You seem determined to Gish Gallop me into all sorts of tangents.
I dare you to find anything I've posted that is incorrect.
Moreover, I have only one tangent that I have consistently pursued with you: your even-worse-than-SD misunderstanding of context.
For now, I don't have much else to say.
Really? You seem to produce a reliable aw-shucks asinine mis-response with every single yank I give your chord.
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.
How [very nice it is to see you posting here! I joined very soon after joining that other forum all those years ago and now that the format has changed to what it is now, I find it much easier to navigate.
Ha. Atheists say Christianity is bollocks because the dead don't come back to life, and here's this thread, crucified days ago, living and breathing. Difference is no-one's singing Hallelujah.
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.
I wonder what it is that you think you are telling us?
Do you think us so dim not to have noticed Susan's influences over literally years of interactions?
In other blogs, I've been subjected to more than a few ad hominum attacks.
As far as Susan is concerned, I hear you.
Nope, you have not been lurking a while: you joined the Ship on 21 August and have visited the site 6 times and posted 6 times, all on this thread. This thread started on 18 August. It would seem you joined the Ship to support SusanDoris.
There has been a lot of support on this thread for @SusanDoris and suggestions that there are threads that she could join if she wants to be involved in
conversational interactions [that] work for her, infuse meaning into her life--and your tolerance would be the best gift you could give her.
including the monthly book thread, which suggestion she has taken.
If you are suggesting by your tolerance that the Purgatory debates she wants to engage in should be dumbed down to include her, or have their direction changed to accommodate her whenever she wants to get involved in those debates, that is patronising. It's the equivalent of patting her on the head and saying, "There, there, dear," whenever she engages, changing the subject to suit her and generally treating her as an importunate child. I think the more honest way to treat people who want to engage in debate is not to patronise them but to engage with them at that level of that discussion.
In case you haven't noticed in your 6 visits to the Ship to monitor this thread, there are 9 active boards, all of which perform different functions. The sorts of boards that provide conversation interactions to infuse meaning into lives are Heaven, All Saints and The Circus, which are full of chit chat and support, of varying levels of seriousness, full of many Shipmates who choose to post on those boards from preference.
Purgatory is for rigorous debate from a Christian point of view, and if someone, such as SusanDoris, comes to that board and cannot debate at the level there, keeps interspersing their particular obsession or tries to change the discussions to fit their needs, they all get short shrift. There are several other Hell threads with Shipmates' names on for that very reason.
I'm just going to head this one off at the pass...
Hostly furry hat on
While we're always keen on fresh meat new shipmates, the potential for board wars should not be underestimated, nor the damage they can do to the Good Ship. Any indication that there is any 'recruiting' for one side or another will be stomped on from a very great height indeed. Do not link back to the other board/forum from here, and despite the well-acknowledged low impulse control of most Hellions, I would ask you refrain from trying to find out which it is.
I'm just going to head this one off at the pass...
Hostly furry hat on
While we're always keen on fresh meat new shipmates, the potential for board wars should not be underestimated, nor the damage they can do to the Good Ship. Any indication that there is any 'recruiting' for one side or another will be stomped on from a very great height indeed. Do not link back to the other board/forum from here, and despite the well-acknowledged low impulse control of most Hellions, I would ask you refrain from trying to find out which it is.
Hostly furry hat off
Doc Tor
Hell Host
Yes, I do understand that, and therewas no question or suggestion of trying to recruit. Apologies if that seems to have been implied.
What amazes me (apart from the seemingly eternal half-life of this thread) is that people like SusanDoris and drrayeye (assuming they actually exist IRL) have so much spare time to spend on drivel-clicks.
(Due acknowledgement to Shipmate Zappa for that wonderfully descriptive term.)
What amazes me (apart from the seemingly eternal half-life of this thread) is that people like SusanDoris and drrayeye (assuming they actually exist IRL) have so much spare time to spend on drivel-clicks.
(Due acknowledgement to Shipmate Zappa for that wonderfully descriptive term.)
IJ
In my case, I could list the many factors that keep me from doing all the things I would be doing if circumstances were different, but that would mean having to bring out the mournful violin!
