Then stop behaving like a dick by jumping into a thread you've admitted you barely read and dispensing your ill-informed judgement. Then I won't call you a dick. You dick.
I know you think being a Hell host exempts you from the rules (like numbers 2 and 3 of Hell's guidelines,) but I didn't know you also got to say who could post on a thread and when exactly they should be allowed to "jump in" or not. How does that work? Do we have to post on page one if we expect to be allowed to post on page 22?
I didn't pass judgement on anyone but intended to make a mild joke pointing out that many of us have been condescending from time to time and few of us have changed our basic beliefs since we started here. At least I haven't.
Funny how I didn't post here at all for several months, but almost the first day I'm back , you feel the need to attack me. Have you given yourself the power to completely eliminate people you don't like from Hell now?
A different kind of truth claim is different way of establishing a ‘fact’, it is not the difference between fact and non-fact. It is also, arguably not possible to be objective or to conduct research without bias - qualitative researchers have most actively highlighted this. Pretending there is no bias is dangerous, it is better to make subjectivity visible rather than deny it exists.
There are different theories in non-science domains - for example, here is an article discussing different theories of justice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice
I have a bee in my bonnet about folk using science to derive morality, because people do try to do that and it doesn’t end well. Eugenics is a really dangerous example of this tendency.
The other thing we see a lot of, because many people treat scientific knowledge as being better than other kinds of knowledge (or a fail to distinguish when the scientific approach is appropriate or not), is people using the language of science to try to justify decisions or approaches that are not amenable to scientific enquiry. Which leads to duff science or unconvincing rhetoric.
is the equivalent of not just painting a target on yourself, but illuminating it with laser light and asking for the guided missile to slam into you.
You then compound the error, if that's at all possible, by being wrong.
I don't care where you post, but if you come to Hell and expect an outbreak of fluffy bunnies to spontaneously appear after your parade of ignorance and shallowness, you are very much mistaken.
Yeah, not a good start. Can't say I blame you pragmatically, because it's a dense snooze-fest of frustrating repetition. Nevertheless, you can skim a thread (I assume everybody is for this one, honestly), and not necessarily announce that you are dismissing their contributions. Because there is no winsome way to tell somebody that you're too busy to bother listening to them.
I like Susan
I assume you invest in insulin injections, but she's definitely not as horrible as some.
I [think I] found out she was in trouble for not always answering people's questions, never changing her position in all the years she's been here and being condescending.
Well, no. Massive swing and a miss, there. She is being castigated for misinterpreting what people are saying, in a frustratingly ongoing manner. Nobody has any qualms with SusanDoris' position, just the retarded-muppet versions of other people she seems to be pretending to argue with.
How is she different than most of us?
Most of us take hints, and simply-explained points.
I admit I haven't read all 990 posts above, mainly because I like Susan, but I did do some skimming and found out she was in trouble for not always answering people's questions, never changing her position in all the years she's been here and being condescending. How is she different than most of us?
I'm quoting myself here because I'm really amazed that such an ordinary, rather boring post in the peacemaking "don't we all do this sometimes?" vein, should garner so much attention. What Rook calls a massive swing and miss are three criticisms of Susan that I read in posts above. They may not be what he perceives as her main problem but other people accused her of those exact things in those exact words. Perhaps I have actually been "listening" more closely than some of you. Admitting that I skimmed a little was just being honest in case I was repeating something already said, hardly as rude as telling an individual I hadn't been listening to them.
The charge that I had "painted a target on my back," is of course the usual excuse in Hell to be nasty to someone. It never has held water. It's the same sort of nonsense as "she was asking for it."
Merriam Webster calls "dick" a mean, stupid or annoying man, so does three other definitions I found online. I guess Mousetheif has his own source, but it's news to me. In any case calling me that when I had said nothing to him at all is a violation of two Hell guidelines, gratuitous use of vulgar language and unprovoked attacks.
I'm sick of him and sick of Doc Tor and his unchecked hatred. I'm requesting permission to have my SoF's membership revoked so I wont be tempted to return.
Ah, the deliberate moronity of the perpetually defensive. Like outrage at being stung after punching a wasps nest, it's funny from a certain emotional distance.
