Dedicated 1GHZ/512 MB server with 300GB transfer for $99/month. Virutual domain for $10.
| An apology to the board |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Martin ® 08/19/2002, 17:13:20 Author Profile Mail author |
My fellow posters, I sincerely apologize for my major role in the very distasteful and inappropriate fracas in another thread between Vicki and myself. It consumed a ridiculous amount of space in that thread, and it was very foolish of me to facilitate its continuation. It was stupid and childish and just plain wrong of me, and I genuinely apologize. Sincerely, - Martin |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Gosh, this is great Re: An apology to the board -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: fossilman ®
08/20/2002, 23:12:58
Author Profile Mail author
Thanks and keep it up.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Vicki and Martin . . . Re: An apology to the board -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
08/21/2002, 13:27:20
Author Profile Mail author
The irony, I think, is that you both are amongst the best contributors to the debates here when things don't spin out of control. Do you ever wonder whether you're both keeping folk from taking this place seriously when you get lost in your fights? I know that in my case, at least, your fights make me feel a little leery about posting here.
Modified by Cal at Wed, Aug 21, 2002, 13:41:43
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Vicki and Martin . . . Re: Vicki and Martin . . . -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/21/2002, 14:12:30
Author Profile Mail author
Given the fact that there have been numerous "frays" of this kind on this forum that included other posters than myself I would like you to consider the common denominator before you rush to judgement.
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Wed, Aug 21, 2002, 14:28:31
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Oh, hell Re: Re: Vicki and Martin . . . -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
08/21/2002, 14:35:17
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Oh, hell Re: Oh, hell -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/21/2002, 14:36:54
Author Profile Mail author
Modified by Jersey Girl at Wed, Aug 21, 2002, 14:43:14
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Oh, hell Re: Re: Oh, hell -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
08/21/2002, 14:48:23
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
You've nailed it, Cal! Re: Oh, hell -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/21/2002, 16:02:00
Author Profile Mail author
What you saw there is precisely the reason for the entire fiasco, including exactly why it went on for so long! To wit, she seems quite incapable of accepting responsibility for her own behavior and, as has very commonly been the case in my interactions with her on that point, all she does is deny her own responsiblity and blame ME! That has been my point all along.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Question Re: You've nailed it, Cal! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/22/2002, 12:48:48
Author Profile Mail author
At least one poster inspected the exchanges and here is what rdl had to say in her post above:
"rdl...is also pretty disgusted by your behavior and treatment of Vicky."
I'll read your answer, but I'll not respond to it.
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Thu, Aug 22, 2002, 13:51:10
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Yet another lie! Re: Question -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/22/2002, 15:02:45
Author Profile Mail author
The argument, oh dishonest evader, was about YOUR allegation that I had used -- according to YOU and in YOUR OWN WORDS -- what YOU considered to be "unreliable -AND- fraudulent resources", a claim which was a bald-faced lie!
You ARE incapable of owning up to your own behavior and taking responsibily for your own actions! You are obsessed with blaming others for your own failures and misbehavior, and at the moment, I am your favorite scapegoat because I hurt your feelings by telling you a truth you did not want to hear!
What would you say to a child whose dishonesty and refusal to own up to and take responsiblity for their own behavior were as despicable as yours? Considering how you so adamantly and cowardly give yourself a free pass when YOU do it, have you no shame? No shame at all?
You know, on that issue, I really don't think you do.
- Martin
Let's see if you keep your promise about "not responding"
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Vicki and Martin . . . Re: Vicki and Martin . . . -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/21/2002, 15:51:17
Author Profile Mail author
I agree entirely. It was very stupid and childish of me! I really hate it when I let myself get so carried away, and I honestly agree that it makes both me AND the board look ridiculous. Please see my open apology: An apology to the board
It was my sincere desire to stop the bickering when I posted that apology, but due to the extremely provocative nature of the first reply, I felt just like Michael Corleone in the film Godfather III, when he cried out: "Just when I think I'm out, they keep pulling me back in!"
Once again, I apologize and I take full responsibility for my actions.
