Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
It cuts both ways, EE. Both / and, not either / or...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Sure. Thing is, though, Kev, the dichotomy between "both...and" and "either...or" could be a false one. I mean let's not be divisive about this. Let's see all points of view.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
It cuts both ways, EE. Both / and, not either / or...
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:Aha! This explains why you so often eschew it.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It's that pesky logic thing. Don't you just hate it??!
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile
Given they both have their location as the south coast of England, I wonder if SCK & EE are in fact the same person, just demonstrating, respectively, the Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde sides of their personality.
One is the nice, reasonable and well-informed shipmate, the other eclipses any light from the discussion and tries to plunge us into their darkness.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:I won't bother asking you for an example, because I know you can't give one.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Your primary problem is the assumption that you are the very epitome of logic and logical thought, and thus that anything you think, assume or believe must be Correct.
You're like some kind of theological Mr. Spock, thinking that you're right because of your oh-so-fabulous logic but continually missing the fucking point of most of what's going on because you can't grasp that not all things can or should be understood logically. Me, I'll side with Bones any day of the week.
quote:He's calling you stupid, but apparently you're too stupid to...
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I mean, it really doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to work out that if I really did want to use a sockpuppet on this site, I wouldn't put the same area of the same country as my location for both contributors. I mean Duh!!!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
[b]Your primary problem is the assumption that you are the very epitome of logic and logical thought, and thus that anything you think, assume or believe must be Correct.[/QB]
quote:Cute how you go and illustrate Marvin's point for him
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I won't bother asking you for an example, because I know you can't give one.
quote:Personally I don't know for certain that Mary even claimed to be a virgin and have no need of the liar hypothesis to doubt the virgin birth, but given that God chose a murderer to lead Israel out of Egypt and an adulterer to be King, why the hell not?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile
Given they both have their location as the south coast of England, I wonder if SCK & EE are in fact the same person, just demonstrating, respectively, the Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde sides of their personality.
One is the nice, reasonable and well-informed shipmate, the other eclipses any light from the discussion and tries to plunge us into their darkness.
Quite a compliment, coming from someone so dim that he thinks that God chose a liar to be the mother of God incarnate.
quote:Mousethief can answer for himself but I'm happy to use the above succinct summary.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Your primary problem is the assumption that you are the very epitome of logic and logical thought, and thus that anything you think, assume or believe must be Correct.
You're like some kind of theological Mr. Spock, thinking that you're right because of your oh-so-fabulous logic but continually missing the fucking point of most of what's going on because you can't grasp that not all things can or should be understood logically. Me, I'll side with Bones any day of the week.
quote:The thread you linked to in the OP will do.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I won't bother asking you for an example, because I know you can't give one.
quote:All Gamaliel seems to want me to do is express my opinion with the rider that "of course I am not saying that this is true".
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I am not saying this is true'.
quote:Ever since we returned from being suspended, you have been itching to make a point, hence all the warnings you've had. You just can't let it go, can you? You're an obsessive.
Originally posted by Gamaliel
There are none so blind ...
EE, I don't know what you got your degree in, but it certainly wasn't 'Self Awareness' ...
quote:And yet you ask me to "man up" and say what I really mean. When you acknowledge I've already said what I really mean. Conclusion: you blew it off then, just as you're blowing it off now. It doesn't sink in. You can't even recognize it when I lay all my cards on the table and say, "This is what I mean." You think I must mean something else, either because you just didn't hear what I said, or perhaps because it doesn't match your infallible, internal, imaginary "logic."
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You have said all this,
quote:
but unless you give me a specific example of where I am refusing to submit to sound logic, then I haven't a clue what you are on about.
quote:Yes, it's like the Holy Trinity in reverse. The Gamaliel, the Etymology, and the Hate between them that is so animated it becomes a Person in its own right*.
Originally posted by Ariston:
In a strange irony, where once there were two posters, there is now a single unit, dedicated to attacking and destroying itself at the cost of all else.
quote:Could you please reconsider this point? It might be most amusing. A pivot table by catchphrase might come in handy, coupled with conditional formatting depending on the level of evasiveness and bullishness.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not going to keep a spreadsheet of your bluster and dismissals of reasoning.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Truly? Despite being called on this numerous times in numerous threads?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
mousethief -
You have said all this, but unless you give me a specific example of where I am refusing to submit to sound logic, then I haven't a clue what you are on about.
quote:Good. Then it won't be difficult to find examples.
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Truly? Despite being called on this numerous times in numerous threads?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Anyone linking to an excel or similar spreadsheet* gets it, OK?
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:Could you please reconsider this point? It might be most amusing. A pivot table by catchphrase might come in handy, coupled with conditional formatting depending on the level of evasiveness and bullishness.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not going to keep a spreadsheet of your bluster and dismissals of reasoning.
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:Could you please reconsider this point? It might be most amusing. A pivot table by catchphrase might come in handy, coupled with conditional formatting depending on the level of evasiveness and bullishness.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not going to keep a spreadsheet of your bluster and dismissals of reasoning.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:Bluster bluster, roiling cluster
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Good. Then it won't be difficult to find examples.
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Truly? Despite being called on this numerous times in numerous threads?
Or is it a case of bluffers being too afraid to show their hand?
Yep. That's it. What I suspected.
quote:You do realise that responding like a tool fails to help your case?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Good. Then it won't be difficult to find examples.
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Truly? Despite being called on this numerous times in numerous threads?
Or is it a case of bluffers being too afraid to show their hand?
Yep. That's it. What I suspected.
quote:This. When we do cite examples, they get the La la la la I can't hear you because you haven't proved your point sufficiently for my completely self-defined and self-referential so-called 'logic' treatment. (Okay, I admit, EE is not that candid about what he's actually doing.)
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If MT, myself or anyone else cited examples you wouldn't accept them and argue that black is white.
That's the whole point. That's why we lock horns with you so often. Because you don't listen and simply dismiss any 'evidence' that is presented to you unless it accords with your myopic world-view.
quote:Ha ha ha!
Confessed by Gamaliel:
Here, though, I'm afraid his posts do wind me up. He is where I've been. I don't want to be there any more. So I s'pose I've been attacking my own former fundamentalism to an extent.
quote:No? How old is the universe? (Nearest billion)
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
i. a.m. n.o.t. a. f.u.n.d.a.m.e.n.t.a.l.i.s.t.
quote:No, I am sure you are not going to go digging, because looking for evidence is a bit too much like hard work, isn't it? That doesn't stop you from making baseless accusations though, does it?
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Not going to go digging on my phone for specific posts, but I can mention a subject. Science v. Faith.
quote:I don't know, and neither does science.
Originally posted by lilBuddha
How old is the universe? (Nearest billion)
quote:He could also answer my earlier question regarding how he knows he is really using logic and not just fooling himself that he's using logic. Actually I don't think he can.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
EE, why won't you answer either Lilbuddha or mousethief's latest questions?
quote:... Or the rabbit, the lady in the bushes, the sharp pointed object or the alien.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Oh look, EE and Gama having a go at each other in Hell.
That's just so last month. And, the month before that, the month before that, and ... oh, you all get the picture.
It's just so tedious.
It might be advisable if the two of you find something interesting to contribute. Something which isn't just another rerun of old Hell threads. Or the guy with the thermonuclear device under his arm and the big "ADMIN" under his avatar might just need to find something amusing to do with the two of you.
If the big black bird doesn't beat me to it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:So I was wrong to open a hell thread?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell
It might be advisable if the two of you find something interesting to contribute. Something which isn't just another rerun of old Hell threads. Or the guy with the thermonuclear device under his arm and the big "ADMIN" under his avatar might just need to find something amusing to do with the two of you.
quote:I thought you were accusing me of not using logic properly. But now you ask me a question which requires a detailed knowledge of ancient history and archaeology. Archaeological data should be analysed and interpreted logically, of course, and, yes, we need to justify the assumptions we use as tools of interpretation.
Originally posted by mousethief
Name one allegedly historical incident in the Old Testament after the book of Genesis that may not have actually gone down the way it says in the Good Book, and cite historical and/or archaeological evidence showing it didn't really happen the way it says.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have already answered lilBuddha's question, but you seem to have ignored that.
quote:
mousethief asked:
Name one allegedly historical incident in the Old Testament after the book of Genesis that may not have actually gone down the way it says in the Good Book, and cite historical and/or archaeological evidence showing it didn't really happen the way it says.
quote:This is not an answer. It's an attempt to justify the lack of an answer on your part. You have avoided the question altogether.
You said:
I thought you were accusing me of not using logic properly. But now you ask me a question which requires a detailed knowledge of ancient history and archaeology.
quote:Could you explain why I should answer a question about archaeology, when the complaint against me concerns logic?
Originally posted by Eutychus
This is not an answer. It's an attempt to justify the lack of an answer on your part. You have avoided the question altogether.
quote:The question as I understand it is not about logic but about whether you believe all post-Genesis narratives in the Bible to be historically accurate as told, even if there is archaeological evidence to the contrary.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Could you explain why I should answer a question about archaeology, when the complaint against me concerns logic?
quote:Um, not quite. It appears to contradict the current estimates of the age of the universe.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall discovered late last year, which has just blown the Big Bang theory dating to smithereens (not that that would filter through to the popular media, of course).
quote:I don't see why I should answer a loaded question. The question assumes that I have a shell that others would need to "break through". Mousethief goes on to explain about this imaginary shell that he has conjured up for me...
Can you name any time on this ship where somebody broke through your shell, and as a result you changed your mind about some issue of theology? I will be very surprised.
quote:This is all fantasy. If mousethief wants to show me that I am wrong about some issue, then all he has to do is present the evidence.