Merriam Webster calls "dick" a mean, stupid or annoying man, so does three other definitions I found online. I guess Mousetheif has his own source, but it's news to me.
It's called Google. You should try it sometime. May I ask you to spell my name right? If you ever need to see how it's spelled, it's just to the right of my little mouse picture at the top of this post, and every other post I have ever posted on the new boards.
Hell guidelines aren't rules. They're helpful hints. Note the threatened consequences of not following this one:
Strong language – only use colourful language if it's genuinely humorous. Gratuitous posting of offensive language will reveal your intellect for what it is, and you will be treated accordingly.
People will treat me has having a small intellect. Do your worst.
A different kind of truth claim is different way of establishing a ‘fact’, it is not the difference between fact and non-fact.
In order to make sure I am understanding you correctly, I wonder if you could please give an example of a truth claim with, or which has, two (or more) different ways of establishing it? I can think of objective truths - such as a belief that there is a city called Durham - and nowadays it would be easier to prove the truth of a claim that someone has visited the city, what with CCTV etc! and in any case the truth of whether a person's claimn to have visited the city or not is irrelevant generally speaking - but for truth claims that can influence the lives of millions ... well that is a different matter.
It is also, arguably not possible to be objective or to conduct research without bias - qualitative researchers have most actively highlighted this. Pretending there is no bias is dangerous, it is better to make subjectivity visible rather than deny it exists.
Agree of course.
There are different theories in non-science domains - for example, here is an article discussing different theories of justice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice
I have a bee in my bonnet about folk using science to derive morality, because people do try to do that and it doesn’t end well. Eugenics is a really dangerous example of this tendency.
It is only in more recent years that I have read and understood just how this was used in the past and yes, the more information there is, the less such things are likely to happen again - we hope, anyway..
The other thing we see a lot of, because many people treat scientific knowledge as being better than other kinds of knowledge (or a fail to distinguish when the scientific approach is appropriate or not), is people using the language of science to try to justify decisions or approaches that are not amenable to scientific enquiry. Which leads to duff science or unconvincing rhetoric.
I'm not exactly sure what you are meaning here, but for anything to be amenable to scientific enquiry, leading one hopes to the establishment of facts, it must start with observation, usually independently verified I think, then a hypothesisand tests. If tests are impossible to set up, then end of story. (I am open to correction on this though!)
Twilight, if your public library subscribes, you can access the OED online. It is more comprehensive than the Merriam Webster, and very interesting if you like to look up etymologies and history of word usage. Here is what it has for this particular usage of ‘dick.’
slang (orig. U.S.). A stupid, annoying, or objectionable person, esp. a boy or man whose behaviour is considered knowingly obnoxious, provocative, or disruptive. Cf. dick-head n. (b) at Compounds, prick n. 12c.
I would also say, Twilight, that while your post was indeed ordinary, for you, Doc Tor’s post was also ordinary, for him. Different people have different ordinary, and it changes depending which board they are posting in.
To be clear, anything I post as a shipmate (without hostly tags) I post on my own cognisance. I assume that of everyone else, too, and they own what they say.
So if you come on to a thread, blithely telling everyone that you haven't bothered your arse reading the messages before yours in sufficient detail to get up to speed, and then proceed to tell everyone how they're wrong, that's going to go as well here as it is in Purg, or in fact anywhere, either virtual or real. Try it sometime - butt into a conversation and hold forth, ignorant of everything that has gone before.
tl;dr I don't hate Twilight, but her behaviour sucked.
That is what I meant in my post before yours, Doc Tor. That this is how you post in Hell (as a shipmate) if people post something you think is rubbish/rude. To everyone, not just Twilight, so not personal to her, but just an ordinary way of posting for you. I almost added I don’t think you hate her, but then I realised I had no idea if you did, so I’d better not add that just in case you do! So I’m glad you said it instead, that you don’t!
I rather think (and hope) that it will simply run out of steam, if it hasn't already done so, and will be quietly euthanized by a kindly Host or Admin.
There's been nothing from the egregious SD since early this morning, so perhaps (like Baal) she is asleep, or hath gone on a journey....
I rather think (and hope) that it will simply run out of steam, if it hasn't already done so, and will be quietly euthanized by a kindly Host or Admin.
