| How sad |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Ramona ® 12/06/2002, 08:05:59 Author Profile Mail author |
An e-mail precipitated this posting. I received a post about a month ago that greatly disturbed me. A person wrote telling me of her desire to post, but her fear of attack by some. How sad that this is what the forum has become. A place not for exchange of ideas and personal growth, but a place to be attacked for spelling error, or difference of opinion. I admit to my own part in this. I apologize to those that failed to post because of my behavior. I am also greatly disturbed by the increasing trend to block/censor people. A certain person behaves in an abusive and vulgar manner and purposefully misrepresents another's character, then blocks/censors a rebuttal. The trend to block rises until what? No Voices are heard? Is this the best we are able to function? We have inbreed our beliefs. How many times has Vicki requested a Believer and no voice is heard? Doesn't anybody else wonder where the voices have all gone and why? Just thinking out loud,
|
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: How sad Re: How sad -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/06/2002, 08:35:26
Author Profile Mail author
Since I am one of the 'blockers' I felt necessary to respond.
Why do you think I shouldn't block a person you described as 'abusive and vulgar'?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Rebuttals Re: Re: How sad -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
12/06/2002, 08:54:54
Author Profile Mail author
I have corrsponded with you and others for awhile. You are actually quite thoughtful. I don't think you are the one that is being abusive or vulgar. What she said was someone that is abusive and vulgar, and misrepresents another, and then blocks a rebuttal. (From the victim)No, I don't think you do this. If you block a response from someone that is habitually rude to you I think that is right. Especially if you haven't done any provoking. I haven't experienced it from you. I think I have misread your statement recently, but that wasn't on purpose on your part.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Rebuttals Re: Rebuttals -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/06/2002, 09:14:35
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Rebuttals (extended) Re: Rebuttals -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/06/2002, 09:43:01
Author Profile Mail author
I believe you may be missing some important history here. Many outrageous claims and flagrantly dishonest posts by Ramona (which she for the first time here commendably admits, for which I applaud her) and Bahman and a small number of others have often brought myself (and to a lesser extent a few others) to sharp anger or hurt. There are times when I reacted to those reckless, dishonest, and outrageous claims too quickly and harshly, but I am always quick to apologize and quick to overcome my outrage once the other party makes a genuine effort to meet me part way.
Ramona, Bahman, and a small number of others have at one time or another each posted many such egregiously offensive and/or outrageous, insulting claims and blatant falsehoods and then refuse to own up to their offensive behavior and try to reduce the heat but instead simply vilify me horrendously and block my posts.
When I choose to block someone, it is first and foremost part of an attempt to cool things off or to limit the growth of the hostilities pending the return of cooler heads. But it is always with the goal in mind of removing those blocks before too long (except perhaps in the case of Ramona, who has a long and sordid history of vicious, vengeful, unprovoked, mean-spirited hit-and-run attack posts from out of the blue).
But there have been a many occasions when I felt that their posts (I'm thinking of Bahman and Aaron specifically at the moment) that called for a very positive and lauditory response, but was still blocked -- in Bahman's case, for perhaps a year or more. But in either case, I don't let the fact that I'm blocked prevent me from voicing my response, so the utility of the block is somewhat questionable.
All in all, I don't have too much of a problem with people electing to use the block feature. But Ramona's ludicrous allegation that it amounts to censorship or attempted censorship is quite overblown since it never prohibits someone from saying whatever they want; it only affects where the post can be placed.
I believe that if it is indeed true that some people have departed or failed to post out of fear, the only fear they could be referring to is the fear that their ideas will be not be meekly accepted without challenge or contention. This is exactly parallel to the case of Jrmh, who (and he's hardly alone in this view) feels that this should be some kind of "witnessing" board where nobody ever challenges anything anyone says or subjects it to informed, critical examination.
Let me quote an excerpt from the page which explains the purpose and goals of this site, from: To think or to follow: (A mission statement for 2think.org)
For a person to become what they are -- rather than what society makes them out to be -- individual responsibility and courage are required. To become what you really are, you can't just go along with the flow and do what seems to be the most popular. Certainly, good ideas and such should be borrowed and incorporated into one's personal philosophy. To find those good ideas, however, requires a willingness to think, a willingness to change, and courage to explore.The people who complain about the bracing air here and fear to walk here or imagine that this board is not supposed to be one for even contentious debate, simply lack a willingness to think, a willingness to change, and courage to explore!
