People - I /was/ a Christian

Why do you think that? I see nothing irrational about either love nor hate. Indeed, the sciences behind love and hate are quite well developed.You seem to think that who we love or hate is irrational, subject to whimsy, random. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Who we tend to love and hate couldn't be more predictable, generally. Arach, you always have the choice to change your habits, once you've recognized them.Seriously, what's your problem, here? Why the incessant contradiction? Haven't we, at this point, more than left the bounds of what we know from science and empiricism? Aren't we, at this point, offering our individual outlooks on life?What in the name of holy hell is wrong with you that you would be so arrogant as to try to judge my own personal outlook? To try to tell me that my own experience just didn't happen?What the fuck is wrong with you, Arach? Is your need to contradict me that pathological? You've exceeded even Holmes, at this point. You're sounding more and more like the fundamentalists you claim to oppose. "You don't understand faith, Crash." Sure, never heard that before. I mean it's not like I wrote an essay or anything about how I do understand faith, from experience? "We all have faith in something." I've heard that a lot, but I've never heard a convincing argument. At best, people who say this statement make it obvious that they don't understand the difference between faith and trust, so I recommend you start there.And indeed, if everyone has faith, doesn't that make faith meaningless? If it's impossible for you to conceive of faithlessness, what possible meaning could faith have for you?Are you sure I'm the one who doesn't understand it? Because it sounds like your understanding of faith hasn't improved any since your time as a fundamentalist.At least I've left that shit behind, Arach. You're so wrapped up in the fundamentalist mindset - even after all this time - that you can't help but relentlessly contradict me - me, who you've identified as the "heretic." As the "unbeliever." As he who would dare to hold different ideas than you. No matter what I say, since it issues from the keyboard of the infidel, it must be opposed. If I came out against cancer, your very next post would be about how great cancer is. I don't have all the answers, and lord knows, nothing's easier than finding the solution to other people's problems. But some things really are easy. And deciding not to accept propositions on the basis of no good evidence is one of those things. In practice, your untested assumptions can jump up and bite you on the ass every day. It happens to me all the time, on this forum, and I try to be as transparent about it as possible.But once you've identified the assumption, it's the easiest thing in the world to evaluate it. You just decide to do it. What's stopping you, Arach? Why, after all this time, do you insist on thinking like a crusader? Perhaps you can refresh it yourself, or did someone break your fingers? Why don't you dig up the thread and people can see for themselves? Needless to say, your recollection differs greatly from mine. No surprise, of course, that your own memory would make you out to be the victor in any exchange. More of the fundamentalist mindset, of course.If you want to revisit that debate, as you apparently do (what the hell? did you take notes? Write about it in your journal? "Dear diary - Crash was so mean to me today!") then I suggest you exhume and re-open the thread.This is really very symptomatic of your complete inability to let it go when you see that big orange frog over there on the side. You just have to take the other side, don't you?It's sick, Arach. Seek help. Perhaps my memory is fuzzy but I recall telling you something similar at the time. Yes! Or to read it and share one's own story. Or at the very least, to have someplace to link back to in three months when, invariably, one more Christian comes to the bizzare conclusion that I don't know anything about his religion.I don't recall at any point creating a thread for you to vent your endless hostility and bizzare personal obsession, or to dredge up ridiculous non-arguments from the past, or to play endless games of "you do this" "no you do" "you're projecting" "no you are." Christ, why on Earth would you think that's a worthwhile conversation?What the fuck is wrong with you? No, Arach. I have plenty of respect for a large number of posters, and I've paid respect on a number of occasions. Most recently to Molbiogirl for her stellar contributions to a thread Hoot Man started about horizontal gene transfer.It's just that, you're not one of them, and you find that endlessly galling that I won't genuflect before your elephantine intellect. For the life of me, I can't imagine what a small, small person you must be that you give a damn what somebody like me thinks about you. I actually don't recall that. But it doesn't shock me that you'd take a nonsense dispute where it doesn't belong with a mocking, sarcastic POTM nomination. I haven't ever claimed to be. I'm just a guy that everybody seems to forget has been there. That was the only point of this thread. So that I don't have to keep typing out my fucking life story every time some moron says "oh, if only you were a Christian, then you'd get it." I've yet to encounter the rational, well-reasoned defense of religion you refer to. Unlike you, I guess I'm not willing to take it on faith that, in the end, we come out ahead via religion.If that makes me some kind of asshole, guess what? I could care less, especially coming from you. Then why the relentless contradiction? Why contradict even my own personal viewpoint? Normal people say things like "we'll agree to disagree" when it comes to differing opinions on things.What the fuck is wrong with you? Why does "agree to disagree" never pass your keyboard?Because it's about endless contradiction of Crash at all costs, that's why. It's a sickness, Arach. In order to contradict me? Isn't that my point? That there's nothing you won't say if I've been saying the opposite? Don't you see how you keep proving that, over and over again? Says you, who's bringing up an incident from four years ago (unless my memory is mistaken) to try to impeach me. Jesus Christ, did you mark it on your calendar? I'm glad my only internet pictures are on my Facebook page, or else you'd have one of those creepy stalker walls. (For all I know, you've got an altar burning candles in front of a big poster of a frog.)What the fuck is wrong with you, Arach?