There's been nothing from the egregious SD since early this morning, so perhaps (like Baal) she is asleep, or hath gone on a journey....
IJ
No! Just wondering whether to creep in quietly and see if it is possible to have the last word but I'm sure that won't be the case and no problems there, so have spent a little more time on Saturday's cryptic crossword (but not getting very far) and Mr Polly.
It has all been very interesting.
No! Just wondering whether to creep in quietly and see if it is possible to have the last word but I'm sure that won't be the case and no problems there, so ... It has all been very interesting.
Ah. I was wondering if it might be this one which also exists in German, I believe. For the non-musicians there’s “It was a dark and stormy night, and the Captain said to the mate, “Mate! Tell us a story” and the Mate began thus, “It was a dark and stormy night…” etc. ad lib. ad nauseam.
Sometime having a significant hearing impairment (+ not wearing the ole' hearing aids) is a real blessing.
FWIW, SusaDoris, I think both RooK and Doc Tor have each, and more than once each, delivered excellent curtain lines for this thread. The problem is that the rest of us seem unable to take the hint. Kind of like one of the complaints against you . . .
Is this the kind of thread that only silver bullets made from a crucifix blessed by the Pope can kill?
would serve as a curtain line-- and then -- for a crazy moment in time -- I thought someone might say she was insulting all the people who had posted on recent pages, jumping in and implying in a less than winsome way that they were being repetitive and boring, and then someone else would call her a dick for saying such awful things and a third person would copy him and also call her a dick and others would find four or five online definitions that, while differing on gender, all agreed that she was stupid, annoying and had sucky behavior ...
My name? You're the one so free with your gross insults that your defenders are reduced to saying it's not really that bad because you do it all the time.
Xer post had the eminent saving graces of being both humorous and true. That sometimes helps, even in Hell. Although I suppose that depends on what one's goal is; and I find myself doubting it would further your aims.
Twilight, I am so happy when you appear in Hell. Sadly this is for reasons that do credit to neither me nor you. It's fun to watch you get heated up so fast and pop off at all the wrong targets - but then I need to take a shame nap afterward.
In other news: SusanDoris still doesn't get it. More at 11.
My name? You're the one so free with your gross insults that your defenders are reduced to saying it's not really that bad because you do it all the time.
FFS, I wasn’t defending anyone, or measuring degrees of ‘badness’. This is Hell. People insult each other, and express frustration with each other. I was trying to explain the post wasn’t personal to you, as you seemed very upset, and taking it very personally. It was for your own sake that I posted, not Doc Tor’s - he doesn’t need defending. You did, as he said, totally miss the main point of the thread.
Shit a brick, has it come to this? Calling someone a dick is a "gross insult"?
I remember when Hellish insults actually were worthy of such a hanky-wringing, sensitive-souls-fainting-in-the-aisles reaction. And unless you've suffered a number of blunt force traumas to the occiput in the intervening years, I know that you do too. So what's with all the histrionics over a fucking Hellhost using one of the mildest fucking insults it's possible to use?
Or to put it another way: get over yourself, you stupid dumbshit fuckstained unclesucker.
It's fun to watch you get heated up so fast and pop off at all the wrong targets -
I'm glad you enjoy it Leaf, making people laugh is my favorite thing. I'll be the first to admit, my temper can go from 0 to 100 in seconds. It's a chemical thing I inherited from my father, I even sometimes literally "see red," and that's why I'll probably die of a stroke like he did. * However. Doc Tor will never be a wrong target.
Or to put it another way: get over yourself, you stupid dumbshit fuckstained unclesucker.
See, that's not so bad. It's more gender specific, so over the top as to be almost funny, and the fact that all my uncles are dead only makes it better somehow.
It wasn't an excuse. I mentioned it because I find it interesting. Blood pressure surges are nothing to be ashamed of. It's not like I've knowingly ever hurt anyone when angry. Where exactly is this "bad behavior" you're so shocked over? Oh that's right, I admitted to skimming. The horror.
So you're saying you don't get angry, but just say nasty things to people out of cold intent to hurt? Nice.
So you're saying you don't get angry, but just say nasty things to people out of cold intent to hurt? Nice.
Classic!