Your impervious shell, and the entirely internal nature of your "logic," prevent you from seeing where you might be wrong. "Logic" which you alone are the adjudicator of only reinforces your biases. It really isn't logic at all; it's a Wittgensteinian private language that has no external correcting mechanism and thus ultimately no meaning.
quote:Here I was accused of being closed-minded, and yet I was the one on that thread who acknowledged that the evidence was inconclusive (which is true, and no one was able to challenge that, given that there is a conflict between pottery and C14 evidence), and I acknowledged that it is logically possible that the biblical account in question may or may not have been historically accurate. But I was being browbeaten into believing that it was historically inaccurate, even though no convincing evidence was presented to support such a claim.
quote:No, actually I have made clear that the evidence is inconclusive and that 'myth' - properly understood - has a function, which is communicated through accounts which may or may not be historically accurate. As Professor Barr made clear, 'myth' functions independently of the question of historical accuracy, which, of course, is not the same as saying that it is dependent on historical inaccuracy.
Originally posted by goperryrevs
The thing is, EE, the way you're arguing, it comes across as if you have a prior viewpoint, and you're frantically scrabbling round trying to find stuff to back that viewpoint up. The way someone like Doc Tor posts is that he actually has a good and wide grasp of the subject matter, and actually understands the nuances and principles he's talking about.
quote:mousethief couldn't be more wrong if he tried. As I say, if he wants to show me that I am wrong about something, then he can do it in the normal grown-up way, instead of coming out with a load of bullshit about Wittgenstein.
From my reading of archaeology journal articles (and I have looked at quite a few on JSTOR), it is clear that there are huge disagreements about issues of dating, and that much archaeological evidence is inconclusive. Therefore we can only work on the basis of degrees of plausibility.
Which makes the incredibly abusive response to my views all the more ridiculous. Anyone with any scholarly nous should keep an open mind, not fling around accusations of bias etc..
quote:Which is what I said.
Originally posted by Eutychus
The question as I understand it is not about logic...
quote:How am I wriggling? If mousethief has a question about logic, then he can ask it and I will answer it. But instead he asks a question about archaeology! What sort of perversity is that?
Now you're here, the overall complaint, in summary, is the way that you constantly wriggle in an attempt to shift the debate away from the initial question. As you have done with mousethief's above, and as you attempted to do by announcing your intention to run away just now.
quote:I agree with everything you have just written.
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Um, not quite. It appears to contradict the current estimates of the age of the universe.
Who discovered this thing? Scientists. This is how science works. Observations are made, theories are written. More observations are made, theory is adjusted.
quote:Your footwork can be pretty, but it rarely matches the music.
Can I remind you that I started this tangent when you blithely asserted that there was no doubt as to the historicity of the events described in Joshua?
There is doubt by the bucket-load, something you seem to now to be approaching from entirely the other side in that you're claiming that the events described in Joshua might be true.
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce.
quote:Which is true, as it happens.
Originally posted by lilBuddha
First, you still have not answered my questions, either of them.
For the first question you merely said "nobody knows, oooOOoOoooOoOOOoo"
quote:I was simply asking what you mean by the word 'religion'. All you have to do is answer that simple question. Is it unreasonable for someone being questioned to ask for clarification of the question? I don't think that any reasonable person would consider that an act of obfuscation. How ridiculous!
Then you obfuscate by questioning definitions. Are you Bill Clinton?
quote:On the assumption that by 'religion' you mean supernatural ideas, then, yes, the methodology of inference can be applied to both naturalistic and supernaturalistic ideas. After all, if it's possible to infer the existence of an unobserved multiverse, then it is also possible to infer the existence of an intelligent designer.
Where is there an overlap between science and religion?
quote:Not quite. The validity of a repeatable result depends on the assumption of the uniformity of nature and universality of cause and effect, otherwise you cannot infer that the result of an experiment can tell us anything about any context outside of that particular experiment.
Assumptions? For science any repeatable result is valid even should it not support current theory.
quote:This is presumably an attempt at reduction ad absurdum - that is, A implies B, B is absurd, therefore A must be false. In this case "Mary was a liar" being the absurd corollary of Jesus not being born of a virgin.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Quite a compliment, coming from someone so dim that he thinks that God chose a liar to be the mother of God incarnate.
quote:Well, I can only thank you for answering one of mousethief's questions for me.
Originally posted by lilBuddha
I remember that thread EE.
Doc Tor's rebuttal to the post you quoted.
quote:Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce.
Can I remind you that I started this tangent when you blithely asserted that there was no doubt as to the historicity of the events described in Joshua?
There is doubt by the bucket-load, something you seem to now to be approaching from entirely the other side in that you're claiming that the events described in Joshua might be true.
Your footwork can be pretty, but it rarely matches the music.
quote:It would seem that bigoted EE, who is impervious to any view which does not accord with his internal Wittgensteinian language game, changed his point of view on the DH thread. It would appear that people were actually able to break through his "hard shell", and that he was prepared to listen to the evidence.
Can you name any time on this ship where somebody broke through your shell, and as a result you changed your mind about some issue of theology? I will be very surprised.
quote:If he does, you'll distract, obfuscate, or pretend you didn't really say the original wrong thing and really meant something else. As happened on the Joshua thread that you've kindly linked to, and has happened plenty of other times too. So if he can't be bothered to do so, I for one won't hold it against him.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If mousethief wants to show me that I am wrong about some issue, then all he has to do is present the evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I won't bother asking you for an example, because I know you can't give one.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Good. Then it won't be difficult to find examples.
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Truly? Despite being called on this numerous times in numerous threads?
Or is it a case of bluffers being too afraid to show their hand?
Yep. That's it. What I suspected.
quote:These are all examples of this arrogance. You 'know' that your arguments and logic are so fantastically flawless it is impossible that anyone will be able to provide one example of your not living up to that ideal? Fuck me, that's impressive.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:No, I am sure you are not going to go digging, because looking for evidence is a bit too much like hard work, isn't it?
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Not going to go digging on my phone for specific posts, but I can mention a subject. Science v. Faith.
quote:No, it's not. I thought I'd made it clear. My problem is rarely with what you say, but how you say it, and how you go about discussing/defending it.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
That is what you want me to say.
quote:Of course.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So it's OK for me to believe that the account is historical then?
quote:Of course not.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Or that I shouldn't defend this idea when challenged about it?
quote:Pointing out one instance where you got it right does not negate the many other times when you didn't.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
That is what I did actually say!
quote:I guess it's easier to see yourself as a victim than consider your own flaws. I get that, my initial response would probably be similar (and has been when challenged in Hell). Maybe in time the bits that are constructive criticism might get through, though.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It's certainly better than being bullied and abused.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:No? How old is the universe? (Nearest billion)
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
i. a.m. n.o.t. a. f.u.n.d.a.m.e.n.t.a.l.i.s.t.
Does science operate on the same principles as religion?
quote:EE, to make sense of your posts responding to these questions, I need to know your definition of "fundamentalist".
Originally posted by mouse thief:
Name one allegedly historical incident in the Old Testament after the book of Genesis that may not have actually gone down the way it says in the Good Book, and cite historical and/or archaeological evidence showing it didn't really happen the way it says.
quote:Let me tell you what I see: semi-normal (well, by Ship standards, anyway) posters who say things that might at least be worth skimming, and The Unholy Dualty. Marginbreaker & Grandpa.* The Normalpeople have been saying and doing semi-sensible Normalperson things, given the circumstances. The Duality, on the other hand, has been carrying on the same old song and dance routine that I can't even skim over. There is not enough Fernet Branca in every bar in this hard-drinking town to make up for having to read Its "oh FFS" posts. The desire to translate everything It writes into Klingon in the hopes that a violent and shouty language like that might make things more interesting is nigh overwhelming.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm amused at so many people who can only see Gamaliel and EE on this thread, as if LilBuddha, Eutychus, South Coast Kevin, Marvin the Martian, Doc Tor, goperryrevs, fletcher christian, TheAlethiophile, and I don't exist.
quote:yeah. Honey? think about what you just said there for a sec. read this one sentence above over to yourself a few times. out loud if it helps.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I mean, if he thinks I am so full of 'certainty', then one wonders why he doesn't rail at someone like IngoB, who is at least as 'confident' in his position as I am in mine (if not more so).
quote:No-one bothers giving you examples any more because, in the past, any example proffered has invariably been rejected as an example.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Good. Then it won't be difficult to find examples.
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Truly? Despite being called on this numerous times in numerous threads?
Or is it a case of bluffers being too afraid to show their hand?
Yep. That's it. What I suspected.
quote:And step, kick, shuffle, ball change..
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Not quite. The validity of a repeatable result depends on the assumption of the uniformity of nature and universality of cause and effect, otherwise you cannot infer that the result of an experiment can tell us anything about any context outside of that particular experiment.
Assumptions? For science any repeatable result is valid even should it not support current theory.
quote:Yes, but. EE and Gamy are wearing out my scroll wheel, but that is a small price to pay. Except one the rare occasions someone I do read makes a response to one of them I wish to note, necessitating wading through the infinite morass to properly address it.
Originally posted by orfeo:
These days I just assume there's a basic flaw somehwere in EE's reasoning process. It saves time and much reading.
quote:You said, here,
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Which is what I said.
Originally posted by Eutychus
The question as I understand it is not about logic...
quote:
the complaint against me concerns logic
quote:The plagiarism was proven beyond reasonable doubt by prima facie evidence at the time, and all this was explained to you. If you can explain to me how (proven) plagiarism is the same as (alleged) ripping words out of context, I may give you the time of day on this thread again. Otherwise, goperryrevs needs a new avatar but is otherwise presently saying all I would wish to say, only better.
For someone who made such a big deal about the bloke in Cwbran and his supposed plagiarism, I'm surprised you're indulging in the practice of ripping words out of context and twisting people's comments.
quote:EE, as a mostly-lurker who spends relatively little time here, I don't doubt I'd be able to find plenty of examples. Almost every time I see you on a thread, you're demonstrating the same issues and being called on them.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Good. Then it won't be difficult to find examples.
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Truly? Despite being called on this numerous times in numerous threads?
quote:OK.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
M the M -
Do feel free to elaborate.