Oh, God. I didn't realize that I was talking to fucking Miss Marple over here.Are you gonna go run and tell on me to mommy and daddy, now? Don't read the posts if you can't handle a few dirty words. Let the adults talk in peace. I think the most famous, and possibly first, of my great blunders was when I said that there were no flying aquatic birds. Pretty stupid. Doubtless ducks were flying right past my window when I typed that.I recall being wrong a great many times about the gender of various posters. I've said a fair number of wrong things in the various 9/11 conspiracy theory threads, at least in the early days. Molbiogirl proved me wrong last week about the Wolbachia HGT thing; I was proceeding from incorrect assumptions about how they parasitize hosts.But honestly, Arach, I've written nearly 15,000 posts under this name, stretching back to my junior year of college. I don't remember specifics. I'm not, for instance, making notes of them on a calendar, as apparently you must be. If you've admitted to being relentlessly contrarian, as you appear to be asserting now, you'll have to point out the relevant post. And yet, you want to chase me around the internet, trying to get me to cry "uncle" about the Arach-Approved(tm) way to interpret a fictional story in a fictional book that we both agree has been misinterpreted all along?Masturbation is all you do, Arach. It's all about proving me wrong, at any cost. I mean, it would never occur to you that two people might read the same text in two entirely different but justifiable ways, right? Because then you might be forced to agree to disagree, and how does that fit in with your relentless crusade to prove me wrong?Of course, the most hilarious thing is that if you just weren't so ignorant - if you spent more time learning and improving your knowledge, rather than obsessing on all the myriad ways I've slighted you in the past five years - you'd find that I can fairly often be caught out being wrong on the facts, just like Dr. A did today. I mean, you could have a who cornucopia of Crashfrog-being-wrong, if you only knew enough to catch me in it. Do you enjoy this? I certainly don't. I don't particularly like being put in the position of having to spend hours correcting your endless slanders and unfair, inaccurate characterizations.Do you enjoy making them? Is that what you're saying? That you'd rather sling this sort of slime than engage with people in a constructive way? One you lost, by my reading. I can't grapple with your Hebrew sources, because I don't speak the language. But Rrhain destroyed your arguments, as near as I can tell. Of course, that didn't stop you from repeating the same bullshit towards me, as though I hadn't been watching or something.That's why I ignored those arguments - they had already been refuted by others. I guess I could have cut and pasted their replies, but you apparently didn't pay attention the first time, and it was hard enough just getting you to debate with my arguments honestly. Gosh, do you think that's maybe because you're so unpleasant to deal with, nobody wants to contend with you? That you hold years-long grudges, and use them to justify all manner of personal attacks and general misbehavior?No, that surely can't be it.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

