EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution

Man raised back to life in Jesus' name

It's my own observation that I am really trying hard to discuss ideas with others here in this thread and consider their ideas with respect. Examples where mutual understandings are trying to be attained, in my opinion, include discussions with Ben and schrafinator within this very thread.

It's also my observation, on the other hand, that crashfrog has a tendency to get personal with other posters' here at EvC. Here's some beautiful examples of crashfrog's eloquence so far from this very thread:

crashfrog writes:

In addition to what? A nursing student's list of anecdotes? There's no indication in any of these stories that the recipients weren't told about their donors. A girl completing phrases of songs she's never heard before? I doubt a 16-year-old teenager is capable of writing anything but the most banal, predictable songs in the first place. I regularly am able to accurately predict the ending of movies I've never seen before. Am I a sorcerer? Or just somebody familiar enough with basic movie plotting to pick up on the forshadowing?

Seriously, I'd recommend a little less credulousness on your part.

In response to this, I replied:

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

How old are you crashfrog?

I asked this question because the flippant nature of his post seemed rather juvenile.

To this, crashfrog replied:

crashfrog writes:

Old enough to know better. What's your excuse?

Since I felt that I had explained myself clearly, I retorted:

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

I don't need an excuse.
But, since you seem to be suggesting that your answer (old enough to know better) somehow excused you of something in contrast to my reply, I'll ask what you felt you needed an excuse for?

To this crashfrog replied:

crashfrog writes:

To completely avoid my questions with an ad hominem attack against my age? You're damn right you need an excuse.

How about you answer my questions? How about you address my point?

With this I replied (once again):

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

How about you answer my question?

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

But, since you seem to be suggesting that your answer (old enough to know better) somehow excused you of something in contrast to my reply, I'll ask what you felt you needed an excuse for?

I'll check to see if you answered this later on tonight.

To this, crashfrog answered:

crashfrog writes:

Your question doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't appear to be on topic.

In fact it doesn't appear to be anything but a dodge. How about you answer my questions now? Or is nonsense the best you're capable of?

After this, of course, was the caution (yellow alert) from message 249 (which I am seeking more clarification about now).

I'll also note some more beautiful examples of crashfrog's eloquence so far from this very thread.

For example, here's an entire section of text where we were replying back and forth:

crashfrog writes:

What makes you think you get to ask one question and not the other? I mean, that seems to be a fairly reasonable question to ask about souls - where the fuck do they come from? How does a gamete know when to generate a soul? Or do all gametes have mini-souls? Where in the cell is this soul stored?

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

Here's a better question: Who cares?

I was responding to sidelined's question:

sidelined writes:

These wave like properties are also detectable. Are you aware of any studies that have detected such?

I answered his question as best as I could. It doesn't have anything to do with sex.

If you want to find out how sex produces souls, maybe you should go watch a porn movie and take notes. Or, better yet, spend time with your S.O. and find out for yourself.

You do have an S.O., correct?

I'll note that my own retort here was a very strong suggestion via his own sexual analogies that he stop trying to derail the topic into boundaries beyond what is currently being discussed.

We are trying to discuss exactly what the soul is in scientific terms and give a proper definition of it in theoretical terms. If we can't even agree with this part, then what good is it to jump ahead of the game invoke the ideas of how sex produces souls in the first place?

It seems to me that one ends up derailing the original thought with bizarre questions that are so right out in left field that one can scarcely believe what they've read as a response.

In fact, this is exactly what happened.

Observe:

crashfrog writes:

I've had sex with my wife a number of times, and other women before that, but never once have I been a part of an act of sex that created some kind of standing-wave time-portal to the initial conditions of the Big Bang. (No pun intended.) You'd think something like that occuring in my partner's vagina would be something she would notice. Like, you'd think it would be a burning sensation, considering that the initial conditions of the Big Bang were ALMOST INFINITE HEAT!

I'll note that there's enough raw material within this one message noted above to keep one laughing for the next month. But, in all seriousness, how exactly does one respond to questions and/or statements like this?

Furthermore, how exactly do statements like this enhance EvC's dedication to "helping develop a better understanding of both sides of the issue"?

Thank you for your time.

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-08-2006 11:23 PM

8 online now:	dwise1, kjsimons, LamarkNewAge, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,468 Year: 3,725/9,624 Month: 596/974 Week: 209/276 Day: 49/34 Hour: 0/5