Take your time. When you're ready...
quote:Hey! I had it first... But yeah, I've been thinking about getting a custom one, though it's a bit like getting a tattoo. If you're going to do it, it has to be something you'll be happy with for a very long time. It took me a long time to think of a strapline for other than "Shipmate" that I was happy with, and it's provided me a lot of fun, giggling to myself that most people won't even notice it...
Originally posted by Eutychus:
goperryrevs needs a new avatar
quote:Best one-liner I have read in a long time...
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Personally I don't know for certain that Mary even claimed to be a virgin and have no need of the liar hypothesis to doubt the virgin birth, but given that God chose a murderer to lead Israel out of Egypt and an adulterer to be King, why the hell not?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:I generally turn to something called 'reality', and make inferences therefrom.
Originally posted by mousethief
EE,
How do you determine if your logic is truly logical and not just wishful thinking? To what external source do you turn when you're not sure you're right or not, and ask, "Is this really logical, or am I deluding myself?"?
quote:Well done! One of the finest examples of bluff and bluster I have read for a long time. You list three 'reasons' (naughty naughty - trying to appeal to logic! How arrogant of you!) for not bothering to find information which you admit is easy to find!!!
Originally posted by St Deird
EE, as a mostly-lurker who spends relatively little time here, I don't doubt I'd be able to find plenty of examples. Almost every time I see you on a thread, you're demonstrating the same issues and being called on them.
I'm not going to go out of my way to find examples though, for a few reasons:
1) It'd be hard work, and I don't really want to.
2) Frankly, you showing your arse bored me to tears the first time. Why would I want to trawl through threads purely to relive the experience?
3) While I have seen you called on your bullshit many, many times, I have never once seen you take a single one of those comments on board. So I really can't imagine you being more receptive to examples being presented now.
Try to bear in mind: if dozens of people, semi-lurkers included, are telling you how you come across, maybe they're not all just meanies who are out to get you?
quote:Firstly, I don't recall ever saying that "I'm the best". Where did I say that? Certainly not in the comment you linked to. I will quote it here in full:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
This post, that I am linking to here, is the perfect example of what I mean. You are utterly wrong about what humility is. Humility is not crowing about how you're the best there is up to the point when someone comes along and beats you. Neither is it refusing to accept even the possibility of error unless that error can be unequivocally proved in terms that you will accept.
quote:Where in that post did I even insinuate that "I am the best"? Someone is in a debate and he is shown to be wrong about something. He has a choice: either he arrogantly clings to his position and ignores the refutation of his viewpoint, or he takes the humble path by conceding the point, and either admits he was wrong there and then, or acknowledges that he might be wrong but that he needs to go off and investigate the matter further just to make sure that his opponent's arguments are actually sound.
Humility is acknowledging that one is wrong when shown to be wrong. Humility is not about submitting to ideas due to being browbeaten, threatened, pressured or due to vain appeals to authority.
In other words, humility is admitting that one's own logic is inferior to better logic. But no one should feel under obligation to humbly submit to no logic!!
By the way... I have yet to see anyone on this site, who appeals to Tradition, concede any ground or admit any error. So where is the humility?
quote:Ingo gets called up on this frequently. Not sure if Ad Orientem has that much, but I share your frustrations at times. Also, your earlier comments about Gamaliel and his occasional snide remarks are on the mark too.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I also made the point that no one on this site who appeals to Tradition ever admits they are wrong about anything. For example, have you ever seen someone like Ad Orientem or IngoB admit any error? At least Ingo tries to put some kind of argument, but Ad Orientem rarely does. But I don't see them being accused of arrogance.
quote:This line could have come from anywhere in the Jericho thread. You refused, for the very longest time, to accept any of them. It's your raison d'etre. It was only sheer bloodymindedness on my part that made me persist.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Show me the arguments that I am refusing to accept.
quote:Then fuck off.
The double standards on this site are beyond pathetic, to be honest.
quote:Your incessant refusal to accept other people's arguments, coupled with the phrase "humility is admitting that one's own logic is inferior to better logic" (and I note that the emphasis is yours) points to nothing other than the fact that you clearly consider your own logic to be better than anyone else's. You don't need to specifically state that, it comes across loud and clear in every single word you post on this site.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Where in that post did I even insinuate that "I am the best"?
Humility is acknowledging that one is wrong when shown to be wrong. Humility is not about submitting to ideas due to being browbeaten, threatened, pressured or due to vain appeals to authority.
In other words, humility is admitting that one's own logic is inferior to better logic. But no one should feel under obligation to humbly submit to no logic!!
By the way... I have yet to see anyone on this site, who appeals to Tradition, concede any ground or admit any error. So where is the humility?
quote:Was that supposed to be the result of logical analysis, or were you just venting?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The double standards on this site are beyond pathetic, to be honest.
any time someone suggests there is a problem with one's approach. I wouldn't call it humility, I'd call it sociopathy: demonstrating that you don't give a fuck how anyone perceives you. How you're thought of. The only reason anyone even tries to continue raising these issues with you is the wild hope that you're not a sociopath and might, somewhere inside, care about the fact that 95%* of the Ship can't stand the sight of your posts.quote:Quite. You keep asking for examples and appear to think that you don't get any.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:This line could have come from anywhere in the Jericho thread. You refused, for the very longest time, to accept any of them. It's your raison d'etre. It was only sheer bloodymindedness on my part that made me persist.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Show me the arguments that I am refusing to accept.
quote:It was the result of observation.
Originally posted by Barnabas62
Was that supposed to be the result of logical analysis, or were you just venting?
quote:As a fallible human being I certainly may be wrong, but that is not a definition of humility. After all, Jesus Himself claimed to be humble (Matthew 11:29), but does that mean... (well, you work it out).
Originally posted by orfeo
Humility is acknowledging that one might be wrong. Before it's shown.
quote:Ah, you speak for everyone, do you?
The only reason anyone even tries to continue raising these issues with you is the wild hope that you're not a sociopath and might, somewhere inside, care about the fact that 95%* of the Ship can't stand the sight of your posts.
quote:THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU YOURSELF COME UP WITH A DEFINITION OF HUMILITY THAT INVOLVED BEING WRONG, YOU STUPID ASSHOLE?!?!?!?!?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As a fallible human being I certainly may be wrong, but that is not a definition of humility. After all, Jesus Himself claimed to be humble (Matthew 11:29), but does that mean... (well, you work it out).
quote:Oh dear, so I have. It's difficult to keep up with all the crap being thrown at me on this thread, but anyway here's my answer...
Originally posted by goperryrevs
Ricardus, for example, has shown in detail where your logic has been faulty on this very thread. You've just ignored him.
quote:Well, thank you for bringing this up, and unlike the others on this site, you have actually bothered to address a particular issue, instead of indulging in relentless bluff and bluster.
Originally posted by Ricardus
OK EE - you asked for a display of your logical inabilities. I am picking on this example because a.) it comes from this thread and b.) it represents a technique you use quite a lot.
quote:The problem in your logic is threefold:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Quite a compliment, coming from someone so dim that he thinks that God chose a liar to be the mother of God incarnate.
This is presumably an attempt at reduction ad absurdum - that is, A implies B, B is absurd, therefore A must be false. In this case "Mary was a liar" being the absurd corollary of Jesus not being born of a virgin.
1. The conclusion is not actually absurd unless you believe in the sinlessness of Mary, which isn't very Evangelical.
2. For the reductio to work, B has to be a necessary condition of A, rather than merely one possible reason why A might be the case. But whether or not Jesus was born of a virgin, you cannot assert with certainty that Mary ever claimed to be a virgin at his birth. Therefore you cannot assert with certainty that she was a liar.
3. The point of the reductio isn't to demonstrate that your opponents actually believe B and are therefore idiots - which is what you assert above by saying "someone so dim he thinks God chose a liar". The point is to demonstrate that there is a logical contradiction between a belief your opponents have advanced and what is prima facie the case, in the expectation that they will recognise this disconnect and abandon the proposition they were advancing.
quote:Now you notice that TheAlethiophile states that Mary as a witness is "more doubt-worthy" than the multitude who witnessed Jesus resurrected. He then speculates as to Mary's motive in claiming to be a virgin prior to the birth of Jesus' siblings and therefore being a virgin at and before the birth of Jesus. This indicates clearly that TheAlethiophile believes that Mary would have borne witness to something that she knew was not true. In other words, she would have lied.
I might counter yours another time if no one else does, but in the spirit that this seems to be posted in, I would choose to nominate the virgin birth.
Why is it a problem?
Because its historicity is very hard to defend. Most of Jesus' ministry was done in the presence of many witnesses who generated the oral history on which the gospel writers drew. Yet of all his followers, we only know of one who was around at his birth, Mary. The single witness is inherently more doubt-worthy than the multitude who witnessed Jesus resurrected. It would naturally be in Mary's interests to say that she was a virgin prior to her giving birth to Jesus' siblings.
quote:Are you asking me for a logical answer or an illogical one?
Originally posted by orfeo
THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU YOURSELF COME UP WITH A DEFINITION OF HUMILITY THAT INVOLVED BEING WRONG, YOU STUPID ASSHOLE?!?!?!?!?
quote:Ah, a considered judgment, based on observation, is claimed. How did you arrive at it?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:It was the result of observation.
Originally posted by Barnabas62
Was that supposed to be the result of logical analysis, or were you just venting?
quote:Based on that quote, it sounds like EE is comparing himself with Jesus. Normally I'd assume that was due to selective editing, but having scrolled up, I'm not so sure.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU YOURSELF COME UP WITH A DEFINITION OF HUMILITY THAT INVOLVED BEING WRONG, YOU STUPID ASSHOLE?!?!?!?!?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As a fallible human being I certainly may be wrong, but that is not a definition of humility. After all, Jesus Himself claimed to be humble (Matthew 11:29), but does that mean... (well, you work it out).
