Peanut Gallery

i wonder what his favourite SM position is? personally, i'm not into that kind of thing, but whatever floats your boat i guess.

---

אָרַח

can i bet against myself here?*headdesk headdesk headdesk*

to be fair, people are slinging mud at him too.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

and that he doesn't seem to understand the basics of logical argumentation. i try not to actually get to the point of ad hominem, where attack substitutes for argument. light ridicule after repeated argument is about as far as i will go. but i understand why people jump on him.note also his attack on me here. it would almost sting a bit if most of it didn't so aptly apply to him. yes, well, i'm going to try to not get banned for 3 years because of it.Edited by arachnophilia, : WHOOPS!

---

אָרַח

oh, uh, whoops, sorry! i had just posted in response to dawn like 8 times, and i guess the fingers just type on their own.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

looks like dwise1 is up next, and on a topic more directly appropriate to the thread. i'm enjoying his posts; this should be good.

---

אָרַח

glad someone caught it! i also posted the original statement in Message 554 but i suspect that one was too easy to miss, and not repetitive enough to catch anyone's attention. and it's not like dawn reads my posts anyways.i've just decided that instead of trying to decipher nonsense, i'll just respond in kind. i wish i could take credit for this particular nonsense, but i can't. blame anon. philosoraptor!

---

אָרַח

i'm not convinced. i know i can get him to respond (usually), but it always seems to be as if what i said actually was nonsense. something is not clicking there, and i'm not sure what. i suspect it's not entirely willful, too. i've seen a general lack of reading comprehension throughout the thread -- and tons of faulty assumptions about what something must have actually said -- even about the things that dawn really probably does care about understanding.i'm starting to suspect it's a tl;dr thing.i'm considering finding some really decent apologetics that argue precisely what he's getting at, and posting it in response to him as if it were really a rebuttal, and seeing what happens next. i'm willing to bet i could make him argue with cs lewis, or justin martyr.edit: i don't mean to mock dawn, here. i'm genuinely curious where the confusion comes from, both in his posts, and his ability to process mine (and others).Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

interesting. do you think he got it on the second (or third) pass? i don't think it's guessing. maybe it's just confirmation bias on my part, but sometimes it seems like what he's saying is actually related to what i'm saying... it's just usually the same point i was refuting, repeated. short memory, perhaps? that can't be it either. he clearly remembers some stuff -- he went and quoted me from another thread when he thought he had caught me in a contradiction (because he made a faulty assumption about what i said). i would say it's selective attention (ie: tuning stuff out that disagrees) but you mentioned he seems to have tuned out the stuff that seemingly agreed, too.dyslexia, maybe? no, i know. i've tried to be very clear, to the point of clarifying in simple declarative statements, and then repeating those clarifications over and over.what i mean is, it's not just an output problem. it's not simply that he's dropping words, repeating words, screwing up grammar, or confusing punctuation. hell, i've probably done that a few times in this post already; i need sleep. it happens, and i'm not trying to make fun of him for that.it's clearly something that's getting in the way of both output and input. he's confusing stuff on the way in, and confusing stuff out the way out. this can sometimes happen, oddly, with really smart people; their brains run faster than their fingers or eyeballs, and the brain fills in the nonsense gaps with sense. i frequently have this problem when i proof-read my own work: i know what i meant to write, so that's what i read instead of what i actually wrote.i don't think this is what's going on here, but i can't be sure. if that was the case, he'd probably follow logic a bit better. perhaps the church has simply done a number on him? he does have a higher vocabulary than you might expect. i never thought in a million years he'd use the word "exegesis" (nevermind correctly) in a post. he denies that english is a second language. that could easily do it, and that was, iirc, what everyone suspected. fwiw, i believe him. his posts do not read to me like someone who learned english later in life. (the gibberish i initially posted was, i believe, originally written by someone japanese) probably. but it would amuse me. of course, so does the fact that he's arguing against the bible. but whatever. it would be more about seeing whether it would get past his comprehension blockage.Edited by arachnophilia, : i told you there'd be a mistake somewhere...

---

אָרַח

except for just recently, he seems to mostly know the meanings of words. i would say more than 50%. closer to 100%. i don't think it's a vocabulary thing. general rule of thumb, for life. if it seems like everyone else is doing something strange, it's actually you.

---

אָרַח

technically, his post was a complete and accurate answer to the question asked in the title.

oh, i know. evidence might have been nice, too. this wasn't a serious quibble, i just thought it was amusing. college! (or, how to say very little in quite a lot of space)i was in a literature/film class once, and we had to read assigned novels. we'd then watch the film, and discuss the relative merits of artistic decisions and how they change between the different media. the class met once a week, and we'd have a new novel/film each week -- i don't normally enjoy reading novels that quickly, and sometimes i frankly didn't have time what with other classes. (who the hell am i kidding here?)in any case, we had to write an extremely short essay on each novel each week, and we could choose any aspect of the book to write on. anything, you name it. so one week, i emailed the prof, so i wrote on how that week's book was bound. and what the cover looked like.full fucking marks.

---

אָרַח

i think we broke dawn. it's been a couple of days, and i'm getting worried.

until they get banned anyways. sometimes, i miss ray martinez. he was fun.

lol. you didn't read my post. you didn't read the verse you cited. neither says what you think it says. again, you have not shown that you have understood my rules, an are thus consistently misrepresenting them. okay dawn. let's assume that isaiah is 100% inspired by god, literally, and god himself wrote every word of it in his own hand.why should i think the same of matthew? you have never given me a good reason to make the jump from one to the other, even if you do actually agree that one is inspired. "it says so" isn't a good reason. and it doesn't say so.

---

אָרַח