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Sat, Dec 07, 2002, 19:09:27
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Do you object to my speaking candidly Re: Re: Rebuttals (extended) -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
12/06/2002, 09:47:04
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
It seems to me you already have Re: Do you object to my speaking candidly -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/06/2002, 09:57:27
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I'll be brief Re: It seems to me you already have -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
12/06/2002, 10:02:00
Author Profile Mail author
You stated above that you choose to block someone to let things cool down. When you do that it feels like you're throwing up a wall and playing games. It would be better if you'd just post "I'm not interested" or "I'm pulling out of this so I can cool down" and communicate. I know you, I believe what you say about why you block someone but the person on the other end can't read your mind. While you're cooling down, the other guy is getting increasingly annoyed with you. And when you consider someone like me, nothing cools down. I'm just going to sit around and keep coming back to it until an issue is resolved. You're exactly the same way.
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Fri, Dec 06, 2002, 10:09:46
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
No, Martin Re: Re: Rebuttals (extended) -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
12/06/2002, 11:23:05
Author Profile Mail author
While the explanations you give here about why you choose to block posters may be true they don't account for your approach to being blocked. You say here that you block to reduce hostilities and at the same time you say that you don't let the block prevent you from voicing your opinions to people like Bahman or Aaron or whomever. Martin, do you consider that they are using the block to allow things to cool down as well? Perhaps it would be better to stop posting to them for awhile since it might appear to them that you're not respecting their right to disengage from you? Not respecting their "space". Too often you view a situation only from your own perspective.
Your description of your actions following a heated situation aren't evidenced in your interaction with me here. You speak of sharp anger and hurt. You say that when someone is willing to meet you half way you are quick to apologize. This is not what's taken place between you and I. The first offense on this board was yours, not mine. It hurt me tremendously, in a personal way and began the rift that continues to this day. I've met you halfway several times, I've apologized to you probably three times in the last 4 months. You have yet to acknowledge your offenses to me nor have you apologized for them. What we've got here now are two good friends grumbling incessantly in public for no good reason with their communication "blocked". Stuck, when all could have been easily resolved.
I appreciate your posting the mission statement for 2think. There is a huge difference between contentious arguments (which I'm the first to admit to. I engage in them, I initiate them, I like them!) and abuse of a person. Hurling insults and making personal attacks on a person (instead of picking apart their ideas and perspectives) does little to encourage thought. It quite obviously makes people recoil. We're supposed to be discussing and debating points here, not the personality or character of the person on the otherside of the screen. Nor should we be using offline dialogue as a means of calling the other person's motives into question or referring to it in any fashion, which was our ongoing agreement. If we stick with that, people will fall of their own weight in no time flat. They will see that they're perspective isn't sound, their points easily challenged and they'll either leave or hopefully, rethink their points and perspectives and bring them back to the table.
I agree that some people don't go at this realistically and think that because they're challenged they're not welcome. I rather liked the reception I met up with here, but then...I'm a Jersey Girl.
Sincerely,
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Fri, Dec 06, 2002, 12:20:29
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You are not telling the truth, Vicki, as usual Re: No, Martin -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/06/2002, 12:24:31
Author Profile Mail author
You have demonstrated beyond all doubt and over and over again that you are simply incapable of genuine honesty when it comes to your own history of lies, distortions, denial, evasions, double-talk, game-playing, and other assorted offenses. Every time we've tried to work this out, privately or publicly, you have ALWAYS quickly resorted to psychological projection and blaming ME for your own flaws and errors and deceptions.