They're not, so I do my best to find other interests and activities.
Your style was not too angry, but like your name, it was, and remains, too dim.
Leaf and Doc Tor both called me on my anger specifically. You haven't been skimming the thread have you? Oooooooh. And while I'm aware that I'm "dimmer" than many shipmates, I've never included you in that category.
The other board changed its name a few years ago. I used to post to discuss Christian things from a Christian pov but the irrationality of the common atheist there put me off. I still post there but to discuss sport and films mainly.
I had noticed a few years ago that Susan was a member of both boards but it wasn't exactly worthy of comment.
The other board changed its name a few years ago. I used to post to discuss Christian things from a Christian pov but the irrationality of the common atheist there put me off. I still post there but to discuss sport and films mainly.
I had noticed a few years ago that Susan was a member of both boards but it wasn't exactly worthy of comment.
I haven't posted there much recently but look in every day to see what's happening!
I'm not sure how helpful I've been. I have noticed some crosswinds of strong affect concerning Susan. I lurked before I joined, and now you've shown me what it means to go to Hell in Ship of Fools.
Reads more like the Salem witchcraft trials to me.
I haven't posted there much recently but look in every day to see what's happening!
Thank you for your interesting post. Isn't it amazing that after all the work on epistemology in philosophy in the twentieth century, some people are still stuck in scientific reductionism?
In my case, I could list the many factors that keep me from doing all the things I would be doing if circumstances were different, but that would mean having to bring out the mournful violin!
They're not, so I do my best to find other interests and activities.
Thank you for your interesting post. Have you ever considered that your entire way of viewing reality is completely mistaken?
Yes, I do understand that, and there was no question or suggestion of trying to recruit. Apologies if that seems to have been implied.
Thank you for your interesting post. Why would any reasonable person think that, with the obvious limitations of scientific reductionism, it would be a legitimate way of understanding the complexity of the world?
Reads more like the Salem witchcraft trials to me.
Thank you for your interesting post. Why do you think that you missed all the snark when you [allegedly] read while lurking, and then only managed to notice it when it was directed at you? The options appear to be:
You lack even the most rudimentary sense of empathy for words being exchanged by others than yourself.
You are incredibly, amazingly, staggeringly idiotic.
You are a lying sack of fetid mustelid genitalia¹ about "looking before you leaped".
¹ As everyone knows, over-ripe mustelid genitalia are generally stored in untrustworthy sacks.
Ha. Atheists say Christianity is bollocks because the dead don't come back to life, and here's this thread, crucified days ago, living and breathing. Difference is no-one's singing Hallelujah.
None of us are good enough and smart enough, and dog-gone it, everyone hates everyone, which is the modern meaning of Ezekial 35: "I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am God."
Sort of sounds like a death metal lyric. Probably is.
In my case, I could list the many factors that keep me from doing all the things I would be doing if circumstances were different, but that would mean having to bring out the mournful violin!
They're not, so I do my best to find other interests and activities.
Thank you for your interesting post. Have you ever considered that your entire way of viewing reality is completely mistaken?
Do you?!
I will immediately accept that if I read an objective fact about anything supernatural, i.e. supernatural in its meaning of things with zero objective evidence to back them up. Okay?!
Ahem ... SusanDoris, I rather think Leaf was posting a pastiche of your posting style. What Leaf is saying, if I understand it correctly, is that your posts consist of polite but patronising challenges to other posters as to whether they've ever considered alternatives.
'That's an interesting post, Shipmate, but haven't you ever considered you are wrong and that it might all be in your mind?' type of thing.
So what Leaf is doing is applying the same technique in relation to your own stated ethos and values.
The trouble is, you are so concrete in your thinking that you interpret it as a challenge to find evidence for the supernatural - which isn't, I think, the point that's being made.
All you've done is confirm the point Leaf was making by sending up your posting style. Think about it.
Ahem ... SusanDoris, I rather think Leaf was posting a pastiche of your posting style. What Leaf is saying, if I understand it correctly, is that your posts consist of polite but patronising challenges to other posters as to whether they've ever considered alternatives.
'That's an interesting post, Shipmate, but haven't you ever considered you are wrong and that it might all be in your mind?' type of thing.