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Or is it a case of bluffers being too afraid to show their hand?
quote:
Well done! One of the finest examples of bluff and bluster I have read for a long time.
quote:
Show me the arguments that I am refusing to accept. Don't keep talking in vague generalities, because that just looks like bluff.
quote:I assume that by "bluff" you're referring to the many people on this thread who have said "Well, I could give you examples, but I'm not going to."
Well, thank you for bringing this up, and unlike the others on this site, you have actually bothered to address a particular issue, instead of indulging in relentless bluff and bluster.
quote:I watched this analogy unfold in wonder as the penny dropped...
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Or is it a case of bluffers being too afraid to show their hand?quote:
Well done! One of the finest examples of bluff and bluster I have read for a long time.quote:
Show me the arguments that I am refusing to accept. Don't keep talking in vague generalities, because that just looks like bluff.quote:I assume that by "bluff" you're referring to the many people on this thread who have said "Well, I could give you examples, but I'm not going to."
Well, thank you for bringing this up, and unlike the others on this site, you have actually bothered to address a particular issue, instead of indulging in relentless bluff and bluster.
Most of these people have given you further reasons*, but putting those aside for the time being...
Scenario 1: John claims to be able to tightrope walk between two skyscrapers. He is asked to demonstrate this miraculous feat. John says "Well, I could, but I don't feel like it."
Scenario 2: John is offered a muffin. He says "Well, I could eat a muffin, but I don't feel like it.
Saying "I could, but I don't feel like it" could, sometimes, be an example of someone bluffing. In Scenario 1, it'd be fair to assume that John is bluffing about his fabulous tightrope-walking abilities, and refusing to prove it because he knows he'd fail. In Scenario 2, on the other hand, responding to John with "Hah! You couldn't really eat a muffin! You're just bluffing!" would seem to be overkill.
The important thing is to decide, based on context, whether a statement of "I could, but I'm not going to" is in fact bluffing, or something else.
Where you seem to be getting into difficulty, EE, is the assumption that offering examples of you being a dick is such a PROFOUNDLY EARTHSHATTERING CLAIM that it's clearly like Scenario 1, and clearly bluffing, because why on earth would we claim to be able to do something so THOROUGHLY OUTRAGEOUS if we weren't willing to prove it to you?
...whereas a lot of us are so damn used to your behaviour that saying we could provide examples is no more impressive than being able to snack on random baked goods. And worth about as much time and attention.
* Mostly "because you're not going to listen to the examples anyway". Which still appears to be true.
quote:It's the scorn, that's the thing. And not just in hell, but in other places too, like here -
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well done.
1 out of 3 ain't bad.
quote:It makes it very difficult to engage with what you're actually saying. Granted this engagement is mostly in my head, since I read lots and post little, but still.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So our Lord was born to a liar?
Doesn't seem plausible to me.
quote:In other words, you have no way at all of knowing if you're deceiving yourself in your parsing of "reality." Thank you for the affirmation.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:I generally turn to something called 'reality', and make inferences therefrom.
Originally posted by mousethief
EE,
How do you determine if your logic is truly logical and not just wishful thinking? To what external source do you turn when you're not sure you're right or not, and ask, "Is this really logical, or am I deluding myself?"?
quote:You can chill. I've just changed my avatar, as you can see.
Originally posted by goperryrevs
quote:Hey! I had it first... But yeah, I've been thinking about getting a custom one, though it's a bit like getting a tattoo. If you're going to do it, it has to be something you'll be happy with for a very long time. It took me a long time to think of a strapline for other than "Shipmate" that I was happy with, and it's provided me a lot of fun, giggling to myself that most people won't even notice it...
Originally posted by Eutychus:
goperryrevs needs a new avatar
quote:Thanks man! Though, I was happy to share. If I come up with something good then I might still design a fancy new one all of my own at some point.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You can chill. I've just changed my avatar, as you can see.
quote:Well, I rather think 'poor' RGO can speak for herself, and doesn't need patronising little you to hold her hand.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed...
And what did poor Rosa Gallica officinalis do so that you inflicted your personality on the avatar she's been using for ages?
quote:If you pay so little attention to people's posts that you can't be bothered to read someone's name and you can't see past the picture, then I am rather glad that you have avoided my contributions. One less person who only sees what (s)he wants to see, is something of a relief, tbh.
Oh well, at least I won't miss what goperryrev is saying any more as I scroll past the eclipse avatar.
quote:And those "research evidenced responses" were?
Originally posted by Curiosity killed...
You're sitting on this thread bloviating because most people cannot be bothered to link to posts to prove to your satisfaction* that you are an illogical, inflexible, patronising, self-satisfied waste of pixels. You probably won't remember, but I did post on that Jericho thread in Dead Horses because the subject interested me enough to wade through your assertions and research evidenced responses to your twaddle. However, I'm really not interested enough in you and your opinions to bother reading posts I've already scrolled over. If your verbose pontifications are sprawling all over a thread, I have almost certainly stopped clicking on it.
* not that we can ever prove anything to your satisfaction
quote:So do I.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I double-take on posts from Doc Tor and Croesos
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:She doesn't need to, since you manage that job spectacularly well all by yourself...
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You don't fool me.
quote:Saying he fools himself would imply he actually thinks about what he says. This is the biggest condemnation so far.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:She doesn't need to, since you manage that job spectacularly well all by yourself...
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You don't fool me.
quote:I would far rather "fool myself" into believing what God says, than be duped by those who seem to be utterly determined to convince me that the Bible is a load of crap.
Originally posted by Doc Tor
She doesn't need to, since you manage that job spectacularly well all by yourself...
quote:Just out of interest, who are those people? Would you seriously include people like myself and Doc Tor, etc. in that list, in other words, thinking some parts aren't fully historical = the whole lot is a load of crap?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
those who seem to be utterly determined to convince me that the Bible is a load of crap.
quote:Errmm... well, given that this is what TheAlethiophile actually wrote, I can't really see how my response is anything other than boringly straightforward:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th
It's the scorn, that's the thing. And not just in hell, but in other places too, like here -
quote:It makes it very difficult to engage with what you're actually saying. Granted this engagement is mostly in my head, since I read lots and post little, but still.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So our Lord was born to a liar?
Doesn't seem plausible to me.
quote:Forgive me for being so presumptuous as to credit Mary with a modicum of intelligence. I would have thought that she would have known whether she had had sex with a man leading to Jesus' conception and birth, and that therefore to deny that would constitute a brazen lie.
Yet of all his followers, we only know of one who was around at his birth, Mary. The single witness is inherently more doubt-worthy than the multitude who witnessed Jesus resurrected. It would naturally be in Mary's interests to say that she was a virgin prior to her giving birth to Jesus' siblings.
quote:OK, I admit I missed the context here. However, your response creates a different problem. If Mary lied to Matthew about her virginity then she must have done so many years after Jesus was born. At the point when she was chosen by God, and when Jesus was conceived, she was not a liar. (Or at least it is not a necessary corollary of this scenario that she was a liar at that point.)
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Now you notice that TheAlethiophile states that Mary as a witness is "more doubt-worthy" than the multitude who witnessed Jesus resurrected. He then speculates as to Mary's motive in claiming to be a virgin prior to the birth of Jesus' siblings and therefore being a virgin at and before the birth of Jesus. This indicates clearly that TheAlethiophile believes that Mary would have borne witness to something that she knew was not true. In other words, she would have lied.
It was to this claim that I responded with this comment on that thread.
So that answers your point #2.
quote:The point is that for the reductio ad absurdum to stand, the conclusion must be self-evidently absurd. If you are Catholic or Orthodox then Mary's sinlessness is de fide, from which it follows that Mary could not possibly have lied, but for the rest of us, you need to make a case that a mendacious Mary is necessarily absurd. It is not enough just to say that you personally find it implausible, especially given that Luke goes out of his way to point out that Jesus was descended from Rahab the prostitute.
As for point #1, this is not particularly coherent. [...] This is a huge subject, and I don't see that you can make a case against me simply by using the word 'sinlessness' in an unqualified way.
quote:Yeah, so you understand one half of the double act that you're in. Well done, Mr Laurel.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Oh, Mr Ambiguity has made an appearance again.
The day he writes a post that actually diverges from the following brainless mantras is the day hell freezes over:
1. It's "both...and", it ain't "either...or".
2. It's all so ambiguous.
3. Everyone's against you EE, and why won't you let yourself be bullied into submission by us lovely people?
4. It cuts both ways.
5. Everything is subjective.
6. I used to be like EE, but I am such a big boy now (wank wank).
And your fave opening is: Sure. Thing is, though...
Such a literary gift you have.
Not.
Stick to your doggerel.
I would.
quote:No, it ain't just you. And credit where it's due, you demonstrate at least one quality that the other shadow-boxer seems to lack: a measure of self-awareness.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At least he understands one half, Orfeo.
But I agree, not a double-act worth watching.
But it ain't just me is it?
Not that that's any excuse for allowing myself to become EE's shadow-boxing partner.
quote:Funnily enough, I don't go looking on the internet for 'friends'. Perhaps you do. Perhaps you're that desperate.
Originally posted by Gamaliel
To belong to such a club would mean you'd actually have some friends.
quote:Then fucking LEARN, you thick bastard. Or at least stop saying "I shouldn't be doing this, I'm such a fool, I'm going to stop now" when you clearly have no intention of following through on such promises, because frankly that's pissing me off far more than the fact that both of you have clearly forgotten what the conditions of your return from suspension were.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which is more fool me.
quote:I tend to get out quite a lot. Often with some of the friends I made through the internet.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Funnily enough, I don't go looking on the internet for 'friends'. Perhaps you do. Perhaps you're that desperate.
Now that would be more than a bit sad.
