Also, SusanDoris, if you fancy joining in a kind of book club, discussing a book that has been chosen for the month, there is the thread 'Ship of Fools Book Group 2018' which says here (click for link) which books have been chosen for the next few months. A new thread is made at the beginning of the month for each book. The books may not always appeal to you, but now and then there might be one you'd like to read and join in with - that's how I join in, just now and then, rather than every month.
Also, SusanDoris, if you fancy joining in a kind of book club, discussing a book that has been chosen for the month, there is the thread 'Ship of Fools Book Group 2018' which says here (click for link) which books have been chosen for the next few months. A new thread is made at the beginning of the month for each book. The books may not always appeal to you, but now and then there might be one you'd like to read and join in with - that's how I join in, just now and then, rather than every month.
Yes, I have looked at that sometimes, but the availability of a book can be a problem. The RNIB are always quite a long time having copies available and libraries do not get audio copies until a couple of years after publication., although I realise that the chosen book is not often a new one.
I agree that Audible is great - you can also get a free 30-day trial. And if you decide you don't like a book, you can return it and exchange for another.
Audible audio books by Amazon is a great service, not too expensive. I use it as I have dyslexia and can find a lot of reading tiring
Yes, I have looked at their web site a couple of times, but navigating such sites is beyond me. Not that I could not learn, but I have no motivation to do that.
If you turn this into the "Susan Doris support thread", I'm going to have to ask Admin to transfer it to All Saints. And while I'm delighted (Am I? Am I really?) to see a certain amount of equanimity break out - which is partly the purpose of Hell - you can all bugger off now and be fluffy elsewhere.
My ire is unabated because SD is yet to turn her shitsprayer off long enough to listen, but I appear to be in a tiny minority. I may return in a different guise, or at least a new thread on the same subject. It's only my thread in the sense I started it, but that's my twopennorth.
My ire is unabated because SD is yet to turn her shitsprayer off long enough to listen, but I appear to be in a tiny minority. I may return in a different guise, or at least a new thread on the same subject. It's only my thread in the sense I started it, but that's my twopennorth.
Again, if you've felt the desire to call Boogie to Hell, the problem ain't them.
My ire is unabated because SD is yet to turn her shitsprayer off long enough to listen, but I appear to be in a tiny minority. I may return in a different guise, or at least a new thread on the same subject. It's only my thread in the sense I started it, but that's my twopennorth.
Again, if you've felt the desire to call Boogie to Hell, the problem ain't them.
I made that comment at least half in jest in response to Boogie's own comment, as she herself said at the time. That's of a completely different order of irritation from SD's shitspreader. In any case, it's possible to target a particular source of irritation whilst being aware of others, a point which sanity would surely require one to admit?
I made that comment at least half in jest in response to Boogie's own comment, as she herself said at the time.
Even half I find a bit much.
In any case, it's possible to target a particular source of irritation whilst being aware of others, a point which sanity would surely require one to admit?
Never said it wasn't. My main reason for posting was an opportunity to highlight a bias. A natural and understandable one, but one people here are reluctant to admit. Even though to shed that bias completely would be extraordinary.
My main reason for posting was an opportunity to highlight a bias. A natural and understandable one, but one people here are reluctant to admit. Even though to shed that bias completely would be extraordinary.
Particularly extraordinary given the Purgatory guidelines, which specifically set it out as a space for discussion within a Christian conceptual framework. Constant attempts to undermine that framework are tedious. Of course, contributions can come from outside it, to act as points of comparison and contrast, but this is not the same as perpetually attempting to undermine the conceptual framework itself.
My main reason for posting was an opportunity to highlight a bias. A natural and understandable one, but one people here are reluctant to admit. Even though to shed that bias completely would be extraordinary.
Particularly extraordinary given the Purgatory guidelines, which specifically set it out as a space for discussion within a Christian conceptual framework. Constant attempts to undermine that framework are tedious. Of course, contributions can come from outside it, to act as points of comparison and contrast, but this is not the same as perpetually attempting to undermine the conceptual framework itself.
So, you did not read my reply to CK as to why this is bullshit.
In my 11 years here, that is not the truth of how this all works.
where theological, ethical, political, social and cultural issues are discussed from a Christian perspective.
But this has never been exactly true in my years of posting here. ISTM, it is more a heads up about the nature of the boards than an actual directive. As worded, only Christians could post as a non-Christian might try to discuss within the parameters of what Christianity says, they still would not be speaking from a Christian perspective. The former is polite, the latter is exclusionary; something SOF* hasn't really been in my experience.