So what Leaf is doing is applying the same technique in relation to your own stated ethos and values.
The trouble is, you are so concrete in your thinking that you interpret it as a challenge to find evidence for the supernatural - which isn't, I think, the point that's being made.
All you've done is confirm the point Leaf was making by sending up your posting style. Think about it.
Thanks for your very interesting post. I will sit down with my talking dog and a glass of whisky in front of the TV this evening and compose a post whilst regurgitating plotlines from The Bodyguard as a reply.
Of course you'll have to put up with any inconsistencies between your post and my reply - because, you know, talking dogs.
Oh, and I don't think I've said yet this: you don't exist. You might be a ghost or a poltergeist - if I believed in them, no wait I don't so it can't be that - but more likely you are a big ball of cells doing what comes naturally. Which in your case is posting very interesting ideas on the internet and in my case is saying how interesting they are and stroking my talking dog. Which absolutely does exist.
<snip>I will immediately accept that if I read an objective fact about anything supernatural, i.e. supernatural in its meaning of things with zero objective evidence to back them up. Okay?!
If your definition of ‘supernatural’ is “things with zero objective evidence to back them up” then, by definition no-one can produce an ”objective fact about anything supernatural” because if they do then by your definition it won’t have been an supernatural thing.
The Church is an objective fact, as is its coming into being from events in first century Palestinian Judaism. The Gospels (as objects) are objective facts. The question is how are those facts to be interpreted. Science gives us very little or perhaps nothing to help us in that interpretation - largely because in the absence of sound logic, and a sound philosophical underpinning, it is really the wrong tool for the job.
Just dropping in to thank you all for your very interesting posts.
I'll get me asbestos coat...
IJ
Thanks for saying this. I cherish your every utterance - even when the talking dog has difficulty distinguishing your words from street noise, I still want you to know how very much I appreciate you saying this.
By the way, do you exist? I've long pondered this and can see no reason for thinking that you do.
Ahem ... SusanDoris, I rather think Leaf was posting a pastiche of your posting style. What Leaf is saying, if I understand it correctly, is that your posts consist of polite but patronising challenges to other posters as to whether they've ever considered alternatives.
'That's an interesting post, Shipmate, but haven't you ever considered you are wrong and that it might all be in your mind?' type of thing.
So what Leaf is doing is applying the same technique in relation to your own stated ethos and values.
The trouble is, you are so concrete in your thinking that you interpret it as a challenge to find evidence for the supernatural - which isn't, I think, the point that's being made.
All you've done is confirm the point Leaf was making by sending up your posting style. Think about it.
You don't really think I didn't realise all that, did you?!! For goodness' sake I do actually have more than a few functioning brain cells - hard as this may be for some here to credit!!!!
Ahem ... SusanDoris, I rather think Leaf was posting a pastiche of your posting style. What Leaf is saying, if I understand it correctly, is that your posts consist of polite but patronising challenges to other posters as to whether they've ever considered alternatives.
'That's an interesting post, Shipmate, but haven't you ever considered you are wrong and that it might all be in your mind?' type of thing.
So what Leaf is doing is applying the same technique in relation to your own stated ethos and values.
The trouble is, you are so concrete in your thinking that you interpret it as a challenge to find evidence for the supernatural - which isn't, I think, the point that's being made.
All you've done is confirm the point Leaf was making by sending up your posting style. Think about it.
You don't really think I didn't realise all that, did you?!! For goodness' sake I do actually have more than a few functioning brain cells - hard as this may be for some here to credit!!!!
Thanks for saying this. Without your opportune comment, I would have sincerely thought that you had no functioning braincells so I'm grateful that you cleared it up.
If you realised all that, SusanDoris, then why the crass response?
There was nothing in your reply to indicate that you had taken Leaf's comments in any way other than the way one might associate with a concrete bollard.
If you realised all that, SusanDoris, then why the crass response?
There was nothing in your reply to indicate that you had taken Leaf's comments in any way other than the way one might associate with a concrete bollard.