Since your serious problem with psychopathological denial has not yet been treated, let alone resolved, your age-old pattern of evasion and denial will continue to make genuine dialog impossible. For that reason, I am blocking you yet again.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Yes, I am, Martin (ammended) Re: No, Martin -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
12/06/2002, 12:48:39
Author Profile Mail author
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Fri, Dec 06, 2002, 14:14:12
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You are a total stranger to self-honesty Re: Yes, I am, Martin (ammended) -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/06/2002, 18:15:13
Author Profile Mail author
The TRUTH is, Vicki, that:(1) You mocked me mildly in one of your posts,
(2) I replied that I certainly had it coming, and then
(3) you blatantly LIED REPEATEDLY over the course of WEEKS and MONTHS, dishonestly insisting ever since that long-ago day that you had never -- NEVER -- up to well past that time even for the most fleeting instant held even the tiniest of negative thoughts about your deeply idolized and romantically beloved Martin -- which was as big a crock of shit then as you are now!
I have no interest in further feeding your delusional and pathological obsession.
Find yourself a life and leave me out of it!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You are a total stranger to the truth Re: Yes, I am, Martin (ammended) -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
12/06/2002, 22:01:42
Author Profile Mail author
You can't rewrite history and if I'm obsessed with anything, it's the truth which you haven't told here. I won't be slandered by you or anyone.
1. You referred to offline discussions here on the board.
2. I asked you to take it off the board and asked you to
explain your remark.
3. You gave a response that had nothing whatsoever to do
with discussions here or there.
4. I quickly typed out a reply to you here on the board that
referred to two threads in one poorly written sentence.
5. You went off like a bottle rocket, and never stopped.I don't "idolize" you nor were you (or are you) my "romantically beloved" Martin. You dare imply that there was anything inappropriate between us? That's incredibly despicable and sleazy of you! We had a good friendship. I already have a life. One of my friends is gone and has taken to slandering me on this board. To prove what? That you're "right"? There is nothing right in your words here or your behavior.
Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
You mean this kind of genuine dialogue? Re: No, Martin -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
12/06/2002, 13:02:26
Author Profile Mail author
Sick LYING Bitch!
You mean THAT kind of genuine dialogue, Martin?
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Fri, Dec 06, 2002, 13:16:19
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Dialogue? Really? Re: You mean this kind of genuine dialogue? -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
12/06/2002, 23:09:49
Author Profile Mail author
Perhaps I'm getting old, but I long for the good 'ole days.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Dialogue? Really? Re: Dialogue? Really? -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
12/11/2002, 05:34:31
Author Profile Mail author
Old? You can't be old.. :-)
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Dialogue? Really? Re: Re: Dialogue? Really? -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/11/2002, 17:38:41
Author Profile Mail author
As our wise friend Mensch has correctly observed above, there are many cases where the person making the argument -- because of their own lack of credibility -- often invalidates the argument's credibility merely by advancing or defending it. Vines and Ramona are two prime examples.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Incorrect conclusion Re: Re: Dialogue? Really? -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
12/12/2002, 08:44:45
Author Profile Mail author
The flawed approach is to attack the bearer of the words rather than the words themselves. Ad hominem is the anthesis of evaluation of ideas or proposals.
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1.Person A makes claim X.
2.Person B makes an attack on person A.
3.Therefore A's claim is false.The reason an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"
Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with his/her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:
1.Person A makes claim X.
2.Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3.Therefore X is false.The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he/she makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.
Examples of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
1.Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start."
Jill: "Well, I certainly don't want to get cancer."
Bill: "I'm going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?"
Jill: "Well, I guess smoking can't be that bad. After all, Bill smokes."2.Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."
Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."3.Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Please review your OWN words, JAK Re: Incorrect conclusion -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/12/2002, 12:49:04
Author Profile Mail author
Why do you persist in considering me such a fool that you imagine I'm not aware of the pedantic rules of pedantic debate?Were this actually an "academic discussion" forum, your words might be relevant, but your pedantry is utterly misplaced here in this open, public forum of non-academics.
I'd like once again to encourage you to find an idealized academic journal in which to engage in your idealized academic discussions. When you examine any real ones, you will discover that not even the most respected academics are so free of passion that they engage is such effete pedantry as you imagine they do.