You need to get out more.
quote:I often miss the last post on a page if the thread's moving quickly as well.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But I can't understand the accusation from mousethief and Gamaliel that I consider myself superior to other people, and yet they cannot quote one single post of mine where I express such a sentiment. Where the hell have I said that?
quote:As Hosts or Admins, we don't actually need your permission to carry out any thread-closing desires we might have. I always find it terribly amusing when one of you attempts to grant us authority over these kinds of things, as if somehow we couldn't do it until you acquiesced.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I apologise for opening this thread. Shut it down it you want.
quote:Dude, here is where you've missed the point. You've added a "simply because" where there isn't one:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
that I was lacking humility, simply because I disagreed with them
quote:Exactly. No-one else gets called up for just expressing their views; so the reason for you getting called out is unlikely to be for expressing a view. The explanation is that it is the way you express views and discuss that is the problem.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If every time I dare to express a viewpoint, I am accused of being arrogant (when everyone else is apparently allowed to express their views), then I think I am justified in wanting some kind of explanation.
quote:This is exactly it. If you manage to do this, you will be doing yourself a big favour. Nice one.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am happy to take the rebuke that my method of expressing myself might be a bit too "in yer face". I'll take that on the chin, and try and tone it down a bit. Fair enough. I am sorry for being strident.
quote:I don't see anyone trying to do that. More that because they express their frustration with you, that's how it feels from your point of view.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I'll try and learn not to be (but one thing I will not do is accept viewpoints simply because I am being browbeaten, instead of properly persuaded).
quote:All I said was that if someone has a better argument than I have, then it is incumbent on me - as an act of humility - to accept it. Are you saying that I should just accept that I am wrong about everything I believe, even if I am not persuaded by the other person's argument?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Your incessant refusal to accept other people's arguments, coupled with the phrase "humility is admitting that one's own logic is inferior to better logic" (and I note that the emphasis is yours) points to nothing other than the fact that you clearly consider your own logic to be better than anyone else's. You don't need to specifically state that, it comes across loud and clear in every single word you post on this site.
quote:Why are you back to characterising this as having something to do with humility? It's an act of rationality to accept a better argument, not humility.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
All I said was that if someone has a better argument than I have, then it is incumbent on me - as an act of humility - to accept it.
quote:Accepting that you could be wrong about everything you believe would be a good start. As would setting the bar for "a better argument" somewhere a tad below "absolute, unarguable, objective and irrevocable proof".
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
All I said was that if someone has a better argument than I have, then it is incumbent on me - as an act of humility - to accept it. Are you saying that I should just accept that I am wrong about everything I believe, even if I am not persuaded by the other person's argument?
quote:Yes. Virtually everyone else manages to pass.
I assume you apply this same to rule to everyone else on this site?
quote:I admit the possibility, yes.
So you admit that you are wrong about everything you believe, do you?
quote:No. I think it is wrong for anyone to utterly refuse to countenance any beliefs or opinions about reality other than their own unless they are supported by evidence that cannot possibly be argued against from any angle whatsoever.
Do you think it is wrong for anyone to believe anything about reality at all, for fear of being accused of arrogance?
quote:No, I want you to have some fucking humility.
What are you expecting me to do? Just roll over and accept what anyone says to me, simply because it would be arrogant of me to not to just believe anything that anyone asserts?
quote:First of all, I refused to accept that a particular researcher was 'biased' simply because he was a Christian with a high view of the Bible. I don't think humility involves going along with other people's prejudices. Do you?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Now, which of those options did you actually choose to follow on the Jericho thread?
quote:Yes, of course. Most people in my church, including many friends, have that view, so it's not one I'm a stranger to.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK, so you are prepared to state here that I have a right to believe that, for example, the conquest of Jericho was an historical event,
quote:I can't promise that. But I'll continue to do my best to disagree politely.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
without feeling frustrated with me? Yes?
quote:Of course.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We can agree to disagree?
quote:Of course, that's a start. But, again, I can't promise that when you (or anybody else) gives arguments that seem, to me, contrived / biased / has lots of holes, that I won't pick them up on it or point out where their understanding & reasoning is flawed. I'd expect you to do the same too (and you have, enough times).
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You can say - along with Doc Tor, mousethief and all the others - that "we respect your right to hold a point of view with which we disagree, and we appreciate the fact that you have acknowledged that the evidence is inconclusive"?
quote:It was never my intention for my posts to leave you feeling like that. My interpretation of the thread was that your arguments were contrived and selective, because to accept the alternative would screw with your worldview too much. I still think that. But I never intended any disrespect in my disagreement (though I admit to frustration). As I've said, I certainly don't think you are a stupid idiot.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because that was certainly not the approach towards me on that thread. The whole attitude was: "you are a stupid idiot for not just accepting our point of view."
quote:Talk is cheap.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fair point, Marvin, I ought to fucking well learn and show more sense than I have done hitherto.
quote:See how cheap talk is? You couldn't even get to the end of the same fucking post without taking another shot.
Far more erudite, learned and cleverer posters than me are engaging with EE and getting nowhere so why should it even enter my head that he's even going to bother listening to me?
He doesn't listen to anybody.
Once we've clocked that there really isn't anything else to say.
quote:You're free to hold any view, no matter how ludicrous. You even have the right to believe that you're achieving anything in this thread but showing yourself up as an arrogant, boorish waste of bandwidth. But when you support your views with nothing more than special pleading and appeals to shoddy and ideologically motivated spin, it's no surprise if sensible, rational people become frustrated at your behaviour. It's not the beliefs that are the problem, so much as the nonsensical house of cards they're built on.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
goperryrevs -
OK, so you are prepared to state here that I have a right to believe that, for example, the conquest of Jericho was an historical event, without feeling frustrated with me? Yes?
quote:Ah, now here we have a problem. Because the reason the Jericho issue was such a tediously long-running point of contention, as pointed out earlier, was that you dogmatically insisted that it was unquestionably true. Asking to agree to disagree when your original absolutist claim is lying in tiny pieces all over the place like so much dubiously-dated pottery says more about you than you might be comfortable with.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We can agree to disagree?
quote:It's the fact that he was trying to make the research fit with his high view of the Bible that makes him biased.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
First of all, I refused to accept that a particular researcher was 'biased' simply because he was a Christian with a high view of the Bible.
quote:No, but it does involve recognising your own.
I don't think humility involves going along with other people's prejudices. Do you?
quote:...and then went on to repeatedly state that nobody had provided any evidence to counter your arguments, which meant they must be right. Including on this very thread.
Secondly, I looked at both points of view - the Kenyon and Garstang / Wood views - and concluded that the evidence was inconclusive.
quote:Dishonesty is not something I have accused you of.
Therefore I feel assured that my response was honest.
So I don't see what case you have against me on this issue.
quote:Is that really all you got out of the four alternative answers I offered in my previous post? Have they shown you nothing about the various ways one can respond during a thread, and why your chosen mode of interaction gets everyone's backs up so much?
Are you saying that humility involves accusing scholars of bias? Is that it?!?
quote:Ah, but now you are losing me, EE. If you're being required to roll over and accept other people's points of view at all, it's on the basis of their arguments being judged to be far more solid than yours. If you want to dispute that judgement in any specific case then obviously you can, but going defensive and outraged is unlikely to help...
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, after The Great Gumby's insulting, childish and ill-informed post, I don't see how anyone can wonder why I become 'arrogant' and strident.
This is a perfect example of what I have been talking about: I am being required to just roll over and accept points of view on the basis of being browbeaten, hectored and insulted.
If TGG does not like me expressing my viewpoint, then he can just fuck off, AFAIAC.
quote:I guess it's a chicken-or-egg thing. Is it other people's mean posts that make you become arrogant, or are their posts mean because you are arrogant?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, after The Great Gumby's insulting, childish and ill-informed post, I don't see how anyone can wonder why I become 'arrogant' and strident.
quote:Is the kind of passive aggressive-approach you've been challenged on.* Now, just imagine that, on that thread, there were 20 people who agreed with you, and only one person who thought the Jericho account was not historical, and all those people posted in that strident manner that you did (like the above) throughout the thread. Would that person maybe 'browbeaten' and forced into agreement like you feel? The only difference would be the volume of the content, not the quality. You are as guilty of the aggressive (usually passive-aggressive but sometimes directly aggressive) form of posting that winds you up in other people's posts. The only difference was that you were a minority voice on that thread.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So presumably you have evidence that the book of Joshua, for example, is fiction? If so, please be so kind as to present it. Personal dislike for the content of the book doesn't count, by the way, as I am sure you must know, if you have any kind of intellectual and academic credentials.
quote:Trouble is that everyone does this. They have a theory and try to find evidence to fit it. If we ignore all examples of bias, then we could not consider any evidence at all.
Originally posted by Marvin The Martian
It's the fact that he was trying to make the research fit with his high view of the Bible that makes him biased.
quote:Firstly, I have been accused of arrogance concerning my posting style, but I notice that you don't rebuke The Great Gumby for his aggressive approach. I find that very telling, to be honest. Double standards again.
Originally posted by Goperryrevs
But Gumby's final paragraph makes a pertinent point. Agreeing to disagree is only a starting point. On the Joshua thread, your approach was that it was totally self-evident that the Jericho narrative was fully historical, and anyone who didn't believe that was talking nonsense. Posts like:
quote:Is the kind of passive aggressive-approach you've been challenged on.* Now, just imagine that, on that thread, there were 20 people who agreed with you, and only one person who thought the Jericho account was not historical, and all those people posted in that strident manner that you did (like the above) throughout the thread. Would that person maybe 'browbeaten' and forced into agreement like you feel? The only difference would be the volume of the content, not the quality. You are as guilty of the aggressive (usually passive-aggressive but sometimes directly aggressive) form of posting that winds you up in other people's posts. The only difference was that you were a minority voice on that thread.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So presumably you have evidence that the book of Joshua, for example, is fiction? If so, please be so kind as to present it. Personal dislike for the content of the book doesn't count, by the way, as I am sure you must know, if you have any kind of intellectual and academic credentials.