Sincerely,- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Vicki and Martin . . . Re: Vicki and Martin . . . -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: zip ®
08/21/2002, 23:03:41
Author Profile Mail author
This was exactly the sort of thing that caused me to go wandering off for a while. I lose interest after the second or third "well, I'm mad at you because you said...". There is NOTHING of any value to anyone in these arguments. And, to see these arguments go on for an average of fifty additional posts is really pretty sad to watch.
"Honest Intellectual Inquiry" my ass. People just use this forum to blow off steamm from their personal lives. I really can not understand why "rpcman" does not eliminate these posts immediately. (Perhaps rpcman lives with Martin or Jersey Girl?) Might as well call this site "Martin and Vicki's Religious Romper Room".
I will continue to check in once in a while for actual discussions, but I will not get caught up in name-calling and/or excuse-making diatribes that waste time, money and brain cells.
good will to all,
zipperhead
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Cal has valid standing for his complaint... Re: Re: Vicki and Martin . . . -- zip Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/22/2002, 07:36:28
Author Profile Mail author
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Cal, let's be honest here... Re: Vicki and Martin . . . -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: marg ®
08/22/2002, 13:05:32
Author Profile Mail author
Absolutely nothing got resolved..martin dished out his ad hominems ad nauseum..vicki still doesn't understand burden of proof..or what responsibility if any she had to counter martin's claims.
In the vicki/martin exchange I'm not certain vicki had any burden to prove. Martin had made a claim supported with a few premises. Assuming premises are true...if the inferences between claim and premises are weak it seems to me that's reason enough to not accept the conclusion as cogent. Of course because the whole discussion got derailed with ad hominems nothing got resolved..and exactly what if any burden vicki had was never properly discussed.
IMO Vicki chose to pursue the discussion but martin used ad hominems and effectively stopped it. Of course vicki could have taken the route of discontinuuing further attempts at discussion (which is probably the wisest things to do) but then nothing would be learned from the experience except that ad homenims are effective to derail discussion.
Martin was not intellectually honest with her..nor did I find him intellectually honest in his discussion with me regarding jak/vicki's exchange. I chose to ignore his derogatory remarks of others but I thought they were in poor taste, extremely dissrespectful and not appropriate for the discussion...they were ignored but not unnoticed.
Modified by marg at Thu, Aug 22, 2002, 13:18:25
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You mean "let's be DISHONEST" Re: Cal, let's be honest here... -- marg Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/22/2002, 14:43:13
Author Profile Mail author
Your post above is further proof that you do not have any idea what you're talking about (you don't even properly understand the phrase ad hominem!)
Vicki accused me -- IN HER OWN WORDS -- of using what SHE claimed were "unreliable -AND- fraudulent resources". And although she re-affirmed that assertion over and over and over again, in the end the truth came out that she had NOT told the truth about that, or even said anything defensible at all! OVER and OVER and OVER again she REFUSED to provide any citation of the resources she considered fraudulent or any evidence as to why she considered them fraudulent, and only in the end did she reveal that she had lied when she used the word "resources" (plural). Oh, she didn't admit that was a lie, to be sure! She claimed it was not a lie but an "error", but if it were not a lie, she would have made the correction immediately, but instead re-affirmed her allegation over and over and over again! What is more interesting is that, again after scores of posts REFUSING to provide any evidence for her allegations whatsoever, it turned out that the source SHE claimed was fraudlent was the Bible! In other words, she viciously accused me of a severe intellectual crime of using a fraudulent resource because I referred to the Bible in a discussion about the Bible!
THAT is the factual issue behind this whole recent fracas! The fact that you completely ignore the truth is just what I have come to expect from you, marg.
The emotional issue -- that is, the REAL reason Vicki attacked me now, even though she openly admitted she COULD have made her false and malicious personal attack against me weeks ago -- is that she had begged and wheedled me for something from me I did not wish to give and was upset that I had told her something she did not want to hear (yet it's truth is borne out here for all to see!). So, in a fit of woman's scorn and vindictiveness, she attacked my honesty out of pure spite!
As for your misguided sophistry about the previous argument that you are blathering about so cluelessly and anachronistically, (in which Darr and Cal and others backed up my conclusions and arguments against Vicki's!), perhaps your baloney will appeal to the ignorant, but not to people capable of clear reasoning.