Here's a handy primer:
FEELINGS: You're allowed to have them. Nobody should blame you for having them. They do not need to make sense, and it often works best if we don't pretend that they have to.
THOUGHTS: These are especially encouraged, and it is the implicit goal of all rational beings to strive to make sure that they do, indeed, make sense. Bonus points if they're funny.
ACTIONS: These are the things that interact with our shared reality, and are what each person is held responsible for. This includes communication, often sharing thoughts and feelings through posts.
Actually, it's a vague attempt to keep order down here. You might not take the hint that not reading a thread before shitting on it isn't the done thing, but other, more perspicacious posters hopefully will.
Also, you know that it's nothing to do with blood pressure, and everything to do with learnt behaviour. Behaviour which you seem to think you have a by for. Other people may grudgingly put up with your crap, but you haven't given me a reason why I should.
Or to put it another way: get over yourself, you stupid dumbshit fuckstained unclesucker.
See, that's not so bad. It's more gender specific, so over the top as to be almost funny, and the fact that all my uncles are dead only makes it better somehow.
I have been contemplating a fit of the vapours for some time. I may be about to have it now. Either that, or the beans I had for dinner are repeating on me.
SD I for one have had an absolute bellyfull of your simplistic bollocks. You are an absolute millstone around the discussion on the shape the church might take in the future. No idea can take off, because you wrap yourself round it and attempt to destroy it with your witless, joyless materialism. Just fuck off out of it. We've had enough.
Hi ThunderBunk
I've read Susan's posts for many years on another Blog, and notice amazing similarities to recent comments I read here. Susan is a student of the great Randi (James Randi Educational Foundation--JREF), and a follower of Richard Dawkins in his prime. I thought I was creative when I accused her of being an Evangelistic Atheist. Now, I'm not so sure--that label seems to have followed her here.
The one thing that I have learned over the years is that Susan is sincere, and remains focused on discussions of religion and spirituality. Her reliance on science, as relayed through Richard Dawkins British TV shows, and further explicated at JREF is not as solid as one might would hope--but it works for her
These conversational interactions work for her, infuse meaning into her life--and your tolerance would be the best gift you could give her.
It appears that you expect us to be interested in your creepy cyberstalking of @SusanDoris. I am not. Please take that miserable excrement and shove it back into whatever orifice you squeezed that out of. SD and her infuriating missing of points is infinitely more welcome than your faux-chummy infringement on her privacy and its accompanying assumption of bland agreement.
It doesn't help that you take a controversially-interesting Atheist, lump him in with a beloved skeptic, and let it dangle as if it make some sort of point. Some of us agree with Dawkins fundamentally, even as we cringe at his histrionics. And the Amazing Randi is a mensch. Yet you assert SD's affiliation with them, with no proof, and imply it as something negative. Fuck you.
Here's an idea: How about you tolerate yourself to infuse a meaningful clue into a post, and don't bother us until you have enough brain cells to rub together.
Full of allegations and attributions, are you. . .
I'm trying to summarize and be helpful, in part, because Susan is being misunderstood by many on this board. I mentioned the Great Randi and Richard Dawkins more as a reference than anything else.
Full of allegations and attributions, are you. . .
I'm trying to summarize and be helpful, in part, because Susan is being misunderstood by many on this board. I mentioned the Great Randi and Richard Dawkins more as a reference than anything else.
@drrayeye, if you haven't already perused the Hell Guidelines, you might find them helpful. It's unwise to come to Hell without donning asbestos underwear. And SusanDoris is a repetitious, condescending thread-wrecker.
@drrayeye, if you haven't already perused the Hell Guidelines, you might find them helpful. It's unwise to come to Hell without donning asbestos underwear. And SusanDoris is a repetitious, condescending thread-wrecker.
Hi Rossweisse,
I've been lurking for awhile now . . .
I posted here, because I had something to say.
In other blogs, I've been subjected to more than a few ad hominum attacks.
Comments
I know you think being a Hell host exempts you from the rules (like numbers 2 and 3 of Hell's guidelines,) but I didn't know you also got to say who could post on a thread and when exactly they should be allowed to "jump in" or not. How does that work? Do we have to post on page one if we expect to be allowed to post on page 22?