@lilbuddha - that is a direct quotation from the introduction to the Purgatory Guidelines. It is not something I invented. I reread the guidelines when we got into this discussion and realised that they do describe that board as discussing things from a Christian perspective.
That quotation from the board guidelines was copied from the Purgatory Guidelines on the Old Ship™ - I've just checked. If you haven't taken that on board that's not my problem, it's yours.
My main reason for posting was an opportunity to highlight a bias. A natural and understandable one, but one people here are reluctant to admit. Even though to shed that bias completely would be extraordinary.
Particularly extraordinary given the Purgatory guidelines, which specifically set it out as a space for discussion within a Christian conceptual framework. Constant attempts to undermine that framework are tedious. Of course, contributions can come from outside it, to act as points of comparison and contrast, but this is not the same as perpetually attempting to undermine the conceptual framework itself.
So, you did not read my reply to CK as to why this is bullshit.
In my 11 years here, that is not the truth of how this all works. This website is Christian in foundation and Christian heavy in participation. But never has run as if it participation must be within that framework.
Personally, I try to discuss within the god-botherer framework on god-bothering topics as that is polite. But if she were contravening the actual rules, she would not still be here.
Undermining is a bullshit accusation. She annoys you.
My main reason for posting was an opportunity to highlight a bias. A natural and understandable one, but one people here are reluctant to admit. Even though to shed that bias completely would be extraordinary.
Particularly extraordinary given the Purgatory guidelines, which specifically set it out as a space for discussion within a Christian conceptual framework. Constant attempts to undermine that framework are tedious. Of course, contributions can come from outside it, to act as points of comparison and contrast, but this is not the same as perpetually attempting to undermine the conceptual framework itself.
So, you did not read my reply to CK as to why this is bullshit.
In my 11 years here, that is not the truth of how this all works. This website is Christian in foundation and Christian heavy in participation. But never has run as if it participation must be within that framework.
Personally, I try to discuss within the god-botherer framework on god-bothering topics as that is polite. But if she were contravening the actual rules, she would not still be here.
Undermining is a bullshit accusation. She annoys you.
Hence the hell call. But she annoys me because she makes it impossible to have a real exploratory discusssion by leading everything by the nose in small circles. She can never shut up, never stop herself putting in her pointless 0.000000001p worth.
The real irony is that your logic turns every single Purgatory discussion into a nice little vicarage chat, rather than anything more focused. As a veteran of many such, God save us. Yes, that God.
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.
Large number of posters? I would think rather a handful of "SD is teh evilz!" a couple of apologists, one or two coming at this sideways and a few discussing this reasonably. There are not a large number participating, much less from one viewpoint.
Just 12 pages of a few people posting way too much.
What's the point of posting further? SD sings one single note incessantly, knocking threads off track. I sympathize with her difficulties, but not with her constant need to insert her unchanging opinion into almost every subject she encounters.
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.
If it is, there is no indication thereof in what you wrote.
My main reason for posting was an opportunity to highlight a bias. A natural and understandable one, but one people here are reluctant to admit. Even though to shed that bias completely would be extraordinary.
Particularly extraordinary given the Purgatory guidelines, which specifically set it out as a space for discussion within a Christian conceptual framework. Constant attempts to undermine that framework are tedious. Of course, contributions can come from outside it, to act as points of comparison and contrast, but this is not the same as perpetually attempting to undermine the conceptual framework itself.
Hmmm,, I wonder... ..
If you think the Christian perspective is underminable or vulnerable to being undermined, I wonder what and where you think those areas of vulnerability are? Maybe that's a question for another time.
My main reason for posting was an opportunity to highlight a bias. A natural and understandable one, but one people here are reluctant to admit. Even though to shed that bias completely would be extraordinary.
Particularly extraordinary given the Purgatory guidelines, which specifically set it out as a space for discussion within a Christian conceptual framework. Constant attempts to undermine that framework are tedious. Of course, contributions can come from outside it, to act as points of comparison and contrast, but this is not the same as perpetually attempting to undermine the conceptual framework itself.
So, you did not read my reply to CK as to why this is bullshit.
In my 11 years here, that is not the truth of how this all works. This website is Christian in foundation and Christian heavy in participation. But never has run as if it participation must be within that framework.
Personally, I try to discuss within the god-botherer framework on god-bothering topics as that is polite. But if she were contravening the actual rules, she would not still be here.
Undermining is a bullshit accusation. She annoys you.
