading or trolling, that's got to be madness.
It is, of course, neither of those things. It is an interesting activity and you may not have noticed, but I do express my gratitude for having this activity to turn to.
I don't accept your fake and insincere notes of gratitude. In fact gratitude would be in engaging rather than telling other posters that you are grateful or saying that you will get back to things later then dodging questions.
I could, you know, make SofF an offer they couldn't refuse: find me another activity which I canactually do and partake in, and I'll leave SofF!
And here we get down to it.
No, Susan. It is not down to us to find you something to do. Nobody is saying that you shouldn't post, but at very least you should take this thread to mean that there are a large number of posters who do not wish to continue engaging with you on the level that you want to discuss religion.
If that meant that nobody played and nobody responded and as a result you gave up posting your favourite reductive questions, well never mind. No great loss.
But I'll still read it and, of course, might find the urge to join in and say something irresistible!
I'm quite sure you'll just carry on. Because people with single-track arguments rarely know when to shut up.
But why in all that is holy would you continue asking the same - or very similar - question when you know in advance that you are not going to like the answer?
I always like the answers because they are interesting to read, whether I agree, disagree, respond or not.
I don't agree with your self-preception. You beg questions that you already know the answers to and have pre-programmed responses for anyone who engages with you.
In fact anyone who responds to you is just playing along with a drama that has already been written because whatever they say simply strengthens the view that you had before you started.
If that's not crusading or trolling, that's got to be madness.
It is, of course, neither of those things. It is an interesting activity and you may not have noticed, but I do express my gratitude for having this activity to turn to.
I don't accept your fake and insincere notes of gratitude. In fact gratitude would be in engaging rather than telling other posters that you are grateful or saying that you will get back to things later then dodging questions.
I could, you know, make SofF an offer they couldn't refuse: find me another activity which I canactually do and partake in, and I'll leave SofF!
And here we get down to it.
No, Susan. It is not down to us to find you something to do. Nobody is saying that you shouldn't post, but at very least you should take this thread to mean that there are a large number of posters who do not wish to continue engaging with you on the level that you want to discuss religion.
If that meant that nobody played and nobody responded and as a result you gave up posting your favourite reductive questions, well never mind. No great loss.
But I'll still read it and, of course, might find the urge to join in and say something irresistible!
I'm quite sure you'll just carry on. Because people with single-track arguments rarely know when to shut up.
Maybe you'd like to shut up about your unpleasant assessment of my character?!
I sometimes used to think that IngoB was some kind of pre-programmed computerised loop-tape concocted by a weird experiment somewhere in the bowels of the Vatican by ultramontane traditionalists out to take over the world ...
Oddly enough, I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps SD is, in fact, a form of AI (Artificial Intelligence) which has not quite been perfected yet.
You mean not yet programmed with the ability to engage in the games that Boogie mentioned?
To be fair, I rarely engage in those either and when I do I'm very conscious that I continue to act as I do in Purgatory or Hell ...
Which is, believe it or not, something I am trying to amend.
No, I think SD is sincere and that she is genuine about the gratitude she feels about the opportunity to engage in interesting discussions aboard Ship - even if she already knows what the answer and outcome is going to be each time.
.
And in her mind it is illogical/unreasonable to believe in something that can't be experienced tangibly and proved scientifically, so sometimes she says this, but I don't think to insult us - more because it's part of her thought process and she isn't thinking of what it implies about the people she is talking about, and how it can be read as rude.
However, it seems to me that those who join in a forum like this, and on Purgatory in particular, are prepared to read things that strongly challenge their own beliefs. If they had to stop and look up the details of that person's sensitivities, I think that would be me out of the door!
What I meant here was not that challenging people's beliefs is rude, nor that you are posting in a way that fails to consider the particular sensitivities of each person. (I don't think people expect or want to be treated in a special way because of their unique sensitivities.) I meant that sometimes you seem unaware of the general implications of what you are saying - that you are saying things that suggest sweeping derogatory assumptions about all Christians. This has been shown on this thread where people are pointing things out and you are saying 'But I didn't actually mean that,' and people are saying 'But that is what you said.'
