|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Lying For Jesus Award | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I was going to let this go, but since you just had to bring it up...
You admit that you are trolling?
quote: No, it is most definitely not a "legitimate strategy".
Eh, agree to disagree then. Either I was not trolling or trolling is a legitimate strategy. What say you?
You are misrepresenting/lying about your true views when you troll, and since none of us is psychic, we cannot read your mind to know when you are presenting your views sincerely and when you are trolling. Are you calling me a liar? <-- please! I think she did just call me a liar, albeit not explicitly, while nothing I typed was a lie. I was not misrepresenting/lying about my true view and I was presenting my view sincerely. So this can mean two things. Either I was not, in fact, trolling, or trolling is not as bad as it seems. Here's the original reply:
schraf writes: anastasia writes: You are assuming that there exists one 'christian' force which is supposed to stand up against other christians. There is not. Christianity is made up of thousands of sects, some opposing one thing, some another. The RCC for example has no control over all of christianity, and the voice of one group or one individual is only a voice. So, when 50 Christian leaders from 50 different denominations see Jerry Falwell on the television and have strong feelings against what he is saying in the name of all Christians, what is preventing them from loudly and publicly denouning him? We see this but very rarely, either individually or collectively. I find this reply to be ridiculous. I think anastasia had a good point. Your reply has almost nothing to do with what she was My reply to yours was:
So, when 50 Christian leaders from 50 different denominations see Jerry Falwell on the television and have strong feelings against what he is saying in the name of all Christians, what is preventing them from loudly and publicly denouning him? Not being a whiny liberal who bitches about everything...
We see this but very rarely, either individually or collectively.
So what!? That doesn't meant they support him. People are just miding their own business, or not giving enough of a fuck, or not be bitches. Maybe they don't think its that big of a deal and just ignore him. There's plenty of reasons other than the one you hint at. Lack of opposition is not support and lack of support is not opposition. Now you say that I can:
1) Rationally, factually, and logically explain why you think what I say is worthless and ridiculous I did rationally and factually right here:
quote: A very rational reason for not speaking out against them. I continued to support it rationally and factually here:
quote: And then I did it logically:
Lack of opposition is not support and lack of support is not opposition. Now, you, youself have two choices:
quote: I feel my reply was right on. You were acting ridiculous. Calling me a troll and/or a liar is neither of these. You reply is quite hypocritical. Or, more importantly:
quote: If you really think it was so bad (ie trolling or lying) THEN DON'T REPLY Now, WRT your other complaint:
Trolling is the complete opposite of respectful, since it seeks only to goad and deceive in order to provoke a response, and specifically and completely departs from productive discussion. I was not seeking to only goad and deceive you, but was actually trying to make you think about what you typed (perhaps unsuccessfully), so we have two choices: Either I was not trolling you, or Trolling is a legitimate way of making someone think (making your definition inaccurate). What is your reply? I think that I was not trolling, according to your definition. Now, according to my (less strict) definition, I was trolling, because I was expecting a reaction to my reply. So, in my view, it was a legitimate reply. I was trying to make you realize that not everyone thinks like you do and your reply was totally off. In fact, if I define trolling in this way, what you were doing was, itself, trolling. You did not rationally, factually, nor logically explain why you thought she was wrong. You just replied with a rhetorical question that expected reaction. You are either a troll too, or acting hypocritically. Now, I realize this is all off-topic, but I would like to get this settled. I feel like you called me a liar, and you definately called me troll, perhaps unjustly. An explanation or appology is due, IMHO. If you cannot reply here then I expect a reply somewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I already know that everyone doesn't think like me. If you think my reply was totally off, then you didn't make much of an effort to explain why, and instead just behaved poorly and had some sick, disrespectful fun at my expense. I can't help but notice that in your analysis you left out the end of our of our conversation. You know, the part where you behaved the poorest. You called any Christian leader who stood up to denounce Falwell a "whiny liberal who bitches about everything". When I asked what you call conservatives like Coulter, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly who bitch about everything, you gave a flippant non-response: "Informants". Now, it very much appears that you gave that non-response in order to avoid the point I was making, which was that there are just as many (if not more) whiny, bitchy conservatives out there as liberals. You didn't concede the point like a good debate partner would. Instead, your responses became even more flippant and contentless with comments like "You're easy". That's trolling, and what's worse is that it is really poor quality debate. It seems to be what you've been resorting to lately in order to avoid addressing good rebuttals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
See subtitle.
Don't reply to this message in this topic. That will get you suspended. If you must reply, go to the "General discussion..." topic, link below. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you think my reply was totally off, then you didn't make much of an effort to explain why, and instead just behaved poorly and had some sick, disrespectful fun at my expense. False. I aready explained why my "non-end-of-our-conversation" reply was acceptable.