Please also see: This is not a formal debate club
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Dear Martin. Yours’ is not a case of contentious Re: Re: Rebuttals (extended) -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: jesse ®
12/07/2002, 04:35:45
Author Profile Mail author
If someone makes "dishonest, and outrageous claims" here your job should be to point this out and help others to see it too. I don’t think it calls for insulting.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: How sad Re: How sad -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
12/06/2002, 08:56:55
Author Profile Mail author
There is not much balance in that sense. Most of the LDS voices have moved on to ZLMB, or NOM, or made their own boards. They don't find this environment to be conducive to discussing the real problems and realities LDS face. This board, as far as content, has basically nothing or very little to do with the LDS reality.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I can see that Re: Re: How sad -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
12/06/2002, 09:16:14
Author Profile Mail author
I think I can see that. I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time on some board where I didn't feel welcome, or discussed things I wasn't interested in.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Mormonism... Re: I can see that -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/07/2002, 19:19:40
Author Profile Mail author
Furthermore, as has been brought out quite recently, this board is NOT and has never BEEN intended merely to discuss the LDS Church and Mormon theology. What is today a single board had formerly been two separate fora, one of which was the "Mormonism and Theology Forum" (which as the name makes plain was never intended to focus exclusively on Mormon theology), and the other was the "Books, Ethics, Science, and Philosophy Forum". Both sets of topics are still being discussed.
As is entirely typical for him, Vines yet again failed to paint even a minimally accurate picture.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Sat, Dec 07, 2002, 19:26:45
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Why must Vines resort to LIES and stupidity? Re: Mormonism... -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/08/2002, 07:09:26
Author Profile Mail author
The real truth, your crankship Vines, is that I asked for help from the board in talking to my niece because she was young and because she was right in the center of the missionary conversion process, and I wanted advice from those who had actually gone through that on what TYPES of arguments to bring up and which not to bring up in that specific situation. I did not ask because I didn't already know a very great deal about the LDS Church and its threology and its fraudulent history and also know VASTLY more than my neice did about the subject.
The fact that you're clearly far too dull-witted and/or disingenuous to know that and to tell the truth about it is just more proof of what a vile wretch of a lackwit crackpot you are.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Martin doesn't even know Mormonism Re: I can see that -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
12/07/2002, 22:45:21
Author Profile Mail author
Well, hello, I thought this forum was established to discuss things about Mormonism. Isn't this part of the "Mormon Ring" thing? Isn't that how people are attracted to this board?
I think Martin is dodging the issue.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: How sad Re: How sad -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/06/2002, 09:13:17
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Before this continues Re: How sad -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
12/06/2002, 09:27:34
Author Profile Mail author
Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Before this continues Re: Before this continues -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
12/06/2002, 23:14:18
Author Profile Mail author
The e-mailer was most certainly not you. This person posted once, then was "attacked." She no longer bothers, because she feels her words will be twisted, manipulated, and otherwise altered. She does not want to argue, but discuss. I can't blame her.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Blocking Re: How sad -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
12/06/2002, 09:34:04
Author Profile Mail author
If they were to return, and should it cause mayhem on the threads I'd most likely unblock them and just ignore them. Why disrupt the discussions (and screw everyone up) when you can just stop responding to a person?Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Fri, Dec 06, 2002, 09:35:53
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
More than one way to skin . . .! Re: Blocking -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/06/2002, 10:10:45
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Three steps away from Forum 1 Re: How sad -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
12/06/2002, 09:55:28
Author Profile Mail author
There are probably three believers left here. jesse, myself and Jrmh. There are middle of the roaders like Ramona and I think James falls into that category as well. If I missed anyone, I apologize.
When I came here I thought I was the only believer on the forum, maybe it just felt like that. I've seen alot of believers come and go. Most of them don't have the stomach for even the sorts of exchanges that involved me in my early days here. I fended off several posters at once (ususally JAK, Craig, Gunnar, and Martin and other transient posters who chose to jump on the bandwagon) for months and months. I was like the proverbial duck in the shooting gallery.
I've pretty much got the gut for just about anything that comes my way here. Nothing scares me but it does become tiresome. Recently I stated on a post below that I was feeling out numbered, that I was taking things too personally, feeling worn out and taking a short break so I could come back with a renewed spirit. And I was attacked for that! Sorry folks, but you just can't piss and moan about every little thing!
I think too, that believers might come here looking for a discussion of spirituality and see so many other sorts of Forum 1 type topics. I move that we split back into 2 Forums again.
