I was going to let this go, but since you just
had to bring it up...
You admit that you are trolling?
quote:
Its a legitimate strategy!
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
saying typing.
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:
Not being a whiny liberal who bitches about everything...
A very rational reason for not speaking out against them.
I continued to support it rationally and factually here:
quote:
That {refering to not speaking out against them} 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.
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:
1) Rationally, factually, and logically explain why you think what I say is worthless and ridiculous
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:
2) Ignore my posts.
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.
™ Version 4.2