see, that's your problem. you don't understand what "rational" means. yes, so is the science behind religious experiences. that doesn't make them rational. just because we can analyze it and determine its cause, or approach it rationally does NOT mean that the thing itself is ration. you could study random numbers rationally for all i care. yes, you do. but that doesn't happen overnight. the decision is not everything. that's sort of the point here, actually. your atheism, in particular, is not scientific or emprical. you do not treat it as such. it is simply your outlook on life, and you continue to behave irrationally. sometimes i think i should just let you post for me. you say all the wonderful things i'm trying to say, in much more clear (if slightly more crass) way. what in the name of holy hell is wrong with you that you would be so arrogant as to try to judge anyone else's personal outlook. you are, after, the one that goes around saying how people must be psychotic to disagree with you. that there is some disorder with your opponents. case in point. look. this is just getting silly. if you're just going to repeat the point of my argument, minus all of the nice wording, well. i don't know what to say. you mean in the OP? your continued participation in this thread demonstrates that you don't understand. similarly, your (contrarian) insistence that love and hate -- emotions -- are not irrational demonstrates that you don't understand what "rational" means either. i'm not justify faith. i'm not saying you didn't have faith. to think that is to have misunderstood my argument. i'm saying that you still have faith and have simply trasmuted it into something less recognizeable. and as such, you've attempted to rationalize your faith. you are no better than the fundie who says that it's not their faith, it's fact. you've forgotten what faith is, because you try so hard to cover it up with an air of rationality.faith is not conscious. it never is. ever. that's belief, and there is a difference. the difference between faith and trust is experience. yes, it does. it doesn't. again, it's really funny to hear you argue the very things i'm trying to say to you. and you pretend the whole time like you're somehow different, better. not to further contradict you, but i agreed with you above. you're the one arguing here, crash. i'm just trying to explain something to you that you seem absolutely opposed to understanding. what are you afraid? ...again, not to contradict you, but i don't believe i have ever called you a "heretic" or "unbeliever." i could care less what you believe, and that your ideas are different. that's fine. in fact, i would not be surprised to learn that we think the same way about a great many things. you are a "relentless contrarian" afterall.but let's keep things straight here. you're the one with the superiority complex, and the one who accuses people of mental disability for "daring to hold different ideas." this is about your attitude not your ideas. your strawmen are ridiculous in the extreme. see, that's just it. they're not. and you have the habit of making things that are very difficult problems for some people sound like trivialities. that's just plain insulting, is what that is. maybe you didn't go through a significant change, and so you don't remember. if you did, you would be more hesitant to trivialize changing your entire life. ah bugger, i just closed it. here's the potm for your ad hominems. enjoy. yes, because i bothered to read the thread again. again crash, this is about you. your inability to pass of a strawman as a logical conclusion (a proof by contradiction) does not make me a fundamentalist. it makes your point fallacious, and laughably so. it was closed, because of nitpicky "contrarian" fights. and no. don't flatter yourself into thinking that you get under my skin. i consider you amusing, yes. a walking contradiction, yes. mean? sure. do i care? no, i have a life believe it or not. the fact that you accuse me of your own faults in harshed language doesn't bother me in the slightest. go right on doing it. maybe i'll POTM you for it again. no, not at all. i just have a lot patience.and your frog is green. ...yes, and that's the point. again. disagreeing with you is not a mental disorder. you portraying it as such... well."INABILITY TO REFUTE!"i think you're developing a catch phrase. it's nowhere NEAR as good as ray's, though. and the problem, as it turns out, is that you do know about religion. maybe even too much. it's atheism you don't know a thing about. this is still very amusing, crash. i don't think i've ever actually seen someone actively argue against the thing they're doing with the very same argument. ok, i'll revise that statement: you have no respent for anyone you disagree with. you respect seems to be contingent on content. would you agree? remember, "no deference." ok, look. it's still silly. and i am getting really, really tired of pointing out that, once again, that's exactly what i'm saying about you.perhaps if you'd like to more effectively disagree with me, it would be best to not simply mimic my arguments. but again, that was the point. wasn't it? i don't. you come off as arrogant and pigheaded, and somebody should have told you long ago. i could care less what you think of me. and i realize that you could care less what i think of you. but stop being a "relentless contrarian" and just take some fucking advice for once? you take criticism really, really badly. not here, crash. every time you post. you sound conceited, and sometimes, just plain insulting. you accuse your opponents of mental derangement, and act like if anyone disagrees with you they're stupid and foolish for thinking something else.get off your high horse. please learn to apply analogies in a direct fashion, instead of assuming everyone must view things inside-out from how you do.there are rational, well reasoned arguments against bigotry and sexism -- two things you said you were against along with religion. the statement then means that there are rational, well-reasoned arguments against religion too. stop pretending you know what i'm going to say, and actually read the post, would ya? i don't care. religion is one of the most destructive forces known to man, simply because of its power to manipulate. you want to argue that point, go ahead. i'll agree with you. but that's not what this is about. no one is claiming that religion is superior, and if you think that's what i'm arguing, you are simply mistaken, or worse, intentionally putting up a strawman.i am arguing that treating atheism like a religion is every bit as bad. atheism is not a religion, and it frustrates me to see the "logical" position reduced to the same inane garbage the fundamentalists spew. i'm telling you to try to be BETTER than them. no, crash, acting like some kind of immature child, running around calling people "asshole" and implying they're sick in the head, and telling them to "cram it [their] ass" would make you an asshole. again, this is not about content. it's about style. what part of "i'm on your side" did you interpret as contradicting your own personal viewpoint? i could care less about your point of view. all i'm saying is stop acting like a fundamentalist if you don't want people to think you are one. why does it never pass yours? it's always some insult from you instead. our disagreement here exactly about that -- you're just not polite or level-headed in debate. you go for the throat, and resort to insults and derision. no, crash, because i'd been trying to get to that reference since the beginning of the thread. getting long quotes is especially difficult and time-consuming when you're trying to correct a relentless contrarian who simply likes to argue. even with a text scanner, you have to baby-sit it. and hebrew really, really fouls it up.i didn't post evidence in your favor simply to contradict you. what the heck kind of logic is that? i happen to find it so amusing that it was memorable. most of our discussion i could care less about. since your posts are content-free it's not like i ever learn anything from them, or take anything away from the discussion. just mild frustration and what an irrascible, irrational, and argumentative debator you are.oh, and yes, crash, i totally worship you. what's wrong with you?