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Fri, Dec 06, 2002, 09:57:37
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Three steps away from Forum 1 Re: Three steps away from Forum 1 -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
12/11/2002, 05:24:23
Author Profile Mail author
“ When I came here I thought I was the only believer on the forum, maybe it just felt like that. I've seen alot of
believers come and go. Most of them don't have the stomach for even the sorts of exchanges that involved me
in my early days here. I fended off several posters at once (ususally JAK, Craig, Gunnar, and Martin and other
transient posters who chose to jump on the bandwagon) for months and months. I was like the proverbial duck
in the shooting gallery.”Vicki,
It was not you but rather the ideas or positions which you took that were the focus of challenge. In your defense of biblical stories as fact, it was always the lack of evidence for support that was the trouble. So in the end, you chose to declare that you believed that which was contrary to known, documented evidence to the contrary.It was that irrational view which incurred the challenge and analysis of those whom you name in this comment.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Fear of Attack (devil's advocate) Re: How sad -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
12/06/2002, 12:12:13
Author Profile Mail author
I have to ask you to draw out what you mean when you say the emailer said she feared attack? What exactly did she "fear"? She could have protested that here, I would have had her back in a heartbeat. Infact, if it's the person I have in mind, I said as much publicly in a post to her. I have held myself out many times in an effort to welcome new posters, and especially new female posters (no matter what their belief or lack of belief) simply because there aren't enough here to voice a female perspective which I feel is as much needed here as is other believing perspectives.
I have to say what everyone here probably already knows. I have no "fear" of personal attack. I do begin to find it tedious, unproductive and just get disgusted with it. I love a good fight, but a lengthy series of personal attacks isn't a "good" fight. It's a brawl and unbecoming on the part of the attacker.
Vicki
p.s. Do not read this to imply that I haven't engaged in personal attack on this forum. I most certainly have.
Translation for Bahman: "had her back"...supported her ;)
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Fri, Dec 06, 2002, 12:13:15
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Oh, Easterners! Re: Fear of Attack (devil's advocate) -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/06/2002, 12:41:22
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
LOL Bahman! Re: Oh, Easterners! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
12/06/2002, 12:52:42
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Fear of Attack (devil's advocate) Re: Fear of Attack (devil's advocate) -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
12/06/2002, 23:33:24
Author Profile Mail author
She didn't just fear attack, she knew that she would receive it. And, she did. Limitations which need not be mentioned, do not allow all participants to engage as some are able. Are those words somehow less valuable? No, but the attack makes it not worth the extreme effort that some make, just to post.
For two years I have seen T.V. post as a true gentleman. I hope this does not embarrass you good sir. Regardless of difference in belief system, he allows for differences and explains why he feels differently, or why the opposing belief is in error. I would call that honest intellectual inquiry, without abuse. Does T.V. challenge opposing belief? Yes, but without personal attack that is unnecessary.
I entered the forum to work out some of my own issues with religion, specifically Jesus Christ. I had hoped to bounce ideas off of others. I never got that. I quickly learned instead, to fight or be devoured. I am still horrified by some of the language I used towards others and my approach. In real life, I don't behave as such. I should never have done so on the Forum.
I apologize to you Vicki, for some of the nasty crap I have put you through. You didn't deserve it and I was too angry to allow myself to see clearly. Sorry.
Enough of my ramblings,
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
No one is indispensable Re: How sad -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
12/07/2002, 01:02:57
Author Profile Mail author
I think he should look over his way of dealing with people. Many demonstrate patience with posters when the latters' personal character traits emerge negatively. I know that I have benefited from others' patience, and perhaps at one time or another we all have. However, perhaps a dimension of respect is that of not abusing the patience of another.
Martin tends to abuse, and though others are willing to re-build bridges under their own motivation, or thanks to Martin's reaching out, the truth is that patience has limits. If a poster exercises their right to block another, this is their right afforded by this board. It is a good way to disengage and to avoid future contention.
Perhaps Martin believes the content he communicates justifies his behavior. Maybe this is his problem. It sure doesn't correspond to reality. Unprovoked attacks, or attacks justified by an excuse of a sort of righteous indignation over false statements, is a bad excuse for letting go of the inhibitions that limit the expression of our most negative emotions.