Hence the hell call. But she annoys me because she makes it impossible to have a real exploratory discusssion by leading everything by the nose in small circles. She can never shut up, never stop herself putting in her pointless 0.000000001p worth.
The real irony is that your logic turns every single Purgatory discussion into a nice little vicarage chat, rather than anything more focused. As a veteran of many such, God save us. Yes, that God.
I would also like to mention that if you count the number of topics in Purgatory and the number I have actually posted in, I think the proportion would be small, but I do not know the actual numbers.
There is a lot to be said for the observation that the more trivial the topic the fiercer the arguing.
Maybe that's why they stuck the "within a christian perceptual framework" in the guidelines - to add some spice with that dash of pointlessness.
I'm not sure that the arguing is fierce here, particularly compared to the Share the Road thread.
Maybe we're hoping for a form of democracy when we can discuss and come to a consensus, following one of the kinds of democracy that are being suggested as alternatives on the democracy threads in Purgatory? Reaching consensus decisions is long winded and goes around in circles for ages until everyone is reconciled to the same understandings. But there is nowhere else on the Ship to have this sort of conversation when the whole topic is personal, other than Hell.
@quetzalcoatl - yes. When those ideas are being discussed. But it's not undermining ideas when those thoughts are introduced onto a thread that isn't discussing the ideas, it's disruption. If you want to undermine those ideas, you, general you, need to be able to continue the conversation and answer challenges in return.
The complaints against SusanDoris are:
that she has been introducing arguments that take the discussion back to first principles on threads which are considering something else with those first principles assumed. This is disruptive and is what triggered this Hell call;
that she does not follow through the arguments she makes and/or cannot continue with the trains of thought she starts - which is frustrating.
The second would be less frustrating if the ideas she's questioning were not being addressed by assertions that cannot be followed through and in their phrasing can appear dismissive and rude to deeply held faiths for some Shipmates. If she's asking or wants to continue the conversation she may find she gets a better response if she phrases what she is saying as questions without implicit assertions that other Shipmates can find dogmatic and offensive.
Nothing undermines my sympathy for the claims of Christianity more effectively than the vicious, obscene, and disproportionate attacks on SD by Christians. "Incandescent terror" indeed.
Curiosity killed - fair points. I think SD is indeed maladroit. You will observe my much more subtle attempts to undermine Christianity. Anyway, I think it all bounces off Susan. One pity is that an interesting discussion of first principles seems to get lost, maybe it's impossible, or not very interesting.
In my observation, what people get called to hell most for is not really their views as such, but more lack of social finesse, sensitivity, and ability/willingness to adapt in the way they express these views. Personally, I think that is really not deserving of any great anger, though I understand it can irritate. People’s ability to change and adapt will vary, and a little sensitivity to this might help in general.
Non sequiturs are annoying, but not, I don't think, deliberate in this case, so easier to ignore. Just like I don't think you deliberately wrote secateurs (which are pruning shears) so it doesn't make me angry, though it confused me for a while. Different people have different challenges in communication.
Do you actually pronounce them the same? I pronounce them quite differently, but it occurs to me I may be pronouncing them wrong, as I read them more than I hear them
No, I pronounce them differently. I just like writing non secateurs, as it annoys people, and they correct me, and of course, it undermines all religions.
I honestly have no idea if you are joking or serious, or if you are being rude to me, or making a point about SusanDoris. But that is my own communication difficulty, if it's obvious to everyone else. But, for what it's worth, it didn't annoy me. I found it initially confusing, and then it amused me, as I'd never seen that mistake before, and I wondered how it happened, whether it was autocorrect or you pronounce them the same. I like linguistic oddities.
Non- sequitur, in @SusanDoris’ case is comments that do not follow logically from or are not related to anything previously said.
Yep, absolutely she does that - and I think this is what really annoys people. (Not me especially, to be fair, but then I’m not particularly interested in the threads she engages in. If I were really into the discussion of (whatever) then the ‘arguing’ with every premise’ tactic would be most infuriating, I think.
To clarify, I know what a non-sequitur is and how SD does them. That is what I was referring to when I said I didn’t think it was deliberate. I don’t think SD realises.
To clarify, I know what a non-sequitur is and how SD does them. That is what I was referring to when I said I didn’t think it was deliberate. I don’t think SD realises.
That’s why I spelled it out - for her, not for you
I was making the point that I see it as the various other communication errors people make, such as typos/spelling errors, and I used the spelling of sequitur as an example, though it seems it wasn’t a good example as it was deliberately misspelt!