I didn't pass judgement on anyone but intended to make a mild joke pointing out that many of us have been condescending from time to time and few of us have changed our basic beliefs since we started here. At least I haven't.
Funny how I didn't post here at all for several months, but almost the first day I'm back , you feel the need to attack me. Have you given yourself the power to completely eliminate people you don't like from Hell now?
There are different theories in non-science domains - for example, here is an article discussing different theories of justice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice
I have a bee in my bonnet about folk using science to derive morality, because people do try to do that and it doesn’t end well. Eugenics is a really dangerous example of this tendency.
The other thing we see a lot of, because many people treat scientific knowledge as being better than other kinds of knowledge (or a fail to distinguish when the scientific approach is appropriate or not), is people using the language of science to try to justify decisions or approaches that are not amenable to scientific enquiry. Which leads to duff science or unconvincing rhetoric.
is the equivalent of not just painting a target on yourself, but illuminating it with laser light and asking for the guided missile to slam into you.
You then compound the error, if that's at all possible, by being wrong.
I don't care where you post, but if you come to Hell and expect an outbreak of fluffy bunnies to spontaneously appear after your parade of ignorance and shallowness, you are very much mistaken.
Yeah, not a good start. Can't say I blame you pragmatically, because it's a dense snooze-fest of frustrating repetition. Nevertheless, you can skim a thread (I assume everybody is for this one, honestly), and not necessarily announce that you are dismissing their contributions. Because there is no winsome way to tell somebody that you're too busy to bother listening to them.
I assume you invest in insulin injections, but she's definitely not as horrible as some.
Well, no. Massive swing and a miss, there. She is being castigated for misinterpreting what people are saying, in a frustratingly ongoing manner. Nobody has any qualms with SusanDoris' position, just the retarded-muppet versions of other people she seems to be pretending to argue with.
Most of us take hints, and simply-explained points.
"a stupid, irritating, or ridiculous person, particularly a man."
Note it says "person, particularly a man" and not "man." Because women can be dicks too. Like you are.
I'm quoting myself here because I'm really amazed that such an ordinary, rather boring post in the peacemaking "don't we all do this sometimes?" vein, should garner so much attention. What Rook calls a massive swing and miss are three criticisms of Susan that I read in posts above. They may not be what he perceives as her main problem but other people accused her of those exact things in those exact words. Perhaps I have actually been "listening" more closely than some of you. Admitting that I skimmed a little was just being honest in case I was repeating something already said, hardly as rude as telling an individual I hadn't been listening to them.
The charge that I had "painted a target on my back," is of course the usual excuse in Hell to be nasty to someone. It never has held water. It's the same sort of nonsense as "she was asking for it."
Merriam Webster calls "dick" a mean, stupid or annoying man, so does three other definitions I found online. I guess Mousetheif has his own source, but it's news to me. In any case calling me that when I had said nothing to him at all is a violation of two Hell guidelines, gratuitous use of vulgar language and unprovoked attacks.
I'm sick of him and sick of Doc Tor and his unchecked hatred. I'm requesting permission to have my SoF's membership revoked so I wont be tempted to return.
Strong language – only use colourful language if it's genuinely humorous. Gratuitous posting of offensive language will reveal your intellect for what it is, and you will be treated accordingly.
People will treat me has having a small intellect. Do your worst.
So if you come on to a thread, blithely telling everyone that you haven't bothered your arse reading the messages before yours in sufficient detail to get up to speed, and then proceed to tell everyone how they're wrong, that's going to go as well here as it is in Purg, or in fact anywhere, either virtual or real. Try it sometime - butt into a conversation and hold forth, ignorant of everything that has gone before.
tl;dr I don't hate Twilight, but her behaviour sucked.
There's been nothing from the egregious SD since early this morning, so perhaps (like Baal) she is asleep, or hath gone on a journey....
IJ
It has all been very interesting.
For Mr Polly, cryptic crosswords and much else besides, then perhaps yes.
(WARNING: This link is to a dangerous earworm. It's NSFW, not in the usual way, but because this is the song that does not end.)
Lyda, you did well!
FWIW, SusaDoris, I think both RooK and Doc Tor have each, and more than once each, delivered excellent curtain lines for this thread. The problem is that the rest of us seem unable to take the hint. Kind of like one of the complaints against you . . .