As much as this kind of "anger rhetoric" can be effective to make a point, its most definitely a strike one, two, and three scenario. Too much salt on food directs it to the garbage, no matter how much you spend for the contents. Martin is definitely a great scholarly contribution to the forum, but his ideas, as good as they may be at times, are often fit for the trash because of the tone characterizing them.
His statements above that those who can't take it are really not willing, or courageous to be thinkers is a lame excuse aimed at justifying his lack of control, or perhaps not his lack but his desire to just be the way he is.
Unfortunately, this post couldn't but be personal and probably hurtful. No one wants to be publicly denounced. However, if Martin doesn't chill out, he will soon find that he wont be able to respond to a lot of posters because of blocking. He just needs to understand that his words are most definitely not as valuable to anyone as much as his respectful tone.
My suggestion to him: find another way to vent your frustrations, and stop thinking your words are worth the patience. They are not.
Gosh I don't even think Rpcman hangs out here anymore. I'm surprised he still funds a board that has taken on a life that he didn't intend it to have. Martin has much to do with that course. LDS could care less to come here. This board says nothing, or very little of their reality.
TV
Modified by The Vines at Sat, Dec 07, 2002, 01:04:24
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: No one is indispensable Re: No one is indispensable -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
12/10/2002, 15:55:43
Author Profile Mail author
It also seems as if you are prone to buy into persistent anti-American bias like that which seemed evident in the CNN report. If so, why is that? To be sure, American dealings with foreign affairs have not always been without error and selfish self-interest, but I am not at all convinced that Americans have been worse or even as bad in that respect as many other nations. The worst part about the depleted uranium in American artillery shells and armor is that the hatred and unrest currently endemic to that region has caused them to be used at all. Being hit by an artillery shell would definitely put a damper on someone's day, regardless of whether depleted uranium were used in its construction.
Some of this unrest may actually be aggravated by mistakes and injustices in some American policy decisions. I am convinced, though, that the extremists over there who support and justify terrorism against the USA and its allies are secretly delighted that Americans have made such mistakes that they can use as a pretext to justify their own agenda, which includes their own self-aggrandizement and commiting injustices and oppression against the very people on whose behalf they claim to be acting that are far worse than anything Americans would ever have considered doing to them.
Speaking of unfair anti-American bias, one example of that which I encountered during my tour of duty with the USAF in Spain was Spanish reaction to a mysterious epidemic in Madrid and surrounding comunities. The sickness began with flu-like symptoms and eventually resulted in the death of many. Mainly Spaniards were affected, mostly in the lower income classes. None of the American military and diplomatic personnel stationed in the region, of which there were many, ever came down with the disease. The rumor got started that the Americans were secretly conducting germ warfare experiments, using the Spanish population as guinea pigs, while immunizing their own people against the pathogens. To the dismay of their American colleagues stationed as foreign correspondents in Spain, even some of the prominent and supposedly responsible Spanish newspeople bought into and publicized this rumor. Eventually, with (if I remember correctly, the help of American medical personnel), Spanish public health services tracked down the cause to an industrial dye used by one Spanish producer of synthetic olive oil to make their product look more like the real thing. Poorer Spaniards bought this stuff because it was significantly cheaper than real olive oil, and to save additional money, they often bought it in bulk. Even after the true cause of this malady was found and widely publicized, the epidemic continued for a while because the poorer Spaniards who
bought huge, bulk quantities of the stuff did not feel they could afford to throw it all away to replace it before they used it all up, nor could they bear the thought of cooking without their "olive oil." Finally, the Spanish government had to offer to buy all the remaining contaminated oil from those who still had it for the price they originally paid for it, which finally stopped the epidemic. After this was all over, an American journalist took one of his Spanish colleagues to task for so uncritically buying into the false rumor of Americans causing this. The Spaniard was not the slightest bit apologetic. He merely shrugged and said, "Well, it is, after all, the type of behavior of which Americans are capable!"I hope, dear Vines, that your apparently uncritical and persistent acceptance of that CNN report is not evidence that you have tendencies toward the same type of anti-American bias.