I suggest you get your facts straight before sticking your busybody nose where it doesn't belong.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Thu, Aug 22, 2002, 14:47:39
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
it's about honesty... Re: You mean "let's be DISHONEST" -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: marg ®
08/22/2002, 15:39:30
Author Profile Mail author
Regarding your exchanges with vicki...weren't you trying to prove that jesus accepted homosexuals? ...If so the bible was never used as a resource..it was only used in a claim with the assumption that Jesus really existed as portrayed in the bible. Didn't you use a resource to establish that homosexual relationships commonly existed between centurion and pais..in those days. Why are you so defensive if vicki wants you to list your resources? Isn't that what she should do..question the validity, integrity, quality of the resources which you used for your premises?
Regarding your suggestion that the sole criteria for burden of proof is whether a claim is extraordinary or not...I only agree if there is a debate going with a claim and counter claim...and then I think that the more extraordinary side requires a higher standard of proof than the other side. If vicki had made a counter claim to you...I don't believe it could be considered all that extraordinary.
I was under the impression she thought your argument was weak ..not impossible but that she wasn't making any claims herself. Whatever the case your personal attacks were excessive and served to derail the focus of the discussion...so that little was calmly and rationally discussed.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You are, once again, wrong on all points! Re: it's about honesty... -- marg Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/22/2002, 16:29:56
Author Profile Mail author
You revealed your total ignorance of the nature of the discussion in question by foolishly and anachronistically asking: "Regarding your exchanges with vicki...weren't you trying to prove that jesus accepted homosexuals?"
No!! Absolutely not! You are once again quite wrong! Even historically, that is not accurate!
But more to the point, as I told you explicitly in my reply to you above that you so recklessly ignored, that is NOT the argument that got so out of control and about which the posts in this thread are regarding!!! It's right there in black and white! Re-read my post!
HERE is the ACCURATE basis of this whole mess: Vicki accused me -- IN HER OWN WORDS -- of using what SHE claimed were "unreliable -AND- fraudulent resources". And although she re-affirmed that assertion over and over and over again, in the end the truth came out that she had NOT told the truth about that, or even said anything defensible at all! OVER and OVER and OVER again she REFUSED to provide any citation of the resources she considered fraudulent or any evidence as to why she considered them fraudulent, and only in the end did she reveal that she had lied when she used the word "resources" (plural). Oh, she didn't admit that was a lie, to be sure! She claimed it was not a lie but an "error", but if it were not a lie, she would have made the correction immediately, but instead re-affirmed her allegation over and over and over again! What is more interesting is that, again after scores of posts REFUSING to provide any evidence for her allegations whatsoever, it turned out that the source SHE claimed was fraudlent was the Bible! In other words, she viciously accused me of a severe intellectual crime of using a fraudulent resource because I referred to the Bible in a discussion about the Bible!
THAT is the factual issue behind this whole recent fracas! The fact that you completely ignore the truth is just what I have come to expect from you, marg.
The emotional issue -- that is, the REAL reason Vicki attacked me now, even though she openly admitted she COULD have made her false and malicious personal attack against me weeks ago -- is that she had begged and wheedled me for something from me I did not wish to give and was upset that I had told her something she did not want to hear (yet it's truth is borne out here for all to see!). So, in a fit of woman's scorn and vindictiveness, she attacked my honesty out of pure spite!
As for your misguided sophistry about the previous argument that you are blathering about so cluelessly and anachronistically, (in which Darr and Cal and others backed up my conclusions and arguments against Vicki's!), perhaps your baloney will appeal to the ignorant, but not to people capable of clear reasoning.
WHY do you refuse to get your facts straight, marg?? What agenda is served by your deliberate misrepresentations?
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: You are, once again, wrong on all points! Re: You are, once again, wrong on all points! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: marg ®
08/22/2002, 23:16:48
Author Profile Mail author
You keep explaining over and over again..that she accused you of using fraudulent resources. So what! Doesn't she have a right to question your resources.
In other words, she viciously accused me of a severe intellectual crime of using a fraudulent resource because I referred to the Bible in a discussion about the Bible!
Again..so what! Is this really such a big issue. Your perception is of being accused of severe intellectual crime..or at least you keep saying that over and over...but was the bible ever used as a resource..imo it wasn't. Even if it was..so what!