SusanDoris, I don't know if this will help, but what your posts are lacking in general is any indication of having understood or had any thoughts about the posts you are responding to. It's all very well understanding and reacting in your head, but for discussion to go smoothly, you need to actually express this awareness, because otherwise you can come across as a fool. Just saying 'Thank you for your interesting post' comes across as vacuous - you may have had all sorts of intelligent and interesting thoughts about the post, but if you don't express them, you're suppressing any meaningful interaction. People can only go on what you say - so yes, they may think you don't realise things that you don't express any awareness of.
I am saying this because I hope it will help. It's something I've learnt (and am still learning) over the years, as I also can respond in a way that doesn't express the extent to which I have grasped a person's intent and tone in addition to concrete facts of content. A good friend pointed out to me once that I can come across as stupid if I don't express awareness of these things. And also I have found in general that people are more comfortable with you (general you - not you personally) if you are able to express both self awareness and awareness of the person you're talking to, and (most importantly) of how you are both influencing and reacting to each other.
Just dropping in to thank you all for your very interesting posts.
I'll get me asbestos coat...
IJ
Thanks for saying this. I cherish your every utterance - even when the talking dog has difficulty distinguishing your words from street noise, I still want you to know how very much I appreciate you saying this.
By the way, do you exist? I've long pondered this and can see no reason for thinking that you do.
Thank you for this very interesting post, and for the equally interesting query as to whether or not I exist.
I am at present not certain as to whether I do, or, in fact, do not. Any objective evidence, one way or the other, would be welcome.
Comments
That's OK, Rook, I've got plenty of "flawpaper" lying around. . .
Blessings.
OMG I hope I am the first to chase this to the quotes file.
ETA: Score!
Also: is this my Secret Santa gift early?
Rook,
You seem determined to Gish Gallop me into all sorts of tangents. Sorry. For now, I don't have much else to say.
Moreover, I have only one tangent that I have consistently pursued with you: your even-worse-than-SD misunderstanding of context.
Really? You seem to produce a reliable aw-shucks asinine mis-response with every single yank I give your chord.
I wonder what it is that you think you are telling us?
Do you think us so dim not to have noticed Susan's influences over literally years of interactions?
There has been a lot of support on this thread for @SusanDoris and suggestions that there are threads that she could join if she wants to be involved in including the monthly book thread, which suggestion she has taken.
If you are suggesting by your tolerance that the Purgatory debates she wants to engage in should be dumbed down to include her, or have their direction changed to accommodate her whenever she wants to get involved in those debates, that is patronising. It's the equivalent of patting her on the head and saying, "There, there, dear," whenever she engages, changing the subject to suit her and generally treating her as an importunate child. I think the more honest way to treat people who want to engage in debate is not to patronise them but to engage with them at that level of that discussion.
In case you haven't noticed in your 6 visits to the Ship to monitor this thread, there are 9 active boards, all of which perform different functions. The sorts of boards that provide conversation interactions to infuse meaning into lives are Heaven, All Saints and The Circus, which are full of chit chat and support, of varying levels of seriousness, full of many Shipmates who choose to post on those boards from preference.
Purgatory is for rigorous debate from a Christian point of view, and if someone, such as SusanDoris, comes to that board and cannot debate at the level there, keeps interspersing their particular obsession or tries to change the discussions to fit their needs, they all get short shrift. There are several other Hell threads with Shipmates' names on for that very reason.
Why you'd do that in Hell I can't really imagine.
* hesitation before using the adj 'better'! more diverse/wider/challenging/adj-of-choice
Hostly furry hat on
While we're always keen on fresh meat new shipmates, the potential for board wars should not be underestimated, nor the damage they can do to the Good Ship. Any indication that there is any 'recruiting' for one side or another will be stomped on from a very great height indeed. Do not link back to the other board/forum from here, and despite the well-acknowledged low impulse control of most Hellions, I would ask you refrain from trying to find out which it is.
Hostly furry hat off
Doc Tor
Hell Host
DT
HH
My posting style was too angry for some people, so now you've been given drrayeye, who sounds like Suart Smalley in divinity school.
Your style was not too angry, but like your name, it was, and remains, too dim.
(Due acknowledgement to Shipmate Zappa for that wonderfully descriptive term.)