---

Am I?Where, specifically? Direct quotes, please. It would certainly be a marked improvement on your body of work. Indeed. You're starting to catch on, I think. Of course, you've just refuted your own position that "we all have faith", which is as mealy-mouthed and meaningless a position as any you've taken.But at least you disproved it for me. So I don't have to stay up for another hour to refute you; you were kind enough to refute yourself. So, the word is meaningless?So what, exactly, do you mean when say I have it? You've given away the game, I think. Ah, yes, delightful. You crapped all over the POTM forum with an off-topic, jeering, sarcastic vendetta post because you just couldn't let something* go, and you wonder why you got suspended.You keep proving my points for me. Don't you ever stop to wonder why you do things like that? I mean, clearly you were wrong to make that POTM post. Right?What on Earth would have led you to do something so stupid if not your completely unhinged desire to argue with me? I mean, look what it led you to do here:

quote:

---

your argument was plaigarized from postmodern feminist bs.

---

And you wonder why you think I resort to ad hominems? Because you start with them. Your second post in that thread is to level a deeply personal and insulting accusation.Which, of course, you conveniently omitted in your mocking POTM post. Considering the severity of the charge you leveled and could not support, and never apologized for, I think I acted with supreme restraint.And, to top it off - we were arguing about the fucking alien in Alien. Don't you think your response was maybe just a little bit disproportionate?No, I forgot. You're the aggrieved party; you're the saint who never utters a peep except the most reasoned of arguments; you're the very paragon of rationality who never loses his temper or gets frustrated.Seriously, Arach. Something is very, very wrong with you. I was aware of it then and tried to tell you. You thought I meant it as an insult, apparently.Should I be worried? You don't list a physical location. Should I expect to see you outside my apartment here in Lincoln or something? No, seriously. You've been carrying a grudge based on an argument you started with an unfair accusation for four years. What the hell else shouldn't I suspect you could be capable of?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