Personally I'm finding your blathering...very hard to appreciate.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
marg can't stop lying & evading & game-playing Re: Re: You are, once again, wrong on all points! -- marg Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/23/2002, 06:17:39
Author Profile Mail author
You write: "Why are you so defensive if vicki wants you to list your resources? Isn't that what she should do..question the validity, integrity, quality of the resources which you used for your premises?"
Again, you are being extremely dishonest and are misrepresenting the truth! Why must you dissemble so and put such an obviously deceptive spin on facts in order to attack me? You can't hide a clearly personal attack by eschewing overt and direct language! At least I don't try to hide attacks behind a despicable facade of pretend nice-nice, like you do!
The TRUTH, oh deceitful and duplicitous one, is that Vicki attacked ME for using "unreliable and fraudulent resources" and then SHE UTTERLY REFUSED TO IDENTIFY THE "RESOURCES" THAT SHE ALLEGED WERE "FRAUDULENT"!!
How the holy hell could I possibly respond to that?? How could I possibly defend sources that SHE alleged were fraudulent IF SHE WOULDN'T EVEN TELL ME WHAT THEY WERE!! You are really contemptibly disingenuous, marg!
I asked her over and over and over again to tell me which sources she considered to be fraudulent, BUT SHE SIMPLY WOULD NOT TELL ME! Instead, as PROOF of the vile vindictiveness of her attacks against me, she kept demanding that I list the resources I used so that she could only THEN tell me if they were fraudulent or not! How sad it must be to be you, marg, shilling for such a deplorably dishonest cheat and evader just because you hate me!
The reason, oh contemptibly dishonest one, that Vicki kept demanding that I list the source(s), is that she wanted to spring her vengeful attack by pointing and laughing at what she hoped and prayed and expected to be my own embarrassment at using the Bible AND because she didn't want to put into print HERSELF the allegation that the Bible was fraudulent!
Earlier, I had written: "I don't believe the stupid act you are putting on, marg; I think you're just being dishonest. But if you want to admit to stupidity, I guess that's okay with me!"
Now I know that BOTH are true!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
don't understand what the big deal is Re: marg can't stop lying & evading & game-playing -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: marg ®
08/23/2002, 07:48:52
Author Profile Mail author
I don't understand what the big deal is here. The bible is not a resource ..it's an assumption used to proceed with your argument. Your argument is only valid for those who believe the bible to be a true account of a real person..Jesus. So if you are asked what your resources are...everything other than the bible is a resource. Everything within the bible is assumed true for argument sake only.
Modified by marg at Fri, Aug 23, 2002, 08:27:24
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Then why are you attacking ME??? Re: don't understand what the big deal is -- marg Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/23/2002, 10:19:42
Author Profile Mail author
Face it, marg! You attacked me here WITHOUT KNOWING THE FACTS, EXACTLY AS I HAD SAID IN MY FIRST RESPONSE TO YOU!
Vicki is responsible for the lies, unfounded allegations, deceptions and evasions -- AND YOU JUST KEPT DEFENDING HER AND CLUELESSLY ATTACKING ME!
Where is YOUR intellectual integrity, marg??
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Then why are you attacking ME??? Re: Then why are you attacking ME??? -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: marg ®
08/23/2002, 11:23:01
Author Profile Mail author
As far as your argument goes I don't understand what the big deal is. You've made an assumption in order to draw out a conclusion..there is nothing wrong with that. It is irrelevant whether the stories within the bible are true or not...for argument sake you are assuming them to be true and if true along with additional premises it follows ..such and such a conclusion is (conditionally) true.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
*** LIAR!!! *** Re: Re: Then why are you attacking ME??? -- marg Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/23/2002, 11:30:51
Author Profile Mail author
She only NOW asserts (quite dishonestly): "My criticism of you is your use of personal attacks on the person you are discussing something with..I am not attacking your argument."
BUT that is proved to be an outright LIE when we we actually look and see that she had launched the thread with this post: Cal, let's be honest here..., from which I will now quote:
Martin was not intellectually honest with her...So we see that you are a liar, marg.
And you have evaded a great many points I raised with you, including the most recent ones from the post you are so dishonestly replying to, which I will repeat:
Tell all that to Vicki and apologize to ME for attacking ME for HER lies, errors and deceptions!