*It's also an example of your arrogance, that you has already assumed that no-one could possibly have any evidence that it wasn't historical. Which, as it turned out, they did.
quote:If you continue to go over single posts by other individuals in forensic detail, and attempt to compare it to the impression you have built up over several years of behaviour, you will continue to be disappointed by "double standards".
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Firstly, I have been accused of arrogance concerning my posting style, but I notice that you don't rebuke The Great Gumby for his aggressive approach. I find that very telling, to be honest. Double standards again.
quote:No, really not. Any of us with a scientific background start with a hypothesis - an idea for why something might happen - carries out experiments and if the expected happens all is well and good. But frequently the expected doesn't happen, so the original hypothesis is incorrect and needs rethinking. The next hypothesis is based on the evidence already discovered. The scientists test that hypothesis experimentally and gathers evidence. That evidence may mean that that hypothesis might be a better match for the data, but it might also mean that the new hypothesis also fails.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Trouble is that everyone does this. They have a theory and try to find evidence to fit it. If we ignore all examples of bias, then we could not consider any evidence at all.
quote:If I rebuked every shipmate who I thought over-stepped a mark, I'd be posting every five minutes, which would be pointless and stupid. And I tend to read a lot more than I post anyhow. But, yes, for the record, I do think that quite a few posters (including quite a few that I am very fond of) have been overly heavy-handed with you on this thread. But I understand why they have been. You can be very frustrating to engage with.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I notice that you don't rebuke The Great Gumby for his aggressive approach.
quote:Maybe this is the heart of the problem. That kind of post is standard for you, and perhaps you don't intend the tone that way, but everything about it screams passive-aggression. I've lost count of the number of your posts that appear to be in this form: "I know more about this stuff than you. My logic is superior. I know you're not going to be able to come up with anything to dissuade me. Go on then, try, I'm waiting." It doesn't enable meaningful debate. It stifles it. As I say, perhaps it's not intended that way, but that's how it's received - and evidently not just by me, but by swathes of your fellow shipmates.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Secondly, there was nothing aggressive or passive-aggressive in what I wrote
quote:Humility is the virtue that I most admire, and aspire to more than any other (even though I know Love is a greater virtue, there is a beauty in Humility that naturally draws me more than Love). Of course I fail to live up to the goal of humility all the time, but that's not for lack of desire, or admiration of the ideal.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Do you think you are humble?
quote:This. Honestly, EE, this is the trope you've become associated with in my mind, and in the minds of many others. I remember, the first time I encountered it, I was actually on your side in whatever debate was going on in Purgatory, and found myself wishing that I wasn't.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I've lost count of the number of your posts that appear to be in this form: "I know more about this stuff than you. My logic is superior. I know you're not going to be able to come up with anything to dissuade me. Go on then, try, I'm waiting."
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Given that I was accused of
quote:As far as I can tell, that is something you imported from a Hell thread. It wasn't part of the discussion in Dead Horses. In terms of the debate going on in that thread, it's a different context. Things get hotter in Hell. You know that.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
"lunatic ravings"
quote:No. You stated that someone else's analogy was a "pathetic comparison". Mousethief responded saying that unless you could give a valid argument as to why the comparison was pathetic, then your assertion was pathetic bloviating. That is not the same as accusing you of pathetic bloviating, it is stating that unless you back up your assertions, you are in danger of pathetic bloviating.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
"pathetic bloviating"
. There are enough examples of them on this thread alone. Marv.quote:Dude, I have that in needlepoint on my bedroom wall.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This time my lips are sealed.
quote:The problem comes when the batsmen is gleefully claiming to have hit a six when their middle stump is lying on the ground twenty feet behind them, the fielders are high-fiving each other and the umpire is giving you the finger. At this point, asking for a DRS review is unwise at best and likely to annoy all and sundry, even your team-mate batting at the other end.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You basically set up the conversation as a contest between you as batsman and the other person as bowler. Come on, you say, bet you can't get me out. I dare you get me out. YES! Ha-ha! Four runs to me!
There are probably times when that's an appropriate mode to be in, but not quite so often.
quote:EE, I am happy to agree to disagree with you on the historicity of the Biblical account of the fall of Jericho. What is causing the cognitive dissonance for me is your insistence that you are not a fundamentalist while asserting that the Bible is literally true.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So it's OK for me to believe that the account is historical then?
quote:Well, actually, I probably agree with you on a lot more theological issues than I do with plenty of other Shipmates. So, I don't think that holds. I can think of many Shipmates that I get on with very well who are very different from me theologically, and many who are very similar. I'd say you're somewhere in the middle. I've said it enough times already, it's the style, not the substance that's the problem. You can take that at face value, or decide that I'm just lying or mistaken.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have a strong impression that if I wrote comments in exactly the same kind of phraseology, but affirmed a view that was deemed to be ideologically 'acceptable', then you would not be having a go at me. It's pretty obvious that the complaint against me cannot really be to do with language tone and style but beliefs.
quote:Well, I've rebuked Gamaliel quite a few times, despite being that bit closer to him theologically (only in some areas, mind. I'm nowhere near as 'high' church as he likes to be nowadays, and I'm still a proper charismatic). But the thing is, he tends to take it on board (at least verbally, if not in practice), whereas you seem to want to debate it a lot more... So, here we are debating it.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If this is not the case, then clearly you would have made just some effort to rebuke others (far more cantankerous than I am) who happen to agree with your position.
quote:I'm afraid my attempted help was much more mundane. It was simply to help you by pointing out how your style frustrates and antagonises people, thus bringing their ire upon you. To make things go smoother here for you and everyone else.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Is this what you are wanting to help me accept?
quote:Which line? I see no line.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am pretty much resigned to the fact that nothing I can say or do is acceptable unless I toe the line ideologically.
quote:Given that everyone on this thread is saying the opposite, I'm not sure how that's obvious anywhere but in your own imagination.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It's pretty obvious that the complaint against me cannot really be to do with language tone and style but beliefs.
quote:This is just perfect. A paragraph containing all the flaws of logic and of tone you could wish for, saying "you can't possibly have a problem with my arguing technique".
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Goperryrevs -
I have a strong impression that if I wrote comments in exactly the same kind of phraseology, but affirmed a view that was deemed to be ideologically 'acceptable', then you would not be having a go at me. It's pretty obvious that the complaint against me cannot really be to do with language tone and style but beliefs. If this is not the case, then clearly you would have made just some effort to rebuke others (far more cantankerous than I am) who happen to agree with your position.
quote:Jeepers, I said ideas in the Bible were extra-biblical? Where?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What actually provoked me to open this hell thread was mousethief's and Gamaliel's barely concealed accusation against me on a Kerygmania thread, that I was lacking humility, simply because I disagreed with them on the rather technical point that there are ideas implicit in the Bible, and therefore such ideas cannot be called 'extra-biblical'.
quote:Can I take this to mean that you think the only way arrogant people can possibly demonstrate their arrogance is by directly stating it explicitly?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But I can't understand the accusation from mousethief and Gamaliel that I consider myself superior to other people, and yet they cannot quote one single post of mine where I express such a sentiment. Where the hell have I said that?
quote:Nope. Bzzzt. Not even close.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The whole attitude was: "you are a stupid idiot for not just accepting our point of view."
quote:I'm beginning to think he simply can't help it.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Ah, but now you are losing me, EE. If you're being required to roll over and accept other people's points of view at all, it's on the basis of their arguments being judged to be far more solid than yours. If you want to dispute that judgement in any specific case then obviously you can, but going defensive and outraged is unlikely to help...
quote:Deflect, deflect, deflect. Will you man up and face your accusers without dragging in somebody else? I can see you before the judgment throne saying, "Look, Jesus, if you're going to accuse me of sin, you need to accuse my next-door neighbor of sin too, because he's a sinner too, you know. Until I hear you accuse him, I'm not going to even listen to your accusations of me."
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Firstly, I have been accused of arrogance concerning my posting style, but I notice that you don't rebuke The Great Gumby for his aggressive approach. I find that very telling, to be honest. Double standards again.
quote:We know. You say it constantly. It's not true. Get the fuck over it.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I get the feeling that, unless I just roll over and accept certain ideas, I will be accused of arrogance.
quote:Quotes File.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, an underdog is someone in a difficult position through circumstances beyond there control. Not some who starts on level ground, then grabs a shovel and starts digging.
quote:It's eye-bleedingly obvious to me that it is about precisely that, and the issue is becoming clearer rather than more obscure as the thread goes on.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It's pretty obvious that the complaint against me cannot really be to do with language tone and style but beliefs.
quote:...I will now pick up my cross and sling my martyr complex over the other shoulder and trudge on, but by crikey I won't do it silently...
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am pretty much resigned to the fact that nothing I can say or do is acceptable unless I toe the line ideologically. I have accepted that...
quote:Take a breather. You seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But anyway... what exactly are you asking me to do? You say you want to help me, but in what way? To believe in a Jesus who was either deceitful or incredibly ignorant and stupid or both? After all, he affirmed the historicity of the Old Testament, even those parts considered to be the work of Moses. This seems to be the only conclusion I can draw. Not only are you incredibly patronising towards me, but also towards Jesus himself, whom you obviously regard as a primitive man, deluded by the supposed inferior thought forms of his day. And, of course, if this is so, then we can't really take anything Jesus said seriously.
In other words, it's all a capitulation to atheism. Strip away the Christian veneer, and that's what we find. Atheism and blasphemy.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:I've read that nobody wants to define "fundamentalist" but most Evangelicals believe it's somewhere to the right of them.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
So does that mean he won't tell me how he defines "fundamentalist"?
quote:I'm happy to describe myself as a fundamentalist (and you can put that in quotes and capitalise it if you wish) as I believe the bible to be fundamentally true.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I've read that nobody wants to define "fundamentalist" but most Evangelicals believe it's somewhere to the right of them.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
So does that mean he won't tell me how he defines "fundamentalist"?
quote:I submit that you are using "fundamentalist" in a way not used by the majority of people who use the word, and that if you are not a literalist, you are not a fundamentalist by the most obvious and public definition of the word. Sort of like people who say, "Yes I'm an Evangelical because I believe the Evangel." Well, no, the word has meanings beyond that simple etymological mapping.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I'm happy to describe myself as a fundamentalist (and you can put that in quotes and capitalise it if you wish) as I believe the bible to be fundamentally true.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I've read that nobody wants to define "fundamentalist" but most Evangelicals believe it's somewhere to the right of them.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
So does that mean he won't tell me how he defines "fundamentalist"?