I can't help but notice that in your analysis you left out the end of our of our conversation. You know, the part where you behaved the poorest.
I only reply in the sense that I was relied too. Can you not see the hypocrisy?
You called any Christian leader who stood up to denounce Falwell a "whiny liberal who bitches about everything". False. I said no such thing. Quote me. Or shall you call me a liar, again? Not quite the behavior expected from an admin, eh? Not being a "whiny liberal who bitches about everything" as something that prevents someone from standing up to denouce Falwell does not equate to anyone who does stand up to Falwell as being a "whiny liberal who bitches about everything". This is the most basic logic, schraf, you are failing miserably.
When I asked what you call conservatives like Coulter, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly who bitch about everything, you gave a flippant non-response: "Informants". True. Your reply was trolling, in actuallity. It was a non-response. Even if it was true that anyone who stands up against Falwell et al, is a "whiny liberal who bitches about everything", which it is not, then that does not mean that anyone who stand up against the opposite is a whiny conservative who bitches about everything. Your logic is ridiculous. You are so wrong it is borderline retarded.
Now, it very much appears that you gave that non-response in order to avoid the point I was making, which was that there are just as many (if not more) whiny, bitchy conservatives out there as liberals. Why would I avoid that point? It is obviously true. I was NOT avoiding that point. The point is that your point does not follow, logically. God!, how hard is this to see?
You didn't concede the point like a good debate partner would. Instead, your responses became even more flippant and contentless with comments like "You're easy". If this is the extent of you logic, then my pont that "you're easy" is by far true. You've failed miserably. Your logic is unsound and your conclusion is false. How much easier could you make this for me? <-- question
That's trolling, and what's worse is that it is really poor quality debate. False and false as explained above.
It seems to be what you've been resorting to lately in order to avoid addressing good rebuttals.
LOFL, wake up, sister. Quit being retarded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Catholic Scientist is suspended for a yet to be determined period.
Discussion will commence at the "General discussion..." topic (link below), and probably also at the "Private Administration Forum". Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi CS,
I've unsuspended you. The situation in this thread was the subject of some admin discussion. Though there was no unanimity, there was a strong consensus that both you and Schraf were at fault, not just you. I was not part of the consensus, not precisely anyway, and here's why. Had you stated that your aim was to, for example, pursue liberal bias wherever you found it on the board, that would be fine. But you instead stated that your purpose was to pursue an individual, and your signature was addressed directly to Schraf. Such behavior is inconsistent with rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines, and I think it's important to always uphold it if civil discussion is to be maintained. Adminnemooseus stated in the admin discussion that his intention was to suspend you until discussion identified the appropriate best response. I think he sensed your closing comment alluding to diminished mental capacity was a dangerous escalation. It is possible suspension was perhaps not necessary, that a warning might have been sufficient, but there is no way to know for sure. So the end result is that you were suspended for a short while and Schraf wasn't, and I'm sorry if that seems unfair. A bit of advice. If you're here because you're fascinated by the topics, you'll do fine. But if you're here because you're outraged by some of the participants, then you'll probably often be engaged in some kind of brinkmanship that has the potential to end as this incident did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Anglagard, I have to admit that some of the stuff may be taken as a lie but imo a lot of it appeared to be just plain carelessness or change of mind et al. If you superscrutinize everything any given person says who talks on TV as much as a pastor and chancelor of a large church and university you could likely dig up plenty of irregularities. It appears that Falwell should be more careful to either keep commitments he voiced or refrain from voicing them knowing so many are out to defame him.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
FYI I replied to this in the current General Discussion of Moderation Procedures thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: If you superscrutinize everything any given person says who talks on TV as much as a pastor and chancelor of a large church and university you could likely dig up plenty of irregularities. It appears that Falwell should be more careful to either keep commitments he voiced or refrain from voicing them knowing so many are out to defame him. I think we have an obvious difference in opinion concerning those who presume to speak for God. To me, any such person who enjoys wealth and power enough to have their mug all over the TV should be held to a higher standard of morality than the average person. On the other hand, you appear to believe that such people should be held to a lower standard of behavior than we would demand of the average person. The argument that anyone who says what you want to hear should be given a free pass to break any commandment is a major factor in driving people away from Christianity. Is this your purpose in defending, or at least minimizing, the actions of such liars, thieves, adulterers, and blastphemers? I should certianly hope not. If you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, why don't you just outright condemn such behavior as the Bible does? Even Jesus drove the moneychangers from the Temple, or do you think that was just a myth? Why are you seeming to blame Falwell's critics for Fallwell's lies? Maybe if Fallwell didn't lie as much, he would have less critics. You may want to ponder that idea for awhile.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024