I do understand this dilemma - it's something I've inadvertently done myself in the past in different situations, where I've been very focused on expressing my view, which is directly opposed to another view, and I've made it sound like I'm insulting those of the opposite view, which was not my intention at all, but more a failure to realise the implications of what I was saying.
But you know, given that there are people who deliberately say things in such a way as to subtly put down or mock those who see things differently to them, I'd say that doing it inadvertently is the lesser crime by far. However (and I know this from experience), because a lot of people do pay attention to the implications of what they say (in general, not just on the Ship), people are likely to read it as deliberate when you do it inadvertently, and may sometimes find it hard to believe you didn't mean it that way. Which is why a few people are thinking you might be a troll.
Yes - perhaps the AI is beginning to learn how to pick up and reproduce human emotions, like impatience, annoyance, frustration....you know, some of those frequently expressed on this thread...
A good question, but the thread mentioned does NOT require constant abjurations or refutations of religious or scientific belief - just a willingness to talk lightly about Nice Things, such as CHEESE...
Give it a try - there might even be some virtual GIN available, as we're quite good at sharing.
I sometimes used to think that IngoB was some kind of pre-programmed computerised loop-tape concocted by a weird experiment somewhere in the bowels of the Vatican by ultramontane traditionalists out to take over the world ...
Oddly enough, I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps SD is, in fact, a form of AI (Artificial Intelligence) which has not quite been perfected yet.
IJ
When I was young, I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I'd like to come back as a glamorous opera singer, who could swim like Esther Williams, but now my only demand would be to have the natural ability to be witty! Then I'd be able to come up with a snappy, witty reply!
You mean not yet programmed with the ability to engage in the games that Boogie mentioned?
To be fair, I rarely engage in those either and when I do I'm very conscious that I continue to act as I do in Purgatory or Hell ...
Which is, believe it or not, something I am trying to amend.
No, I think SD is sincere and that she is genuine about the gratitude she feels about the opportunity to engage in interesting discussions aboard Ship - even if she already knows what the answer and outcome is going to be each time.
.
And in her mind it is illogical/unreasonable to believe in something that can't be experienced tangibly and proved scientifically, so sometimes she says this, but I don't think to insult us - more because it's part of her thought process and she isn't thinking of what it implies about the people she is talking about, and how it can be read as rude.
However, it seems to me that those who join in a forum like this, and on Purgatory in particular, are prepared to read things that strongly challenge their own beliefs. If they had to stop and look up the details of that person's sensitivities, I think that would be me out of the door!
What I meant here was not that challenging people's beliefs is rude, nor that you are posting in a way that fails to consider the particular sensitivities of each person. (I don't think people expect or want to be treated in a special way because of their unique sensitivities.) I meant that sometimes you seem unaware of the general implications of what you are saying - that you are saying things that suggest sweeping derogatory assumptions about all Christians. This has been shown on this thread where people are pointing things out and you are saying 'But I didn't actually mean that,' and people are saying 'But that is what you said.'
I do understand this dilemma - it's something I've inadvertently done myself in the past in different situations, where I've been very focused on expressing my view, which is directly opposed to another view, and I've made it sound like I'm insulting those of the opposite view, which was not my intention at all, but more a failure to realise the implications of what I was saying.
But you know, given that there are people who deliberately say things in such a way as to subtly put down or mock those who see things differently to them, I'd say that doing it inadvertently is the lesser crime by far. However (and I know this from experience), because a lot of people do pay attention to the implications of what they say (in general, not just on the Ship), people are likely to read it as deliberate when you do it inadvertently, and may sometimes find it hard to believe you didn't mean it that way. Which is why a few people are thinking you might be a troll.
Another interesting read - thank you. I can ony say that I wouldn't know how to troll if I tried!!
I’d be interested to know why you don’t feel able to join in with other boards @SusanDoris.
For example the British chat thread in All Saints. Just general cht abouthis that anthe weather or food - of course!
Just had a look at the last page of that. Apart from the fact that in order to do anything via the internet, I use a desktop and headphones. I could not use a smart phone or something. I eat sensibly but simply and use my still-going-strong Tupperware microwaveable dishes and my , well obviously!, microwave. I do not have things to chat about - except tap dancing of course. One of the group called in this afternoon to say hello and she is looking forward to being back next Thursday. -
These are simple facts; they are part of my life; they are not moans, that would be a waste of energy.