Face it, marg! You attacked me here WITHOUT KNOWING THE FACTS, EXACTLY AS I HAD SAID IN MY FIRST RESPONSE TO YOU!
Vicki is responsible for the lies, unfounded allegations, deceptions and evasions -- AND YOU JUST KEPT DEFENDING HER AND CLUELESSLY ATTACKING ME!
Where is YOUR intellectual integrity, marg??
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: *** LIAR!!! *** Re: *** LIAR!!! *** -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: marg ®
08/23/2002, 11:36:57
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: *** LIAR!!! *** Re: Re: *** LIAR!!! *** -- marg Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/23/2002, 12:08:35
Author Profile Mail author
She only NOW asserted (quite dishonestly): "My criticism of you is your use of personal attacks on the person you are discussing something with..I am not attacking your argument."
BUT that is proved to be an outright LIE when we we actually look and see that she had launched the thread with this post: Cal, let's be honest here..., from which I will now quote:
Martin was not intellectually honest with her...So we see that you are a liar, marg.
And you have evaded a great many points I raised with you, including the most recent ones from the post you are so dishonestly replying to, which I will repeat:
Tell all that to Vicki and apologize to ME for attacking ME for HER lies, errors and deceptions!
Face it, marg! You attacked me here WITHOUT KNOWING THE FACTS, EXACTLY AS I HAD SAID IN MY FIRST RESPONSE TO YOU!
Vicki is responsible for the lies, unfounded allegations, deceptions and evasions -- AND YOU JUST KEPT DEFENDING HER AND CLUELESSLY ATTACKING ME!
Where is YOUR intellectual integrity, marg??
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
She DISAGREED with you! Re: Then why are you attacking ME??? -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/23/2002, 11:59:56
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Furthermore... Re: don't understand what the big deal is -- marg Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/23/2002, 11:00:34
Author Profile Mail author
Over and over again, marg, you have demonstrated that you don't know the facts and thus cannot possibly have had a legitimate, honest reason for attacking my honesty as you did in the first place! What you have repeatedly done instead is demonstrated that you are a busybody attacking my dishonesty without any evidence or foundation, which is itself MANIFESTLY dishonest!
And the proof that you attacked my honesty for no valid reason is further borne out in your post above wherein everything you say is only a valid criticism of Vicki -- YET YOU DIRECT IT AT ME! How "intellectually honest" is that, marg?
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Let's get out stories straight, okay? Re: Furthermore... -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/23/2002, 11:06:31
Author Profile Mail author
I see you're still at it. Let's get out stories straight, okay? The first time I posted the remark about your material I stated it in just the way you said. And it looked like this...
Then my challenge was valid
Re: Re: Apples, oranges, let me try -- Martin Post Reply Top of thread Forum
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/18/2002, 10:41:10--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author Profile Mail author Edit
Martin,
According to what you've written here concerning burden of proof then my challenge (and it was never an authentic challenge to begin with I simply said it was up for grabs in my mind and you wrongly interpreted it as a challenge and proceeded to take the ball and run with it) was fully valid for yours was the least popular and extaordinary claim. That and the fact that you knowingly used unreliable and fraudulent resources to make your claim. That must mean, if I am following you here, that my "challenge" was valid and that I owed you no counter proof. You infact, needed to supply more substantial evidence which you did not. At this juncture, that's how it looks from this side.Vicki
The very next time I repeated it I realized I had not been clear in my position and stated it like this:You just crossed a line
Re: What crap! -- Jersey Girl Post Reply Top of thread Forum
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/18/2002, 12:48:09--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author Profile Mail author Edit
Martin,
Tell me, no, tell all of us once again that you attack ideas and not people and I'll laugh you square in the face! Once again you have VIOLATED PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS conducted off line in an effort to belittle and undermine me publicly, you irresponsible sorry excuse for an honest man! If you do not have the capacity to separate private matters from public discussions then your integrity and credibility are totally shot to hell here. How DARE you go there in this public place! How pathetically underhanded you are. Are there no limits to how LOW you will stoop? Strong arm someone else, this girl's not buying it!You did indeed use unreliable sources to support the claim you made. And by your own judgement, not mine, they are fraudulent as well. I stand by that completely.
