Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
36 online now:
jar, ooh-child, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Taq, Theodoric (7 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,849 Year: 16,885/19,786 Month: 1,010/2,598 Week: 256/251 Day: 27/58 Hour: 1/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
Coyote
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 256 of 683 (613520)
04-25-2011 8:38 PM


Spam
Cleanup on aisle five.

Message 89

{Done - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Done note.


Tram law
Member (Idle past 2963 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 257 of 683 (613942)
04-29-2011 1:18 PM


How does one report one poster harassing another poster?

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Huntard, posted 04-29-2011 1:45 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 259 by Admin, posted 04-29-2011 1:49 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 258 of 683 (613952)
04-29-2011 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Tram law
04-29-2011 1:18 PM


Tram law writes:

How does one report one poster harassing another poster?


One posts here with said posters name and the message in which said poster is doing the harassing.

Alternatively, one sends an email to one of the admins with the same information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 1:18 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12622
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 259 of 683 (613955)
04-29-2011 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Tram law
04-29-2011 1:18 PM


Tram law writes:

How does one report one poster harassing another poster?

Why, no one's reported you yet.

Seriously, dude, chill out.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 1:18 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by purpledawn, posted 05-09-2011 6:05 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4512
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 260 of 683 (614113)
05-02-2011 12:37 AM


He slipped the guards, again.

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6583
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 261 of 683 (614973)
05-09-2011 1:27 PM


To Tram Law
Not to clutter other threads I will post this here.

Tram Law writes:

I didn't ask you nor was I talking to you. Stop posting to me and get out of my face.


Message 10

This is an open forum. Anyone is free to reply, as long as they are in the good graces of the Admins and follow the forum rules. If you have a problem with my replies please take it up with the Admins. If the Admins have an issue with anything I have posted I am sure I would have heard something from them.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 262 of 683 (615023)
05-09-2011 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Admin
04-29-2011 1:49 PM


Misunderstanding - Need a Ref
I feel that Crashfrog has a tendency to not accept correction when he has misunderstood an opponents point. This usually leads to a discussion to try and clear up the misunderstanding and not the topic. Once the discussion has reached the frustration level, it is difficult and time consuming for moderators to wade through the posts and attempt to find the problem.

Here is a chance to see the problem before it snowballs.

Crashfrog entered the discussion at Message 26 and there are only five posts so far.

I let him know in Message 31 that he was incorrect, which he did not accept and I tried in Message 40 to clarify it further. Now he's at the point of claiming I'm being deceitful.

Could a moderator please review the posts and see if I have made the claims he states.

Thanks
PurpleDawn

Edited by Admin, : Fix message link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Admin, posted 04-29-2011 1:49 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by crashfrog, posted 05-09-2011 6:11 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 683 (615025)
05-09-2011 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by purpledawn
05-09-2011 6:05 PM


Re: Misunderstanding - Need a Ref
Surely there's no ambiguity that this exchange:

crashfrog writes:

But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days? There's not a lot of competition for Christianity anymore, at least not among polytheistic religions. That's the reason that the passage in Jeremiah is interpreted, in modern theology, to refer to not letting shallow material concerns, like wealth, power, prestige, or influence, supersede more important spiritual concerns.

dawn writes:

I think it is an appropriate way to construe it.

is purpledawn expressing her agreement with the aforementioned way of construing the passage.

If this was a genuine misunderstanding she would have said so in Message 29. Instead, she again agrees with my position:

crashfrog writes:

"Worshipping Mammon" as a term doesn't refer to anything but letting the pursuit of wealth get in the way of spiritual concerns.

dawn writes:

Exactly!

There's no ambiguity here, or room for "misunderstanding." There is, suddenly, purpledawn's insistence that she is "misunderstood" immediately after I showed how assenting to the above premises contradicts her original position. Now, all of a sudden I have a " tendency to not accept correction when he has misunderstood an opponents point." How convenient!

I do have a tendency not to allow my interlocutors to change their minds while denying that they have ever done so. Purpledawn's assertions have never been substantiated. My intent is not to allow people I'm talking with to violate forum guidelines by engaging in "any form of misrepresentation." Of course, I can't enforce it, but I can certainly object when they do so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by purpledawn, posted 05-09-2011 6:05 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2011 1:40 AM crashfrog has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 264 of 683 (615074)
05-10-2011 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by crashfrog
05-09-2011 6:11 PM


Re: Misunderstanding - Need a Ref
In my view you have clearly misunderstood Purpledawn.

quote:

is purpledawn expressing her agreement with the aforementioned way of construing the passage.