Gunnar
Modified by Gunnar at Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 16:11:45
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: No one is indispensable Re: Re: No one is indispensable -- Gunnar Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/11/2002, 19:40:10
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you for an enlightening and well-considered post.
This is not to disagree with what you've said at all, but only to offer some additional perspective. Here are some verbatim excerpts from my replies to Vines' posts re: depleted uranium...
Dear Vines, my old friend,It is a great pleasure to see you back among us! Thanks for your recent posts.
Alas, I must take extreme exception to this one, even though I very much regret that your return is occasioned with an impassioned rebuttal such as this one. But with respect, it is clear that you have been terribly misinformed! It is my goal here to try to combat this dreadful misinformation.
- - -
Vines, it is not my intent to direct my anger and outrage over such a deeply offensive comparison to you as a person, but rather to those who polluted and poisoned your mind to the point where you could bring yourself to compare evil, totalitarian genocides with perfectly reasonable Materials Science.
You owe it to yourself and to your fellow citizens to apply reason and logic to these patently ridiculous claims and to distance yourself from such contemptible nonsense.
- - -
And for the record, the reason I wrote "How dare you!" is that I was deeply offended that the terrible and very real suffering and death that resulted from "ethnic cleansing" and the Holocaust should be compared to a bunch of prancing pansies worried about a tiny bit of fairly benign metal! It disrespects their memories at the very least, with which I'm sure you would agree.
That's why I look forward to your distancing yourself from that position unambiguously.
Respectfully, and with genuine regards,
- Martin
I extended quite reasonable courtesy to Vines, especially considering the extremist and egregious nature of his accusations and tried honestly to engage him in a friendly manner, as you yourself appear to recognize. But as you know, I am far more interested in truth and rationality than politeness for politeness sake.
This is by no means the first time Vines has attacked me and launched a petty crusade against me for the "crime" of not buying his typically quite arrogant and massively over-confident assertions. In our previous run-in, Vines asserted with unbelievable hubris that he knew that V.S. Ramachandran (and every other brain scientist whose views I could find) was completely wrong and intellectually dishonest to claim that hemineglect is NOT blindness. He has a long history of such outrageously preposterous arguments and assertions, and even though I've tried on several occasions to humor and flatter and pamper his extremely delicate sensitivities, he simply can't abide it when I reveal the many and often egregious errors in his claims and reasoning.
And that's what this is all about. More than anything else, he is seeking revenge -- not necessarily with full self-awareness -- in order to assuage his damaged, overly brittle ego.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: How sad Re: How sad -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
12/07/2002, 02:54:28
Author Profile Mail author
The right to block is important; no one should have to listen to what doesn't interest them. I don't think that right should be taken away either. If someone's use of the "block" feature bothers you, it is your right to complain. But it is not some kind of censorship; you still can post your view to the rest of the board. That person simply is preventing you from talking to them. You still can defend yourself to others. Ultimately, if you don't want to read someone's posts, you don't have to, but the block feature doesn't prevent them from talking to the rest of the board.
If enough people are bothered by one person's behavior, and block him/her, it will seriously limit that person's ability to enter debates. If enough people want to hear his/her opinion, however, that simply won't happen. The block feature, if used correctly, can effectively shut out someone that isn't welcome.
I am sorry some people are afraid to post on the board, or perhaps afraid of other posters. I hope I don't contribute to their fear; I try to avoid this type of behavior, as I find it unbecoming. On the other hand, I wish people could take angry words at face value, and not let them scare them away. Block the person you don't want to hear, or don't read their posts. Better yet, learn to look past the emotions. Angry words shouldn't win any arguments; don't let them. By running away when someone responds in an angry fashion, you are conceding, even if you don't agree.
Words are just words. Don't make them more important than they are. If your contributions are more valuable, others will recognize this. I still think one can make a valuable contribution while saying things in a way that offends others, although I would obviously prefer that everyone were nice. I guess that's all I have to say.
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
To Vines, who reverts to his sad old ways Re: Re: How sad -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/07/2002, 09:00:26
Author Profile Mail author
Vines,I see your hypocrisy and arrogance and slurs are just as cheap and dishonorable as ever. You utter your arrogantly presumptuous, absolutist pronouncements as if you speak the Unchallengeable Words of