Now, pull your egomanical head out of your ass, stay on the damned topic and keep private matters OFF THE DAMNED BOARD!
Vicki
_______________________________________________________________
I maintained that position throughout the thread. What you say to marg about me believing the Bible to be true and reliable, is wrong. I said so on the thread in question. If you will be still for a moment, I'm going to repost here what I stated my points were on the thread in question. Can you sit still that long?
Vicki
(this is kind of a choppy c/p job)
Modified by Jersey Girl at Fri, Aug 23, 2002, 11:20:51
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Here's the post my points, my reasoning Re: Let's get out stories straight, okay? -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/23/2002, 11:12:52
Author Profile Mail author
I'm going to repost the points and my reasoning as I stated them in a post to rdl. Now, I need you to be still again and refrain from comment until I go back and edit the post I just made before this one. I want to c/p the original statement I made and then the second when I added clarification as well as the headers or whatever they're called. Please wait until I'm done. I'll post a n/t "Done" when...I'm done.
HERE IS THE MAIN POINT
Re: interjection -- rdl Post Reply Top of thread Forum
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/20/2002, 04:16:53--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author Profile Mail author Edit
Rdl,
Here is the point I am trying to make. Martin used a piece of unreliable material (The Bible) and what *he* NOT I judge to be a piece of fraudulent literary fiction to support an assertion he brought to the table and presented as historical/actual fact. If the Biblical translations are in error then the Bible, which he used as the centerpiece of his assertion renders his entire assertion weak. If he claims, as he has done for all his time here and which I FULLY AGREE with him, that the translations are unreliable then the translation of the word pais must also be considered unreliable. In other accounts a different word is used to translate the word "servant" either the translations are in error or there were TWO accounts and TWO centurions and TWO servants or the authors were appealing to TWO different audiences. One can not prove an assertion of this kind with any amount of reasonable doubt when there are that many variables within the context of the portions of scriptures one is using. One can take it down various paths depending on what one is attempting to portray BUT it can NOT be PROVED beyond a reasonable doubt without ignoring the remaining variables that exist. Do you begin to see what I'm getting at?Let me try once more...you can NOT isolate a portion of scripture that has a corresponding account in another Gospel and when there are TWO words used to describe "servant" and insist that ONE is more correct than the other simply because it FITS YOUR ASSERTION nor can you pedal this off as proof of reliability when by your own admission the Bible texts are unreliable due to TRANSLATION ERRORS!
You can NOT have it both ways. And THAT is why the entire issue of the relationship between the Centurion and his servant did and still does remain up for grabs in my mind because you can take the TWO portions of scripture and the TWO words used that today translate to the word "servant" and use them to "prove" TWO DIFFERENT ASSERTIONS. You can NOT turn a blind eye to one and focus entirely on the other.Additionally, you can not attempt to read the mind of Jesus Christ and assert that he KNEW the relationship was what you identify it as and APPROVED of the relationship because of an ABSENCE OF CONDEMNATION because it FITS YOUR ASSERTION in a piece of material that is ALREADY DEEMED UNRELIABLE due to TRANSLATION errors.
Does anyone else see what the bloody hell it is I'm saying?
I remain unconvinced of Martin's initial assertion because of the reasons given above. He has taken it as a personal affront and that is understandable but he is wrong. He allows himself free reign here to attack both the ideas and character of others and accuse them of intellectual dishonest and says he is just trying to get at the unvarnished truth yet, when his ideas or his methods are challenged suddenly the other poster has some kind of personal vendetta against him. I have NOT attacked him as a person I have attacked HIS IDEAS and HIS METHODS and I will NOT be mischaracterized on this thread for disagreeing with him and pointing out his errors. I will NOT stand down from my position here until and unless he puts aside his personal attack and chooses address the points I've made like a civilized and forthright civilized human being.Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Done (with p.s.) Re: Here's the post my points, my reasoning -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/23/2002, 11:23:38
Author Profile Mail author
It's so nice to come home after a 10 hour workday and find attack emails in my mailbox. Several of the statements you made were in error. If you're going to attack the shit out of me via email don't tie my hands behind my back from responding.
Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
More lies Re: Done (with p.s.) -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/23/2002, 12:24:54
Author Profile Mail author
There was no attack there, only my honest expression of hope that you would seek the help you need and the reasons I believe you need such assistance considering what you have undergone.