To be fair to SD, I find chat-type threads rely on the ability to scan quickly, to get a general sense of them, and to pick out the important details or the details that interest you. Relying on software to read to you is considerably more time-consuming, and if you're more interested in discussing big issues than small talk, I can see how Purgatory would be the preferred board.
How about "Shelf Life" in Heaven? I don't follow it regularly so you may have already been there, but if you are listening to audio books perhaps you can share books that you have liked or get ideas for ones to try. Just a thought.
How about "Shelf Life" in Heaven? I don't follow it regularly so you may have already been there, but if you are listening to audio books perhaps you can share books that you have liked or get ideas for ones to try. Just a thought.
Thank you. I don't remember being there before, but I went to the last page and read through. It is something I shall certainly be keeping an eye on.
Comments
I didn't state anything. I invited you to complete the statement "Holding an hypothesis that is not proven 100% by material, tangible measurable means is unacceptable because ..." in an effort to help you locate your blind spot.
Because ISTM that this is your basic issue with anyone who says "I think this is the way things work" - which on the Ship means those who think things work with the help of a God.
So it seems to me that it might be helpful to examine this as an initial premise. One of two things can result: either your position will be strengthened by proving the soundness of of the initial premise, or you might find that you have an opportunity to adopt a new premise that will better support your position going forward.
In any case I personally find it's always helpful to organize one's thinking in this manner. There's no shame in discarding a position that doesn't hold water. I do it all the time. I'm the first one to say "Oh balls, I'm all wet. Your way of reasoning makes much more sense."
I'm not invested in being right. I'm invested in crafting a way of looking at the world that makes the most sense to me and satisfies my need for cognitive harmony. I need this very much because there is the other side of me, the one that pipes in information from unknown sources (see: the spider story), and I have my hands full integrating this information with already established premises.
Occasionally information comes in that can't be integrated and I am forced to demolish entire structures with deeply embedded roots and rearrange them. In other words, observations disprove the hypothesis and so the hypothesis must be abandoned, and a new one adopted.
In this respect I am my own scientific experiment.
AFF
For instance on the war thread when discussing the Just War concept, the relateable, contextual/helpful tac is to discuss whether Jesus' teachings support that concept. It isn't helpful to say that he didn't exist. Or that, if he did, he wasn't likely divine. People believe he did, so discussing the concept within their belief is more effective/relateable/helpful to that subject.
It is how I discuss anything within a particular belief system. I discuss the internal logic, otherwise the discussion is very short and extremely repetitive.
An aside, Susan Doris: how does your reader deal with BBcode, like italics and bold? I ask because I use them in attempt at more effective communication, but will not use that with you if they make it more ineffective.
If that's not crusading or trolling, that's got to be madness.
I think she genuinely wants a discussion about the issue, but yes, it's the same discussion she wants to keep having. Some people do have one issue they feel the need to keep discussing - the need to express their view, their understanding. Because it's somehow an unresolved issue in their mind, maybe - the fact that others have a view that doesn't make logical sense to them. So they discuss, not to win, not to convert others, but because they need to keep having the discussion. I do actually understand this, and have done it myself in the past - in real life it gets met with a terse 'We've discussed that already!' or 'Not that again!' So more easily gets quenched than on a discussion board, where there are lots of different people and not everyone realises the discussion has been had multiple times.
I know it is very common for people to enter a discussion with a desire to win on some level, and to put down/belittle those who disagree, as a kind of one-upmanship thing. I honestly don't think this is what SD is generally doing though, from my observations of her posts. I think she wants to discuss the issue itself, in an impersonal way. And in her mind it is illogical/unreasonable to believe in something that can't be experienced tangibly and proved scientifically, so sometimes she says this, but I don't think to insult us - more because it's part of her thought process and she isn't thinking of what it implies about the people she is talking about, and how it can be read as rude.
SusanDoris is welcome to correct me if I am misreading her.
Thank you. I needed that laugh.
Thank you for the question. Synthetic Dave reads everything, italic, capitals or bold, in exactly the same way! If I think there might be something different, I can greatly increase the magnification and perceive the difference, but it doesn't really help.