lol. just keep on proving my point. that one actually made me laugh. it's not the words, crash. it's the attitude. and you just keep on demonstrating it. got anything of real content, not a simple goof? somewhere where superior logic or evidence has proven you wrong about something a little more significant than simply forgetting about ducks?i must tell you, that bit about admitting you're wrong more than anyone on the board, that got a few chuckles in chat. i'm sorry, being called an anti-semite was particularly memorable in its absurdity. you get filed next to ray calling phat a darwinist, and that time-travelling-cd-roms-in-the-bible guy. i believe you've already replied to it. i'm a stickler accuracy in arguments. you might have noticed. and i'm not chasing you -- i think the fact that you gave up posting and totally ignored all of the evidence presented in the thread is fairly indicative of the quality of your argument. like a creationist, confronted with the vast amounts of scientific evidence for evolution -- refuse to acknowledge it exists saying stuff like "i still haven't seen a transitional species" and then taking your ball and going home.i just figured i'd formally offer you the chance to prove what you're saying here, and admit to an error in the face of overwhelming evidence. sure. but both have to be justifiable. yours was not. it did not fit all the evidence. i'm not out to prove you wrong. and it's mighty paranoid of you to think so. crash, two of those five years have been spent studying hebrew. the fact is that you posted something wrong, and i knew more about it than you did. it's not that i'm out to get you. i'm not the boogeyman. it's just that for some reason, the idea of me catching you being wrong really upsets you. why? i don't enjoy constantly having to repeat myself correcting your illogic. my post may have been slander (well, libel, it's in print) but it was neither unfair nor inaccurate. you do act like a fundamentalist. and i am not the only one who thinks that -- just the first one with the balls to tell you to your face. no, see, that's just the point. you do not engage people in a constructive way. and somebody has to tell you that. i'm not trying to sling slime, i'm trying to get you to participate constructively rather than destructively. something i am failing at, evidently. ...yes, exactly. you can't. yet you continue to go on, sure that you are right. that's just irrational. it's like me wandering into a particle physics discussion and telling people that "quarks don't do that." how the hell would i know? and insisting that i'm right, in spite of the opposition telling me stuff i just don't understand? how "fundamentalist" does that sound to you?that's just what you did. rrhain was the reason the thread got posted. notice he made one post there? no evidence, just contrarian sophistry -- the same thing you accused him of above? i posted pages and pages of evidence -- he made one post. "destroyed" might be the word for it, but the other way around. wonder why he hasn't posted a reply there in a week? evidently, you hadn't. since you never addressed any of the supplimentary information, and just argued the one point that was moot. oh? is that why you belaboured the same point, over and over and over, too? see, i didn't actually see anyone address those arguments, at all. no one commented on the asherah worship. no one commented on the lingistic origin. no one commented on the historical context. rrhain certainly didn't -- that was all new content i posted after he stopped. you certainly didn't. you seemed more obsessed with homosexuality -- which was not the topic. please feel free to contribute in that thread again. post a reference post of all the threads you think i missed -- because i went out of my way to check each and every one. you and rrhain were the only ones to ever disagree, except for taz (who contributed one line of agreement in your direction). what "others?" it was just you.and you accuse me of mental disorders? i think you're imagining stuff. uh, no, actually i don't. because i get along with a lot of people here. quite well, as a matter of fact. the people that really have a hard time with me are the fundamentalists. what does that say about you, crash? you will find that 95% of my participation here is arguing with fundamentalists. fundamentalists including you.i am SURE that more people than just little old crash have the backbone to argue against me. i can't be that scary.