IJ
They're not, so I do my best to find other interests and activities.
Guess that silver bullet did a ricochet.
Maybe if we just go straight to appeasing the Dark Gods and sacrifice Piers Morgan now?
Oh, lordy. No fear!
I had noticed a few years ago that Susan was a member of both boards but it wasn't exactly worthy of comment.
And x2 to some countryside.
Reads more like the Salem witchcraft trials to me.
Time to find a better topic. . . .
IJ
Thank you for your interesting post. Isn't it amazing that after all the work on epistemology in philosophy in the twentieth century, some people are still stuck in scientific reductionism?
Thank you for your interesting post. Have you ever considered that your entire way of viewing reality is completely mistaken?
Thank you for your interesting post. Why would any reasonable person think that, with the obvious limitations of scientific reductionism, it would be a legitimate way of understanding the complexity of the world?
¹ As everyone knows, over-ripe mustelid genitalia are generally stored in untrustworthy sacks.
It's Stuart Smalley, you idiot.
Sort of sounds like a death metal lyric. Probably is.
Not at all.
I understand you can get a sense of perspective from Amazon now. With Prime you can even get it with free shipping.
Don't let us stop you, pray.
I will immediately accept that if I read an objective fact about anything supernatural, i.e. supernatural in its meaning of things with zero objective evidence to back them up. Okay?!
'That's an interesting post, Shipmate, but haven't you ever considered you are wrong and that it might all be in your mind?' type of thing.
So what Leaf is doing is applying the same technique in relation to your own stated ethos and values.
The trouble is, you are so concrete in your thinking that you interpret it as a challenge to find evidence for the supernatural - which isn't, I think, the point that's being made.
All you've done is confirm the point Leaf was making by sending up your posting style. Think about it.
Thanks for your very interesting post. I will sit down with my talking dog and a glass of whisky in front of the TV this evening and compose a post whilst regurgitating plotlines from The Bodyguard as a reply.
Of course you'll have to put up with any inconsistencies between your post and my reply - because, you know, talking dogs.
Oh, and I don't think I've said yet this: you don't exist. You might be a ghost or a poltergeist - if I believed in them, no wait I don't so it can't be that - but more likely you are a big ball of cells doing what comes naturally. Which in your case is posting very interesting ideas on the internet and in my case is saying how interesting they are and stroking my talking dog. Which absolutely does exist.
The Church is an objective fact, as is its coming into being from events in first century Palestinian Judaism. The Gospels (as objects) are objective facts. The question is how are those facts to be interpreted. Science gives us very little or perhaps nothing to help us in that interpretation - largely because in the absence of sound logic, and a sound philosophical underpinning, it is really the wrong tool for the job.
I'll get me asbestos coat...
IJ
(As they might say in my native South Wales)
I think we should all get our coats. This thread has been going nowhere for centuries.
Thanks for saying this. I cherish your every utterance - even when the talking dog has difficulty distinguishing your words from street noise, I still want you to know how very much I appreciate you saying this.
By the way, do you exist? I've long pondered this and can see no reason for thinking that you do.
Thanks for saying this. Without your opportune comment, I would have sincerely thought that you had no functioning braincells so I'm grateful that you cleared it up.
You'll have to forgive us for that -- all we can go on is what you post.
There was nothing in your reply to indicate that you had taken Leaf's comments in any way other than the way one might associate with a concrete bollard.
Enough already.
More than enough already.
Thanks for saying enough. Several times.
Because enough is never enough, is it?
I am saying this because I hope it will help. It's something I've learnt (and am still learning) over the years, as I also can respond in a way that doesn't express the extent to which I have grasped a person's intent and tone in addition to concrete facts of content. A good friend pointed out to me once that I can come across as stupid if I don't express awareness of these things. And also I have found in general that people are more comfortable with you (general you - not you personally) if you are able to express both self awareness and awareness of the person you're talking to, and (most importantly) of how you are both influencing and reacting to each other.
Thank you for this very interesting post, and for the equally interesting query as to whether or not I exist.
I am at present not certain as to whether I do, or, in fact, do not. Any objective evidence, one way or the other, would be welcome.
IJ