And the reason I blocked your emails is that all you do is lie and deny and evade in them anyway, and you're already doing more than enough of that right here.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
There were TWO Re: More lies -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/23/2002, 12:26:41
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Here is MY response which demolished yours! Re: Here's the post my points, my reasoning -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/23/2002, 12:15:51
Author Profile Mail author
That is the same pattern of your extreme form of denial that we've all seen before. When you have been proven to be wrong, you suddenly come up with an argument you have never even mentioned previously! Do you not think we can see your evasive and deceptive game playing for what it is?
The word pais WAS mistranslated to English in the Bible!! That was one of my main points!!!
HILARIOUS! It's fun to watch you duck and evade and lie and misdirect so fearfully, it really is. Your games are quite pathetic and laughable.
The correct idiomatic translation, oh vindictive liar and foot-shooter, is "junior partner in a homosexual relationship"!
But the KEY POINT is that I USED THE WORD PAIS DIRECTLY AS IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL, UNTRANSLATED SOURCE! The author of the Gospel of Matthew actually used the Greek word pais in the original!
Your foolish carping about tranlations is absurd!
And your arguments involving the author of Luke's version versus the author of Matthew's versions ARE ALSO HILARIOUS! It's great fun to watch you shoot yourself in the foot so enthusiastically! In "Matthew's" version, the author used the word pais, the idiomatic word for "junior partner in a homosexual relationship" but the passionate love between the two males is left implied. In "Luke's" version, the author used the generic, non-idiomatic word for servant, thus affirming that the relationship was between master and servant! The difference is exactly as if one author used the term "Black" and the other used the term "African American"! THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION AT ALL BETWEEN PAIS and DOULOS IN THAT CONTEXT!! Furthermore, the author of "Luke" EMPHASIZES the great love between the centurion and his boy-servant, which backs up "Matthew's" story completely! The two stories are fully concordant and do NOT contradict each other!!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Yeah right! Re: Here is MY response which demolished yours! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/23/2002, 12:18:47
Author Profile Mail author
We have no original Bible texts ergo...we have no reliable translations. What we have is the translation of a patch job. Do you see?
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Fri, Aug 23, 2002, 12:19:28
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
HILARIOUS!!! Re: Yeah right! -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/23/2002, 12:35:11
Author Profile Mail author
And your TOTAL IDIOCY about "translations" is pure, irrelevant horseshit!!
The Greek word pais IS RIGHT THERE IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT! There WAS NO PREVIOUS SOURCE FROM WHICH THE WORD "PAIS" WAS TRANSLATED!!!
Your ignorance is vast indeed!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
There ARE NO original texts! Re: HILARIOUS!!! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/23/2002, 12:38:16
Author Profile Mail author
Vicki
p.s. I'll come back to this in a few, gotta do chick stuff.
Modified by Jersey Girl at Fri, Aug 23, 2002, 12:41:15
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
WRONG!! Re: There ARE NO original texts! -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/23/2002, 13:44:08
Author Profile Mail author
There have been, mostly before the modern era, those that insisted that the original Gospel of "Matthew" was written in Hebrew, but those claims do not stand up well to careful scrutiny. The most reliable and cogent scholarship insists that the Gospel of "Matthew" was written in Greek and was NOT translated from any previous source.
See An Overview Of The Gospel Of Matthew
Some have alleged that Matthew's gospel was originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek by an unknown translator. This hypothesis stems from a statement made by Papias around A.D. 125 that Matthew had written sayings of the Lord, logia, in the Hebrew language. [But Papias was considered by some Church fathers to be a credulous and unreliable source.] Perhaps Matthew did write a Hebrew document with a collection of Jesus' sayings. This, however, does not mean that document was necessarily what we now know as the Gospel of Matthew. If the apostle Matthew did indeed write a Hebrew Gospel as alleged, being an apostle his Hebrew Gospel would have certainly been used and circulated within the ancient church. Yet no one in ancient antiquity ever saw such a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. The effort to prove on the basis of linguistic evidence that Matthew's gospel was translated from a Hebrew original into the present Greek text has proven to be unsuccessful. Linguistic scholars have indicated the Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew reads like a Greek original.The best evidence tells us that the Gospel of "Matthew" was written in Greek and the only Hebrew portions of the original text were in the form of quotations of the "Old Testaement".According to an indirect quotation from The Dead Sea Scrolls, a New Translation, Greek was the lingua franca of that time and place, and there can be no question that the Gospel authors wanted to spread their message as widely as possible and so they would have written in Greek. It is thought that many if not most, Jews of Palestine knew Greek least passably and few gentiles knew any Hebrew at all (and they knew Aramaic even less, I understand), so writing in Greek was the only sensible thing to do!