But of course not.
In other news: SusanDoris still doesn't get it. More at 11.
FFS, I wasn’t defending anyone, or measuring degrees of ‘badness’. This is Hell. People insult each other, and express frustration with each other. I was trying to explain the post wasn’t personal to you, as you seemed very upset, and taking it very personally. It was for your own sake that I posted, not Doc Tor’s - he doesn’t need defending. You did, as he said, totally miss the main point of the thread.
Shit a brick, has it come to this? Calling someone a dick is a "gross insult"?
I remember when Hellish insults actually were worthy of such a hanky-wringing, sensitive-souls-fainting-in-the-aisles reaction. And unless you've suffered a number of blunt force traumas to the occiput in the intervening years, I know that you do too. So what's with all the histrionics over a fucking Hellhost using one of the mildest fucking insults it's possible to use?
Or to put it another way: get over yourself, you stupid dumbshit fuckstained unclesucker.
I'm glad you enjoy it Leaf, making people laugh is my favorite thing. I'll be the first to admit, my temper can go from 0 to 100 in seconds. It's a chemical thing I inherited from my father, I even sometimes literally "see red," and that's why I'll probably die of a stroke like he did. * However. Doc Tor will never be a wrong target.
* It will probably be Mousthief's fault.
See, that's not so bad. It's more gender specific, so over the top as to be almost funny, and the fact that all my uncles are dead only makes it better somehow.
Another crappy excuse for not owning your own behaviour? What else you got?
So you're saying you don't get angry, but just say nasty things to people out of cold intent to hurt? Nice.
Here's a handy primer:
Welcome to rational adulthood. You should try it.
Also, you know that it's nothing to do with blood pressure, and everything to do with learnt behaviour. Behaviour which you seem to think you have a by for. Other people may grudgingly put up with your crap, but you haven't given me a reason why I should.
Nephews can unclesuck too.
Hi ThunderBunk
I've read Susan's posts for many years on another Blog, and notice amazing similarities to recent comments I read here. Susan is a student of the great Randi (James Randi Educational Foundation--JREF), and a follower of Richard Dawkins in his prime. I thought I was creative when I accused her of being an Evangelistic Atheist. Now, I'm not so sure--that label seems to have followed her here.
The one thing that I have learned over the years is that Susan is sincere, and remains focused on discussions of religion and spirituality. Her reliance on science, as relayed through Richard Dawkins British TV shows, and further explicated at JREF is not as solid as one might would hope--but it works for her
These conversational interactions work for her, infuse meaning into her life--and your tolerance would be the best gift you could give her.
It appears that you expect us to be interested in your creepy cyberstalking of @SusanDoris. I am not. Please take that miserable excrement and shove it back into whatever orifice you squeezed that out of. SD and her infuriating missing of points is infinitely more welcome than your faux-chummy infringement on her privacy and its accompanying assumption of bland agreement.
It doesn't help that you take a controversially-interesting Atheist, lump him in with a beloved skeptic, and let it dangle as if it make some sort of point. Some of us agree with Dawkins fundamentally, even as we cringe at his histrionics. And the Amazing Randi is a mensch. Yet you assert SD's affiliation with them, with no proof, and imply it as something negative. Fuck you.
Here's an idea: How about you tolerate yourself to infuse a meaningful clue into a post, and don't bother us until you have enough brain cells to rub together.
Full of allegations and attributions, are you. . .
I'm trying to summarize and be helpful, in part, because Susan is being misunderstood by many on this board. I mentioned the Great Randi and Richard Dawkins more as a reference than anything else.
If it's not helpful to you, move on.
I'm not here to exchange personal attacks.
Full of empty rhetoric and self-delusion, aren't you.
I'm here to eternally point out your all of your flaws, crafted into artisanal personal attacks. Fuck you.
You're in Hell. It comes with the territory.
Hi Rossweisse,
I've been lurking for awhile now . . .
I posted here, because I had something to say.
In other blogs, I've been subjected to more than a few ad hominum attacks.
As far as Susan is concerned, I hear you.
I've read The Screwtape Letters, so I'm well prepared :-)