---

Christ, stop with the novels already! That I swear? Yeah, chalk one up for you, I guess. Advantage Arach!Seriously, though. The attitude that I don't like you? Oh, does that carry through?Do you think, maybe, it has something to do with having to fend off deeply personal accusations for all this time? Or how about the fact that you can't post a single response to me that isn't a torrent of abuse? Even four years ago - which I had forgotten about until you brought it up, incidentally - you were spewing forth ridiculous accusations. "Crash is a plagarizer." "Crash uses insult instead of argument." "Crash doesn't speak English."I don't like you, Arach, because you invariably act like a prick. It's not an attitude problem I have. It's a problem I have with the way you act. I'm not a complete moron, Arach. I've never stated that the world is flat or argued that up is down. If you're looking for a blunder I've made that's greater than forgetting that ducks exist, I don't know what to tell you. "Simple goof"? Even now I look back at that as the stupidest thing I've ever said out loud.And that's not enough for you? What the hell have you ever admitted error about? Of course it was absurd, Arach. That was the point. I was hoping to get your attention, to get you to pay attention to my arguments instead of misrepresenting them.Apparently it just gave you more to go off about. Consider that another blunder, I guess - my assumption that you can comport yourself like a reasonable person interested in a discussion. That was certainly the mistake I made offering my opinion in your Sodom thread, in the Alien thread, in the gender-of-objects thread, etc. You have to prove me wrong, first. Your refuted arguments in the Sodom thread certainly didn't do that.But, of course, that won't stop you from asserting the exact opposite - because you're a contrarian. Because you can't possibly accept the idea that I might have a different opinion than you.What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously? Paranoid? You're dragging up years-old grudges to beat me over the head with. What the hell is that, if not obsession? Oh, for god's sake. I refuse to believe that there's this massive conspiracy of Crash haters that I've somehow cowed into silence, all with dirty words apparently. And sorry to burst your delusions of grandeur, but you're hardly the first person to fill several pages of text with everything you think is wrong with me. In fact I wish you were more like Faith; she at least had the decency to keep it to under a few paragraphs.But by all means, if there's this massive contingent of haters, let them step forward. If I'm so truly hated and despised by so many, then I'd just as soon know, so that I can stop (apparently) polluting the board with such offensive post.Step forward, Crash haters! I promise that I hold you no ill-will, nor will I yell at you or say any bad words. I won't show up at your house or anything. I'm a bigger boy than that. But if I'm really so unwanted, here, then I'd genuinely like to hear that to my face.I can't for a minute believe that I've somehow frightened anybody. I'd just like to hear what people have to say - and I'm sure some of you would rather speak your own mind than be co-opted by Arach in his ridiculous, obsessive vendetta.

crash, you go on to do it in this very post. do you really not realize you're doing it? arrogance is your strong suit, isn't it. hey, who got the potm here? just because you misunderstand the argument... no, the faith itself is meaningless. no, i know why i got suspended. but i can't help if i find your foul temper very insightful into the strengths of your argument. no, crash, an ad hominem is attacking the person. the fact that your argument was plagiarized from postmodern feminist bs is not an attack on you. it's an attack on the argument. granted, maybe you perceived and accusation plagiarism as an implication of intellectual dishonesty, but you did crib from sources i've read and failed to cite them. and that's plagiarism. what, accusing you of the same gender bias you claim to arguing against? bias is bias -- perhaps you should get used to people being willing to call you on yours. perhaps i'm confused. my second post in that thread corrected an error than "bewitched" and "i dream of jeanie" were 50's sitcoms, and dispelling the myth that they were inherently anti-feminist. was that deeply personal and insulting? perhaps you can direct me to which post you mean? i believe i did support that your argument was gender-biased, and based on stereotyping. you were simply argumentative. as you are now. no, crash, and i'm willing to take some criticism. you, apparently, are not, as this is exactly the charge levied at you. crash, i think i phrased what's wrong with you very eloquently in this thread. perhaps you thought i meant it as an insult. but my criticism of you is that you're insulting. think about that for a little bit before you try to criticize people for your own faults. *sigh*how does amusement turn into a grudge? i think you're silly. preposterous. laughable. and i do list a physical location. "god's waiting room" is a slang term for south florida, and it has to do with the people who come here to wait to meet their maker. similarly, brenna uses "hurricaneland" which is a slightly newer one. you think i would drive several thousand miles to track your ass down? please. simply arguing with you takes enough of my time. i really don't care about you that much, one way or the other.