Non- sequitur, in @SusanDoris’ case is comments that do not follow logically from or are not related to anything previously said.
Yep, absolutely she does that - and I think this is what really annoys people. (Not me especially, to be fair, but then I’m not particularly interested in the threads she engages in. If I were really into the discussion of (whatever) then the ‘arguing’ with every premise’ tactic would be most infuriating, I think.
Interesting point, which I shall bear in mind in future, especially if I think there is in fact a logical step from what is said to what I intend to say.
To clarify, I know what a non-sequitur is and how SD does them. That is what I was referring to when I said I didn’t think it was deliberate. I don’t think SD realises.
That’s why I spelled it out - for her, not for you
Ah, okay. Makes sense. It would be even more confusing if your software was reading out secateurs!
Hmmmm, yes. But are most communication errors so consistent?
SD seems to do exactly the same thing, in the same way, almost with the same words - on every thread 🤔
Yes, communication difficulties can be consistent. I know someone who often spells ‘friend’ as ‘freind’ (e before i for those listening). I’ve pointed it out to her and she says others have told her and she knows she does it, but she always forgets - it’s a blind spot for her.
And I know plenty of people who have certain topics they always want to discuss, and plenty of people whose logic is a bit dodgy!
I have a friend who can never stick to the point of a conversation - he gets distracted by associations he makes in his head and goes off on a tangent and you can’t bring him back to the point. I’ve talked to him about it, because he didn’t understand why people were getting impatient with him, and he understood and acknowledged what I said, and even realised he finds it annoying when his mum does the same thing. He has good intentions of changing, but he hasn’t - he finds it genuinely hard.
For whatever it may be worth, the two characteristics which annoy me about SD's one-track posting is her notion that the "faith" underlying believers' discussions is somehow different from her own "faith" that the apparent operations of material universe need no further examination and can be taken as given. Her claims that beliefs are "all in people's minds" (without ever acknowledging that her own position is likewise a product of her mind) really grates on me.
The other issue is that steely "upbeat attitude," which comes across as proceeding more from tooth-grinding determination in the face of real adversity (commendable, perhaps, but a bit off-putting in terms of ordinary human intercourse) than from any genuine human feeling on SD's part. That's why I actually appreciated her statement, quoted earlier, to another poster to "shut up" about the unpleasant assessment of SD's character. It's the first time I've seen her express ordinary human irritation with another Shipmate, and the first time I saw SD give us a chance to see "into" SD herself.
Interesting stuff about faith. I doubt if Susan would say that material operations require no further examination, after all, the notion of the material itself has been under the spotlight, since it's not very clear what it is, energy fields, blah blah. There is also the point that the supernatural seems like guesswork often, and without constraints.
Another point is that empirical observations are checked with others; thus, one's own mental operations don't exist in isolation. But I guess you can say the same about religious experience.
But then, as Blake almost said, bliss relaxes, fuck religion.
I honestly have no idea if you are joking or serious, or if you are being rude to me, or making a point about SusanDoris. But that is my own communication difficulty, if it's obvious to everyone else. But, for what it's worth, it didn't annoy me. I found it initially confusing, and then it amused me, as I'd never seen that mistake before, and I wondered how it happened, whether it was autocorrect or you pronounce them the same. I like linguistic oddities.
Not being rude, desperately trying to be amusing. Auto-correct would not touch non secateurs, I don't think, but it is a nuisance if you are trying to do word play, e.g., Bliar gets changed to Blair, of course, although you can stop it. But because secateurs is a genuine word, it passes over it. James Joyce would have had nightmares, e.g., "sobs they sighdid at Fillagain's chrissormiss wake", etc.
Quetzalcoatl, thanks for explaining. I figured afterwards you were probably spelling it that way as a fun thing - I can be a bit slow to figure out things like that!
Comments
I made that comment at least half in jest in response to Boogie's own comment, as she herself said at the time. That's of a completely different order of irritation from SD's shitspreader. In any case, it's possible to target a particular source of irritation whilst being aware of others, a point which sanity would surely require one to admit?
Particularly extraordinary given the Purgatory guidelines, which specifically set it out as a space for discussion within a Christian conceptual framework. Constant attempts to undermine that framework are tedious. Of course, contributions can come from outside it, to act as points of comparison and contrast, but this is not the same as perpetually attempting to undermine the conceptual framework itself.
In my 11 years here, that is not the truth of how this all works.