Read in context (Message 27) - where the following line clearly indicates disagreement, it seems pretty clear to me that Purpledawn was not agreeing. In fact Purpledawn seems to be saying saying that your "narrow" way to construe it was the "appropriate" way to construe it.

Your other "agreement" is also negated by the context. Purpledawn is saying there that "worshipping Mammon" does NOT refer to actually worshipping a false God, it is a metaphor, not the reality. Do you really see the following sentence as indicating agreement that money is a "False God" ?


I still disagree that it makes money a false god. As you said, no one is worshiping anything, therefore money can't be a false god.

All Purpledawn was agreeing with was your description of "worshipping Mammon" - with the additional claim that it argued AGAINST your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by crashfrog, posted 05-09-2011 6:11 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by purpledawn, posted 05-10-2011 2:45 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 266 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2011 8:39 PM PaulK has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 265 of 683 (615076)
05-10-2011 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by PaulK
05-10-2011 1:40 AM


Re: Misunderstanding - Need a Ref
quote:
In my view you have clearly misunderstood Purpledawn. ...
In fact Purpledawn seems to be saying saying that your "narrow" way to construe it was the "appropriate" way to construe it. ...
All Purpledawn was agreeing with was your description of "worshipping Mammon" - with the additional claim that it argued AGAINST your position.
Your summary is correct. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2011 1:40 AM PaulK has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 683 (615271)
05-11-2011 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by PaulK
05-10-2011 1:40 AM


Re: Misunderstanding - Need a Ref
Read in context (Message 27) - where the following line clearly indicates disagreement, it seems pretty clear to me that Purpledawn was not agreeing.

What following line indicates "disagreement"? Please be specific.

Why did PurpleDawn quote so much material if she intended to respond directly and only to the first line? Why would she respond to a rhetorical question?

Your interpretation makes no sense; it's clearly a logical backbend meant to side with PD.

Purpledawn is saying there that "worshipping Mammon" does NOT refer to actually worshipping a false God, it is a metaphor, not the reality.

Agreed, but she's already assented to the fact that it's "appropriate" to construe the prohibition on worshiping false gods metaphorically, her claims to having been "misunderstood" notwithstanding. So, there's no way that could be a disagreement with me.

Do you really see the following sentence as indicating agreement that money is a "False God" ?

I've never claimed that PD agrees that money is a false god; my claim is that logically she must agree on the basis of already having agreed that the modern interpretation of the prohibition of false gods is "an appropriate way to construe it", as she's on the record as having stated. But, of course, rather than submit to a logical argument she can't refute, PD has invented this "misinterpretation" story days after the fact. She had ample time to correct whatever misunderstanding supposedly happened, when it happened. Why wait until she was caught out in a contradiction?

That's the proof that there's no misunderstanding here. There's no reason in this case to privilege PD's statements about whether there's a misunderstanding here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2011 1:40 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2011 8:53 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 268 by PaulK, posted 05-12-2011 2:39 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 683 (615272)
05-11-2011 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by crashfrog
05-11-2011 8:39 PM


Re: Misunderstanding - Need a Ref
Trying to keep this appropriately meta.

This isn't some deal where I misunderstand someone, get corrected, and refuse to correct myself. I'm not someone who does that. Indeed, where genuine miscommunication does occur I immediately apologize and attempt to arrive at a better understanding, as in this exchange:

Let me try to help you.

First, if you wish to misrepresent my position, it is probably smarter not to include quotes of what I actually said.

Second, we are talking about a specific point, whether or not kids have a right NOT to hear what others say. Sorry but there is a reason that children are placed in custody and that is because they do NOT have equal rights.

But keep trying and I'll be happy to try to help you along.

The first time you said this, I interpreted you as saying "children have to listen to what others, especially adults, say." But apparently you thought that was a misrepresentation of your position.

So, let me try again - children don't have a right not to hear what others say? So, your position is that it's illegal for a child to be deaf, for instance, because then they would not be able to not hear what others say, which you assert they have no right to do.

Is that more correct? Can you help me understand what you're saying? I'm having a really hard time making any sense of it. For instance, how, in your view, can someone actively not hear someone? I can think of several ways - they could be deaf, they could have headphones on, they could not be paying attention.

Being deaf, wearing headphones, and being inattentive are not against the law, not even for children. If that's not what you mean could you elaborate? The claim as you've stated it is fairly unintelligible.

Sorry, I thought I was talking to an adult. My bad.

I don't follow down even attractive rabbit holes.You did do better this time and learned not to actually quote what ˆ said when trying to misrepresent my position.