---

Calling you psychotic for disagreeing with me?Arach, I'm calling you psychotic because you're acting like you have a psychotic vendetta against me.How did you miss that? So what does the word mean? If everybody has it, how does anybody have it? If faithlessness can't possibly exist, then how can anyone have faith? How is calling me a plagarist not a personal attack?Christ, you're defending that behavior, now? You're truly unbelievable. It's not in the least bit possible that your actions had anything at all to do with escalating the tension level of that encounter? That bandying about accusations of plagarism might, just maybe a little bit have had something to do with why your poor little ego had to suffer the indignity of being called a "douche" on the internet? How can I crib from something I hadn't read, and didn't quote? What, I'm supposed to cite sources I'm completely unaware of, that coincidentally happen to say something similar on the surface to something I might have said? The idea that something might just be a coincidence never occurred to you?Not, of course, when it would give you an opportunity to insult me. Hence, the accusation of plagiarism, to this day unsupported and unretracted. Yeah, that's a personal attack. "You're sexist." How is it not? ...what? What are you talking about? This is the post I'm talking about. There's nothing about TV sitcoms in it. I don't recall that being my argument at all. What post are you referring to? Apparently neither one of us has a functional memory on this issue. I wouldn't have described it as eloquent (you really do go on and on and on...), and needless to say, I don't recognize myself in anything you've said about me. "Respectful of no-one"? "Plagarist"?C'mon, Arach. You must realize how much of that is just mean-spirited, ad hominem attacks. Why don't you take a little of your own advice? I'd never heard that. (Oops! Is that one of those admissions of ignorance you claim I never make!) Do you see how I have a hard time believing that, since you apparently carry around a four-year-old grudge because I had a difference of opinion about the movie Alien? You strain credulity far beyond the breaking point.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

yes. no. you post that way to relatively simple and pleasant responses. i knew someone personally who was like that. she took any contradiction as a personal insult to her competence, and would put up every bit as much of a fight as you, with all the same linguistic prowess.she did it out of deep-seated insecurity. why do you? do you see everything as constant accusations? this is abuse? you stole arguments from somewhere. that's plagiarism. you did. and still do. thus -- my post here. you have a habit of twisting things away from their intended meanings. i'm forced to believe that you do it mostly on purpose. right, that explains why it's just me that has this opinion of you. incidentally crash, i don't dislike you. i see, so, basically, you're pretty much right about everything most of the time? you may not have noticed, but in my standard arguments here, i am now arguing against positions i came here advocating. maybe i haven't spelled that out clearly anywhere, but that should say something. er, it was you who was doing the misrepresentation. and still are. crash, i am interested in reasonable discussion. but discussion with you simply runs in circles. i say something, you twist it, and i explain why what you did was wrong, and you get your feathers ruffled. then we just fight, endlessly repeating ourselves.if you could go about discussion here without resorting to insult as a first instinct, and with out the condescending attitude, maybe we'd be capable of discussion. until then, my process of taking apart your post reminds you too much of your own process, and my attitude comes off too much like yours. if you could stop being a jerk for two seconds, we'd probably even get along. see, this is that "relentless contrarianism" you talked about. that's all you do. "yes i did!" "no you didn't!" look, read the thread. respond to the evidence, or ignore it. but don't pretend like you addressed when you ignored it. that's just, well, that's just dishonest. no, you're welcome to your different opinion. just expect to be corrected when you insist that an opinion that differs from all available evidence is anything other than irrational. crash, i'm typing this from outside your window, holding a bottle of vicks vaporrub and a machete.seriously. get over yourself. and... those aren't contradictory statements how? look, you act like a fundamentalist. i know it. you know it. most of the board knows it. i'm sorry i have to be the one to tell you, because i know you'll simply think that i'm holding a grudge or i'm out to get you. i'm not. i just think you could argue your points a little better. *sigh*i didn't say people hated you. i said people think you act like a fundamentalist. i don't know of anyone who's out to get you, or who hates you, just lots of people who think it would be rude to tell you to your face when you act like an idiot. sure, open invitation. if this thread stays open until tomorrow, i know at least one (reasonable atheist) person has said they'll comment.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

the part where "what the fuck is wrong with you?" is the first thing to come out of your mouth, no matter what the statement is. everybody as feet. how do feet exist? kinda silly. oh yes, let me tell you how much being called a "douche" on the internet actually hurt me. why, i don't think i slept for months!the fact is that plagiarism is a claim that can be substantiated. your argument was taken from somewhere without credit. it's not an insult, it's a statement about the source of your argument. "douche" is an insult. i cannot believe that you fail to see the difference.was my attitude a contributing factor? yes. hey! that would have been a better response. er, no, your argument was based on gender bias. different statement altogether. and in any case, when have you ever hesitated to call a bigot a bigot? you said before, you will not pay an deference to sexism -- why should i? oh, ok, the other thread. my bad. anyways, how do you get "you're sexist" from this?

quote:

---

your argument was plaigarized from postmodern feminist bs. i'm well acquinted with the subject and the biases it draws from. if you're repeating those same arguments, you're subject to having it's biases analyzed. even if you yourself are not openly advocating those biases.