I always like the answers because they are interesting to read, whether I agree, disagree, respond or not. It is, of course, neither of those things. It is an interesting activity and you may not have noticed, but I do express my gratitude for having this activity to turn to. I could, you know, make SofF an offer they couldn't refuse: find me another activity which I canactually do and partake in, and I'll leave SofF! But I'll still read it and, of course, might find the urge to join in and say something irresistible!
Isn't that the career in a nutshell of almost all academics?
Grats SusanDoris, this thread has proved beyond doubt that you are one of the most interesting and entertaining of shipmates!
Some of his posts I scrolled past, others I found horrifically fascinating.
As far as rigidity goes (Ooh, matron!) there are some very inflexible Shippies who have swung across on ropes and spars from the old boards. I won't name them less I summon them from the bilges.
Even if it is, we are not available subjects for observation by an academic. We are a group of people here for discussion.
Plus Susan is no academic.
Get a room. Susan is one of the most repetitive and tedious shipmates that we've ever known.
I don't agree with your self-preception. You beg questions that you already know the answers to and have pre-programmed responses for anyone who engages with you.
In fact anyone who responds to you is just playing along with a drama that has already been written because whatever they say simply strengthens the view that you had before you started.
I don't accept your fake and insincere notes of gratitude. In fact gratitude would be in engaging rather than telling other posters that you are grateful or saying that you will get back to things later then dodging questions.
And here we get down to it.
No, Susan. It is not down to us to find you something to do. Nobody is saying that you shouldn't post, but at very least you should take this thread to mean that there are a large number of posters who do not wish to continue engaging with you on the level that you want to discuss religion.
If that meant that nobody played and nobody responded and as a result you gave up posting your favourite reductive questions, well never mind. No great loss.
I'm quite sure you'll just carry on. Because people with single-track arguments rarely know when to shut up.
@SusanDoris isn’t tedious, I don’t think, but she is, at the moment, very much a one trick pony.
@SusanDoris - I’d love to see you in the other areas of the Ship, chatting and playing games. Those are the places we get to know each other imo
I'm sure she's a wonderful person in real life, with friends and grandchildren and a house full of laughter.
But here on these boards she is deadly tedious.
Oddly enough, I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps SD is, in fact, a form of AI (Artificial Intelligence) which has not quite been perfected yet.
IJ
To be fair, I rarely engage in those either and when I do I'm very conscious that I continue to act as I do in Purgatory or Hell ...
Which is, believe it or not, something I am trying to amend.
No, I think SD is sincere and that she is genuine about the gratitude she feels about the opportunity to engage in interesting discussions aboard Ship - even if she already knows what the answer and outcome is going to be each time.
She's by no means alone in that.
I just wanted to clarify one thing
What I meant here was not that challenging people's beliefs is rude, nor that you are posting in a way that fails to consider the particular sensitivities of each person. (I don't think people expect or want to be treated in a special way because of their unique sensitivities.) I meant that sometimes you seem unaware of the general implications of what you are saying - that you are saying things that suggest sweeping derogatory assumptions about all Christians. This has been shown on this thread where people are pointing things out and you are saying 'But I didn't actually mean that,' and people are saying 'But that is what you said.'
I do understand this dilemma - it's something I've inadvertently done myself in the past in different situations, where I've been very focused on expressing my view, which is directly opposed to another view, and I've made it sound like I'm insulting those of the opposite view, which was not my intention at all, but more a failure to realise the implications of what I was saying.
But you know, given that there are people who deliberately say things in such a way as to subtly put down or mock those who see things differently to them, I'd say that doing it inadvertently is the lesser crime by far. However (and I know this from experience), because a lot of people do pay attention to the implications of what they say (in general, not just on the Ship), people are likely to read it as deliberate when you do it inadvertently, and may sometimes find it hard to believe you didn't mean it that way. Which is why a few people are thinking you might be a troll.
As far as I'm concerned, the above is the first interesting, genuine post I've ever seen by SusanDoris.
IJ
For example the British chat thread in All Saints. Just general cht about this that and the other, usually the weather or food - of course!
Give it a try - there might even be some virtual GIN available, as we're quite good at sharing.
IJ
These are simple facts; they are part of my life; they are not moans, that would be a waste of energy.