In fact, I've seen it reported about The Dead Sea Scrolls, a New Translation that the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek, and I am aware of no information to dispute that.
And even in the unlikely case that "Matthew" was originally written in Hebrew, the fact of the matter is that every single person to ever quote from that Gospel -- right from the very beginning -- found it to be written in Greek, and no one has ever reported seeing it in Hebrew!
- - - -
The above was for honest thinkers, not you, Vicki. Your post is filled with still more LIES! Your biggest lie is in writing "These are the VERY SAME arguments YOU use to claim the Bible is FRAUDULENT!"
That's pure bullshit, Vicki! PROVE THAT CLAIM!! Your lies are intolerable!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
HALLELUJAH!!!!! HE SPEAKS!!!!!!! Re: WRONG!! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/23/2002, 13:49:02
Author Profile Mail author
THATS what I was looking for! I don't recall your offering that reference to me in the discussion on Darr's thread! Did you? (I can't stay here much longer, I have a long yet a wonderful day ahead of me tomorrow). I'd like to finish this dialogue though...be right back. (Still doing chick stuff)
Vicki
p.s. answer that...did you offer it to me in Darr's thread? I don't think that you did.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You don't have to dig up the posts Re: HALLELUJAH!!!!! HE SPEAKS!!!!!!! -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/23/2002, 14:11:49
Author Profile Mail author
Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: You don't have to dig up the posts Re: You don't have to dig up the posts -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/23/2002, 14:14:54
Author Profile Mail author
- - -
Excerpts from Vicki's earlier thread. First, Between here and there
Hi folks,It's really very sad that Vicki can't obey the dictates of her own "epiphany" for more than a day or two, but it is not surprising to me in the least!
This post will be completley opinion based and stems from the convergence of several things going on around me at once. Some up here in cyberspace and some that just came up recently on the ground the other night. I do not claim to speak for all believers, I wish to speak only for myself. I'm typing with paint on my hands since I just got in from work but I'm afraid if I don't get this up right now the ideas will fade and it's important to me that I do it now for other reasons that I hope will be apparent. Maybe it was an epiphany of sorts...Anyway, I guess what I want to say is that while some of us are striving toward "the goal" (the hierarchy or the corner) we shouldn't forget how important it is to strive in this life. And use the struggle we have to facilitate the striving toward developing ourselves, our talents and skills while we are here. And trying to do some good with it. And if we are somehow more able, to offer our assistance to someone who is not.
I get so stuck on minor and petty things sometimes that my focus becomes turned completely inward. I am sure that pride is a main factor in that. Then I realize how much time I wasted being stuck and not letting go of the small stuff....
I want to apologize for my conduct over the last few days here. I spent too much time stuck and there are so many other things to do, to discuss and to figure out... Anyway, I will try once again to raise my own bar here. Life has so much crap to it but so many rewards that come from out of nowhere. Better to raise the bar so I don't get so stuck on petty things and turn inward otherwise I could waste so much time and not notice when those rewards come to me.
There are people who have far worse problems then feeling they are mischaracterized. I am sorry that I glutted the board with my posts... Life is too short for this.
Sincerely,
VickiBut let's take a look at her hypothetical "transcript" of her conversation with God, from Yeah, exactly:
If there could have been a verbal conversation between God and me this morning it would have gone something like this:G: Remember what happened the other night? I don't think that you do. Here, I'll send her back to you so you won't forget.
. . .
G: And what did I teach you to do with the time you have left?
V: To use it wisely.
G: And what have you done with it recently?
V: I wasted it.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
It is NOT irrelevant, answer me Re: Re: You don't have to dig up the posts -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/23/2002, 14:19:49
Author Profile Mail author