---

that seems to pretty clearly say that i understand that you're not sexist but are simply repeating arguments that are based on gender bias. it was a long time ago. look harder. and i will apologize for the "plagiarism" remark if it'll make you feel better -- i had (erroneously) assumed that you had read those arguments, and not simply and coincidentally come up with them on your own. what can i say, crash? you bring out the worst in me. actually, crash, all i remembered until tonight was you calling me an anti-semite.Edited by arachnophilia, : broken tag -- does this count as an admission of error too?

---

I think in light of the endless repeating, it might be an idea to give this thread a short time out.

---

Responses like "you plagarized that from somewhere"? Gosh, can't imagine why I might come off short in a response to that.Of course, the way you misread things, I doubt there's much I could say that you wouldn't find assholish. Your unjust perception of me colors the way you read my posts, of course, which just further confirms your own shaded interpretation.I'm not asking for clemency, here, you just need to be aware of your own bias, here.Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Sometimes I misinterpret joshing for personal attacks, especially when people don't use smilies, especially when its people, like you, I'm already frustrated with. Holmes especially had a tendency to do that. When it was a case of genuine error, I've genuinely apologized for misunderstanding. The line between "you're an idiot" and "you're an idiot; ha ha!" is quite narrow. Hell, even my gentle ribs have come off as great insults from time to time.You, of course, think that I'm an asshole to one and all, and that's how you read my posts - "let's see what Crash the asshole has to say today." But of course, when you say "stole", you don't mean that to imply dishonesty or anything on my part, because that would be one of those personal attacks you never make, right? Jesus Christ. I pray to god I never wind up on your bad side if this level of prickishness is what you extend to the people you don't even dislike. I don't think I could leave the house without a gun if I had the impression that you ever disliked me, now. Is that what "you stole your arguments" is supposed to accomplish? Reasonable discussion?Because it isn't working. I wonder, indeed, if you've ever been a part of a reasonable discussion, or if that term just means "Arach's insult free-for-all" every time you use it. It's not contrarianism, Arach. I honestly found your arguments lacking, for the reasons I described. You did nothing to change my mind.What am I supposed to do? Lie, and tell you you convinced me? You didn't. You didn't convince me to change my reading of the passage.I was not convinced, and I don't think I was being unreasonable then, and you haven't convinced me that I'm unreasonable, now. I'm not going to lie and tell you otherwise. Don't confuse me being unreasonable with you having impotent arguments. Mine's bigger. My bottle of Vicks, I mean. I get terrible congestion. Is that all? I know people who think you're acting like one, right now. (Oh, did you think you were the only one engaged in ex parte discussions about this?) And it's hardly a shock for an atheist to be called "fundamentalist"; that's just par for the course. That's the automatic attempt at insult for anybody who speaks of religion in any but the most glowing language.Why on Earth would I take being called "fundamentalist" at all seriously? Certainly none of the actual fundamentalists here think I'm one of them. Or did you forget about Ray, up there, promising me an eternity of hellfire? He certainly doesn't think I'm in with his group. Nobody on the fundie side of the aisle considers me anything but the strongest possible irreverent skeptic and incorrigible evolutionist. Since you've decided to hijack an entire thread to air your personal greivance with me, I guess it's only fair that others be allowed to do the same. Although I hope that they're not as big an asshole about it as you've been. And it would be nice if they didn't write a novel, either.

No offense, but:I think it's just as possible to be divested of one's faith, as well. It is possible to be faithless, just as one can be footless. I credited the source; my own intellect. That it was coincidentally similar on the surface to something you had read does not make me a plagarist.It does violate the forum guidelines for you to continue to repeat it, though. It is what I said at the time. Maybe we should just stop talking to each other. Quite frankly I find your endless baiting and contrarianism - not to mention your accusations - very difficult to avoid terse responses to. If you can't help but make them, we should both refrain.

Alright. You apologized for something. I'll accept it, and offer you an apology. I'm sorry.And I think we should just refrain from reply to each other, forever. Why don't we just leave it at these apologies?

Yes.