A fat lot of good it did me, but when I do misunderstand people I attempt to rectify the misunderstanding. But when people make spurious claims that I "misunderstood on purpose" or don't submit to "correction", that's clearly not accurate, and in this case the timing (and the posts themselves!) amply demonstrate that PD is engaged in misrepresentation of her own previous remarks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2011 8:39 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by dronestar, posted 05-24-2011 10:53 AM crashfrog has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 268 of 683 (615287)
05-12-2011 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by crashfrog
05-11-2011 8:39 PM


Re: Misunderstanding - Need a Ref
quote:

What following line indicates "disagreement"? Please be specific.

I was specific. The line immediately following the one you quoted, in the post we are discussing. I even provided a link back to the post for convenience.

But since that apparently isn't enough for you, here is the line you quoted and the following line:


I think it is an appropriate way to construe it.

There are plenty of teachings concerning spiritual concerns without turning money into a false god.

As you see the following statement clearly expresses disagreement with the idea that money should be considered a "false God". Thus it seems clear that Purpledawn agrees with the "narrow" construal of the idea of a "false God", excluding money.

quote:

Why did PurpleDawn quote so much material if she intended to respond directly and only to the first line?

Your assumption is in error - Purpledawn did respond to the rest of it in the following line. I don't see any problem with keeping the quote together - that's a matter of style (it is, after all simply a short paragraph). I do see a problem with ignoring the second part of the response as you continue to do,

quote:

Why would she respond to a rhetorical question?

The only question is the one at the start of your material, and it doesn't look rhetorical to me:


But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days?

quote:

Your interpretation makes no sense; it's clearly a logical backbend meant to side with PD.

Wow it's like arguing with a creationist. No, Crash it makes perfect sense to consider the whole of Purpledawn's response, I'm not taking sides. You're just obviously wrong. And can't admit it. As will become even more clear as we go on.

quote:

Agreed, but she's already assented to the fact that it's "appropriate" to construe the prohibition on worshiping false gods metaphorically, her claims to having been "misunderstood" notwithstanding. So, there's no way that could be a disagreement with me.

It seems pretty clear that you were arguing for more than a metaphorical reading, and that is what the dispute is about. e.g the second sentence here:


In that sense money - personified in Christian mythology as "Mammon" - very much is a false god. I just don't see how that can be denied except for very narrow interpretations of "god". And you wouldn't be trying to define or limit God from your narrow human perspective, now would you?

(Of course, the final sentence makes no sense anyway. Defining the word "god" is not attempting to delimit the capabilities of the monotheistic God in any way...)

quote:

I've never claimed that PD agrees that money is a false god; my claim is that logically she must agree on the basis of already having agreed that the modern interpretation of the prohibition of false gods is "an appropriate way to construe it", as she's on the record as having stated.

There is no record of Purpledawn as having stated such a thing. Your misinterpretation is an error, not a fact.

quote:

But, of course, rather than submit to a logical argument she can't refute, PD has invented this "misinterpretation" story days after the fact. She had ample time to correct whatever misunderstanding supposedly happened, when it happened. Why wait until she was caught out in a contradiction?

Here you are simply misrepresenting the facts of the conversation.

The statement was made in Message 27

Your response Message 28 does not address that part of Purpledawn's post at all.

You apparently refer to your misinterpretation implicitly in Message 30 - but not specifying even which of Purpledawn's posts you were referring to, only to be corrected by Purpledawn in the next post Message 31 made less than 3 hours later.

The first explicit reference - and therefore the first opportunity for Purpledawn to provide an explicit correction - appears in your reply to that - Message 39, made 3 days later. The next post to the thread, made less than 9 hours later Message 40 provides the correction.

Thus, in reality Purpledawn waited only 9 hours to provide a correction, not days. And on a forum like this, a 9 hour delay is far from unreasonable.

quote:

That's the proof that there's no misunderstanding here. There's no reason in this case to privilege PD's statements about whether there's a misunderstanding here.

Since your "proof" apparently assumes that Purpledawn should have obtained your interpretation directly from your mind rather than waiting for you to post it, I think you have a bit of a problem there.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2011 8:39 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 269 of 683 (615892)
05-17-2011 11:43 PM


Spam (and spam nuked)
Spam

Message 744

{Spammer suspended, spam links mucked up - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 270 of 683 (616340)
05-20-2011 9:24 PM


Newest member merrytess is a lower than whale snot spammer.
New member merrytess is a lower than whale snot spammer/

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019