I didn't agree with you, my response was below:
That quotation from the board guidelines was copied from the Purgatory Guidelines on the Old Ship™ - I've just checked. If you haven't taken that on board that's not my problem, it's yours.
In my 11 years here, that is not the truth of how this all works. This website is Christian in foundation and Christian heavy in participation. But never has run as if it participation must be within that framework.
Personally, I try to discuss within the god-botherer framework on god-bothering topics as that is polite. But if she were contravening the actual rules, she would not still be here.
Undermining is a bullshit accusation. She annoys you.
Hence the hell call. But she annoys me because she makes it impossible to have a real exploratory discusssion by leading everything by the nose in small circles. She can never shut up, never stop herself putting in her pointless 0.000000001p worth.
The real irony is that your logic turns every single Purgatory discussion into a nice little vicarage chat, rather than anything more focused. As a veteran of many such, God save us. Yes, that God.
Just 12 pages of a few people posting way too much.
Maybe that's why they stuck the "within a christian perceptual framework" in the guidelines - to add some spice with that dash of pointlessness.
If you think the Christian perspective is underminable or vulnerable to being undermined, I wonder what and where you think those areas of vulnerability are? Maybe that's a question for another time.
Maybe we're hoping for a form of democracy when we can discuss and come to a consensus, following one of the kinds of democracy that are being suggested as alternatives on the democracy threads in Purgatory? Reaching consensus decisions is long winded and goes around in circles for ages until everyone is reconciled to the same understandings. But there is nowhere else on the Ship to have this sort of conversation when the whole topic is personal, other than Hell.
The complaints against SusanDoris are:
- that she has been introducing arguments that take the discussion back to first principles on threads which are considering something else with those first principles assumed. This is disruptive and is what triggered this Hell call;
- that she does not follow through the arguments she makes and/or cannot continue with the trains of thought she starts - which is frustrating.
The second would be less frustrating if the ideas she's questioning were not being addressed by assertions that cannot be followed through and in their phrasing can appear dismissive and rude to deeply held faiths for some Shipmates. If she's asking or wants to continue the conversation she may find she gets a better response if she phrases what she is saying as questions without implicit assertions that other Shipmates can find dogmatic and offensive.Yep, absolutely she does that - and I think this is what really annoys people. (Not me especially, to be fair, but then I’m not particularly interested in the threads she engages in. If I were really into the discussion of (whatever) then the ‘arguing’ with every premise’ tactic would be most infuriating, I think.
That’s why I spelled it out - for her, not for you
SD seems to do exactly the same thing, in the same way, almost with the same words - on every thread she joins. 🤔
Will that be a proper sequitur?!
Ah, okay. Makes sense. It would be even more confusing if your software was reading out secateurs!
Yes, communication difficulties can be consistent. I know someone who often spells ‘friend’ as ‘freind’ (e before i for those listening). I’ve pointed it out to her and she says others have told her and she knows she does it, but she always forgets - it’s a blind spot for her.
And I know plenty of people who have certain topics they always want to discuss, and plenty of people whose logic is a bit dodgy!
I have a friend who can never stick to the point of a conversation - he gets distracted by associations he makes in his head and goes off on a tangent and you can’t bring him back to the point. I’ve talked to him about it, because he didn’t understand why people were getting impatient with him, and he understood and acknowledged what I said, and even realised he finds it annoying when his mum does the same thing. He has good intentions of changing, but he hasn’t - he finds it genuinely hard.
The other issue is that steely "upbeat attitude," which comes across as proceeding more from tooth-grinding determination in the face of real adversity (commendable, perhaps, but a bit off-putting in terms of ordinary human intercourse) than from any genuine human feeling on SD's part. That's why I actually appreciated her statement, quoted earlier, to another poster to "shut up" about the unpleasant assessment of SD's character. It's the first time I've seen her express ordinary human irritation with another Shipmate, and the first time I saw SD give us a chance to see "into" SD herself.
Another point is that empirical observations are checked with others; thus, one's own mental operations don't exist in isolation. But I guess you can say the same about religious experience.
But then, as Blake almost said, bliss relaxes, fuck religion.
Not being rude, desperately trying to be amusing. Auto-correct would not touch non secateurs, I don't think, but it is a nuisance if you are trying to do word play, e.g., Bliar gets changed to Blair, of course, although you can stop it. But because secateurs is a genuine word, it passes over it. James Joyce would have had nightmares, e.g., "sobs they sighdid at Fillagain's chrissormiss wake", etc.
On reading I thought I'd come across a really neat bit of word-play....
IJ