I'm no literalist though. The Word is good, but some of the words are problematical.
quote:I'm taking that basic, or fundamental view of what fundamentalist means, which, as you and Mousethief say, is not the general and contemporary usage, which matches the kind of institution and views that are described in your link.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Really, Sioni? If you look at the basic definition and origin of fundamentalist, it doesn't seem so bad. However, if you look at the behaviours commonly associated...
quote:You say "plain meaning" he says "literal meaning". Potayto, Potahto?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
To the Reformers it was not so much that you totally disallowed the other styles of interpretation, as that you didn't allow these more exotic and subjective ideas to contradict the plain meaning of the straightforward bits of scripture.
quote:This makes the point, which is quite critical to people like myself who are mildly autistic, that everyday use of language is flexible and imaginative and that biblical language is "as all other speeches..." in that respect. You want to understand the difference, consider this story...
“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Nevertheless the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.”
quote:Potentially it's literary.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm struggling to find any room between "literal" and "dumb, wooden literal". If literal isn't literal what the hell is it?
quote:I sort of agree, though I'm not sure that the 'literal sense' of Tyndale would be exactly the sale as 'literary'; as I said, the point is that there has been a shift in meaning which the modern 'fundamentalists' (the 'hyper-orthodox' as US Baptist Bernard Ramm used to describe them) had failed to appreciate and thus used 'literal' in the modern narrower sense.
Potentially it's literary.
quote:What do we do with texts where the original language is unclear or ambiguous?
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The historical term that was sometimes used was "plain".
quote:Say they plainly mean what you want them to?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:What do we do with texts where the original language is unclear or ambiguous?
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The historical term that was sometimes used was "plain".
quote:Sorry I wasn't clear. I mean if I'm NOT an Evangelical.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Say they plainly mean what you want them to?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:What do we do with texts where the original language is unclear or ambiguous?
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The historical term that was sometimes used was "plain".
quote:Besides poor spelling, that's a weird definition of an underdog. Jesus was an underdog.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, an underdog is someone in a difficult position through circumstances beyond there control.
quote:Level ground is fanciful thinking. Tabula rasa is a load of crock.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not some who starts on level ground, then grabs a shovel and starts digging.
quote:Expand.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Jesus was an underdog.
quote:And I, for one, could now eat a muffin.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:I watched this analogy unfold in wonder as the penny dropped...
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Or is it a case of bluffers being too afraid to show their hand?quote:
Well done! One of the finest examples of bluff and bluster I have read for a long time.quote:
Show me the arguments that I am refusing to accept. Don't keep talking in vague generalities, because that just looks like bluff.quote:I assume that by "bluff" you're referring to the many people on this thread who have said "Well, I could give you examples, but I'm not going to."
Well, thank you for bringing this up, and unlike the others on this site, you have actually bothered to address a particular issue, instead of indulging in relentless bluff and bluster.
Most of these people have given you further reasons*, but putting those aside for the time being...
Scenario 1: John claims to be able to tightrope walk between two skyscrapers. He is asked to demonstrate this miraculous feat. John says "Well, I could, but I don't feel like it."
Scenario 2: John is offered a muffin. He says "Well, I could eat a muffin, but I don't feel like it.
Saying "I could, but I don't feel like it" could, sometimes, be an example of someone bluffing. In Scenario 1, it'd be fair to assume that John is bluffing about his fabulous tightrope-walking abilities, and refusing to prove it because he knows he'd fail. In Scenario 2, on the other hand, responding to John with "Hah! You couldn't really eat a muffin! You're just bluffing!" would seem to be overkill.
The important thing is to decide, based on context, whether a statement of "I could, but I'm not going to" is in fact bluffing, or something else.
Where you seem to be getting into difficulty, EE, is the assumption that offering examples of you being a dick is such a PROFOUNDLY EARTHSHATTERING CLAIM that it's clearly like Scenario 1, and clearly bluffing, because why on earth would we claim to be able to do something so THOROUGHLY OUTRAGEOUS if we weren't willing to prove it to you?
...whereas a lot of us are so damn used to your behaviour that saying we could provide examples is no more impressive than being able to snack on random baked goods. And worth about as much time and attention.
* Mostly "because you're not going to listen to the examples anyway". Which still appears to be true.
quote:How very commanding.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Expand.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Jesus was an underdog.
quote:You've mounted some crazy defences in Hell, but I've defended you here because I thought your heart was in the right place. I begin to question this. I now think it more your head is in the wrong place.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Besides poor spelling, that's a weird definition of an underdog. Jesus was an underdog.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, an underdog is someone in a difficult position through circumstances beyond there control.
quote:Level ground is fanciful thinking. Tabula rasa is a load of crock.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not some who starts on level ground, then grabs a shovel and starts digging.
As for digging, you can't dig up when you're being sat on. The only way is down.
Then again, there is no justice in Hell. That's why it's Hell.
quote:In which case, I shall feel free to conclude that your bald assertion has no basis. What with him being one Person of the Trinity and all.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:How very commanding.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Expand.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Jesus was an underdog.
Thankfully, you're not one of my lecturers.
quote:How very logical of you.
Originally posted by orfeo:
In which case, I shall feel free to conclude that your bald assertion has no basis.
quote:Is one an underdog when one chooses to be an underdog? Let's say a high-minded millionaire decides to live on the street for six months in solidarity with the poor, yet still has their holdings, are they actually an underdog?
Originally posted by leo:
But he laid aside his divinity 'making himself a slave' (Phil)- so his trinitarian status is of no avail to his being an underdog.
quote:Evensnog has said that she doesn't take Hell seriously and isn't her "real self" here (my paraphrase). In short, she will lie and obfuscate and pretend to be something she's not in Hell, because she can. Taking anything she says here with even a minim of seriousness is foolhardy at best.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You've mounted some crazy defences in Hell, but I've defended you here because I thought your heart was in the right place. I begin to question this. I now think it more your head is in the wrong place.
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
In human terms surely Jesus was an underdog? What with him being an itinerant preacher, surviving on the offerings of his followers, who ended up opposed by two powerful institutions, Church and State?
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by leo:
But he laid aside his divinity 'making himself a slave' (Phil)- so his trinitarian status is of no avail to his being an underdog.
quote:"But still you'll never get it right
Originally posted by leo:
Good point - AND I thought I was in Purg. when I posted that.
If Jesus CHOSE to be an underdog in order to identify with the underdogs, then it's a bit like the priests in my anglo-catholic tradition who CHOSE to work in the slums but who were really tory paternalists.
quote:You've raised the possibility, Orfeo, that certain posters aren't real human beings at all but simply some kind of virtual virus which feeds off on-line emotional energy.
Originally posted by orfeo:
She's a kind of pathetic emotional vampire. Feeding off the irritation of the living.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:There was (is?) a Shipmate around with the name "Evensnog", who used to post here. I remember, even though this must be years back, because I thought at the time that it was a most excellent name: clever, charming, ... There must be other ways to belittle Evensong via her name.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Evensnog has said that she doesn't take Hell seriously and isn't her "real self" here (my paraphrase).
quote:No I haven't. Get off my lawn.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'Kinnell, that's chilling ...
quote:You've raised the possibility, Orfeo, that certain posters aren't real human beings at all but simply some kind of virtual virus which feeds off on-line emotional energy.
Originally posted by orfeo:
She's a kind of pathetic emotional vampire. Feeding off the irritation of the living.
quote:The Hounds of Hell usually only withdraw (temporarily) once first blood is drawn.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You've raised the possibility, Orfeo, that certain posters aren't real human beings at all but simply some kind of virtual virus which feeds off on-line emotional energy.
quote:OK I'll bite.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Orf, sending you a wager.
quote:depends whether you take miracle stories literally
Originally posted by orfeo:
a bloke who can stand up in a boat and command the waves to be still is not an underdog. A guy who can command the dead back to life is not an underdog. Whether or not he uses his power and the manner in which he uses it is a different question, but possessing power is the very antithesis of what being an underdog means.
quote:It seems to me it also depends on how seriously you take the Incarnation. If Jesus was God pretending to be human, letting his divine power flare out when he felt like it, then he was not an underdog. If he was fully human, dependant on his Father for miracles and answers to prayer generally, then underdog fits. For me anyway - YMMV.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:depends whether you take miracle stories literally
Originally posted by orfeo:
a bloke who can stand up in a boat and command the waves to be still is not an underdog. A guy who can command the dead back to life is not an underdog. Whether or not he uses his power and the manner in which he uses it is a different question, but possessing power is the very antithesis of what being an underdog means.
quote:I thought you were going to thank him for his description of you. I dunno, seen you do that sort of thing before. He didn't take it, anyway.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:OK I'll bite.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Orf, sending you a wager.
What was the wager?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:The idea that incarnating made God into the underdog is no more defensible than the idea that a rich person with parents slumming it is actually poor. Jarvis Cocker puts it well
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:There was (is?) a Shipmate around with the name "Evensnog", who used to post here. I remember, even though this must be years back, because I thought at the time that it was a most excellent name: clever, charming, ... There must be other ways to belittle Evensong via her name.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Evensnog has said that she doesn't take Hell seriously and isn't her "real self" here (my paraphrase).
As far as "underdog" goes, first to quote my Mac OED:It seems to me then that Jesus was an underdog in both senses considered in His human earthly life and activities per se, whereas considered in His Divinity He clearly is the Top Dog of Top Dogs. In other words, the disagreement on whether He was an underdog or not quite simply reflects the Incarnation.
- a competitor thought to have little chance of winning a fight or contest. we go into this game as the underdogs.
- a person who has little status in society. what is it like to be an underdog in America?
quote:Do you bloody mind? I've already quoted Mr Cocker!
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:The idea that incarnating made God into the underdog is no more defensible than the idea that a rich person with parents slumming it is actually poor. Jarvis Cocker puts it well
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:There was (is?) a Shipmate around with the name "Evensnog", who used to post here. I remember, even though this must be years back, because I thought at the time that it was a most excellent name: clever, charming, ... There must be other ways to belittle Evensong via her name.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Evensnog has said that she doesn't take Hell seriously and isn't her "real self" here (my paraphrase).
As far as "underdog" goes, first to quote my Mac OED:It seems to me then that Jesus was an underdog in both senses considered in His human earthly life and activities per se, whereas considered in His Divinity He clearly is the Top Dog of Top Dogs. In other words, the disagreement on whether He was an underdog or not quite simply reflects the Incarnation.
- a competitor thought to have little chance of winning a fight or contest. we go into this game as the underdogs.
- a person who has little status in society. what is it like to be an underdog in America?
quote:Maybe you should enlighten us as to the true nature and meaning of the crucifixion, O all-knowing one?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Terrible analogy.
You don't seem to understand the crucifixion at all.
quote:Sigh. If you had actually bothered to read what I wrote, then you would have discovered that I precisely did not say that "incarnating made God into the underdog." I rather stated that Jesus is both underdog and top dog (of top dogs), and that our desire to resolve this into just one or the other is thwarted by the Incarnation. Basically, the feeling "He cannot be both, He must be one or the other" concerning what sort of social status He has is nothing but a reflection of the feeling that "He cannot be both, He must be one or the other" concerning what sort of being He is, man or God.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The idea that incarnating made God into the underdog is no more defensible than the idea that a rich person with parents slumming it is actually poor. Jarvis Cocker puts it well
quote:Probably not, but the son of a Duke who signed up as a private during the Great War or Francis of Assisi renouncing the life of a wealthy playboy to embrace Holy Poverty or the Crown Prince of Luxemburg serving in the British Army as a lieutenant couldn't make a quick phone call to daddy when things got tough. There is renunciation and renunciation.
Is one an underdog when one chooses to be an underdog? Let's say a high-minded millionaire decides to live on the street for six months in solidarity with the poor, yet still has their holdings, are they actually an underdog?
quote:The oxymoronic way you've stated this Ingob, coupled with your upthread discussion of Evensnog made me look at your shipname more closely. It is in [the] gob that we begin the digestion. It must be remembered that Jesus must be both at once and not in sequence, so that the product at the end of the alimentary canal is recognizable as containing both natures at once, such that our Christian faith containeth not hershey. The shit thus produced being clearly a formed unity. Of top and under dog in combination. Athough some dogs do eat the shit of other dogs. Some how, I think the dog needs to run away now.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sigh. If you had actually bothered to read what I wrote, then you would have discovered that I precisely did not say that "incarnating made God into the underdog." I rather stated that Jesus is both underdog and top dog (of top dogs), and that our desire to resolve this into just one or the other is thwarted by the Incarnation. Basically, the feeling "He cannot be both, He must be one or the other" concerning what sort of social status He has is nothing but a reflection of the feeling that "He cannot be both, He must be one or the other" concerning what sort of being He is, man or God.
There is a well-established method of dealing with questions about Jesus that appear difficult due to the interaction between His humanity and His divinity. And the method is that you can attribute everything to the Son as a whole, due to the unity of His person. But if you need to resolve apparent contradictions, then you need to add "as God" or "as man", respectively. Thus:
The Son died on the cross. True.
The Son lives eternally. True.
Contradiction? No, both are true since the Son is both man and God:
The Son as man died on the cross. True.
The Son as God lives eternally. True.
Likewise:
The Son was an underdog in 1stC Palestine. True.
The Son is Top Dog of Top Dogs at all times and everywhere. True.
Contradiction? No, both are true since the Son is both man and God:
The Son as man was an underdog in 1stC Palestine. True.
The Son as God is Top Dog of Top Dogs at all times and everywhere. True.
How this would have played out in Jesus' internal "psychological" life is anybody's guess. Scripture gives a quite varied account of how His Divine powers interacted with His human life, but I can well imagine that this belies a much simpler internal interaction.
quote:Or indeed there are daddies and then there is Daddy, as far as answering such a quick call goes...
Originally posted by Gildas:
Probably not, but the son of a Duke who signed up as a private during the Great War or Francis of Assisi renouncing the life of a wealthy playboy to embrace Holy Poverty or the Crown Prince of Luxemburg serving in the British Army as a lieutenant couldn't make a quick phone call to daddy when things got tough. There is renunciation and renunciation.
quote:No need. Robert Armin and Bingo are doing a fine job.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Maybe you should enlighten us as to the true nature and meaning of the crucifixion, O all-knowing one?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Terrible analogy.
You don't seem to understand the crucifixion at all.
quote:Bingo is merely trying to explain the complexities of the Chalcedonian creed of 451.
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:The oxymoronic way you've stated this Ingob, coupled with your upthread discussion of Evensnog made me look at your shipname more closely. It is in [the] gob that we begin the digestion. It must be remembered that Jesus must be both at once and not in sequence, so that the product at the end of the alimentary canal is recognizable as containing both natures at once, such that our Christian faith containeth not hershey. The shit thus produced being clearly a formed unity. Of top and under dog in combination. Athough some dogs do eat the shit of other dogs. Some how, I think the dog needs to run away now.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sigh. If you had actually bothered to read what I wrote, then you would have discovered that I precisely did not say that "incarnating made God into the underdog." I rather stated that Jesus is both underdog and top dog (of top dogs), and that our desire to resolve this into just one or the other is thwarted by the Incarnation. Basically, the feeling "He cannot be both, He must be one or the other" concerning what sort of social status He has is nothing but a reflection of the feeling that "He cannot be both, He must be one or the other" concerning what sort of being He is, man or God.
There is a well-established method of dealing with questions about Jesus that appear difficult due to the interaction between His humanity and His divinity. And the method is that you can attribute everything to the Son as a whole, due to the unity of His person. But if you need to resolve apparent contradictions, then you need to add "as God" or "as man", respectively. Thus:
The Son died on the cross. True.
The Son lives eternally. True.
Contradiction? No, both are true since the Son is both man and God:
The Son as man died on the cross. True.
The Son as God lives eternally. True.
Likewise:
The Son was an underdog in 1stC Palestine. True.
The Son is Top Dog of Top Dogs at all times and everywhere. True.
Contradiction? No, both are true since the Son is both man and God:
The Son as man was an underdog in 1stC Palestine. True.
The Son as God is Top Dog of Top Dogs at all times and everywhere. True.
How this would have played out in Jesus' internal "psychological" life is anybody's guess. Scripture gives a quite varied account of how His Divine powers interacted with His human life, but I can well imagine that this belies a much simpler internal interaction.
quote:Two natures in one unity. But separate natures, not confused or mingled.
We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten -- in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without con- trasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union.
quote:From what? clearly not from being a jerk.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Besides. I'm on holiday.
quote:I pray my deep down never gets close enough to your deep down to call it sweetie.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I know you love me deep down sweetie.
quote:At least he has depth.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I know you love me deep down sweetie.
quote:But a bit later he says:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Or indeed there are daddies and then there is Daddy, as far as answering such a quick call goes...
Originally posted by Gildas:
Probably not, but the son of a Duke who signed up as a private during the Great War or Francis of Assisi renouncing the life of a wealthy playboy to embrace Holy Poverty or the Crown Prince of Luxemburg serving in the British Army as a lieutenant couldn't make a quick phone call to daddy when things got tough. There is renunciation and renunciation.
And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed, "Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling upon the ground. (Luke 22:41-43)
quote:I have a hard time with phonies in real life, too.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Alas no.
He doesn't seem to have the Christian charity necessary it would seem.
But hey this is Hell. We don't do charity here do we?
I'm sure he's a nice bloke in IRL. Just like you orfeo.
quote:Having studied the atonement, I can categorically state, I don't understand the crucifixion at all. I can appreciate at least four of the theories, but nothing actually makes sense to me.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Terrible analogy.
You don't seem to understand the crucifixion at all.
quote:Doh! Sorry.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you bloody mind? I've already quoted Mr Cocker!
quote:And this is, as usual, special pleading.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Sigh. If you had actually bothered to read what I wrote, then you would have discovered that I precisely did not say that "incarnating made God into the underdog." I rather stated that Jesus is both underdog and top dog (of top dogs), and that our desire to resolve this into just one or the other is thwarted by the Incarnation.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The idea that incarnating made God into the underdog is no more defensible than the idea that a rich person with parents slumming it is actually poor. Jarvis Cocker puts it well
quote:This does not follow. Being man does not make you underdog. Being man makes you an average dog. If the Gospels are accurate he was a charismatic man able to work miracles. Even incarnate he was still incredibly powerful. Even as man he was slumming it.
Basically, the feeling "He cannot be both, He must be one or the other" concerning what sort of social status He has is nothing but a reflection of the feeling that "He cannot be both, He must be one or the other" concerning what sort of being He is, man or God.
quote:It really doesn't.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:depends whether you take miracle stories literally
Originally posted by orfeo:
a bloke who can stand up in a boat and command the waves to be still is not an underdog. A guy who can command the dead back to life is not an underdog. Whether or not he uses his power and the manner in which he uses it is a different question, but possessing power is the very antithesis of what being an underdog means.
quote:It only cuts across it if you don't understand, as many people apparently don't, what "underdog" actually means. Having bad things happen to you does not make you an underdog.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
This idea that he was not an underdog seems to me to cut right across the idea that he was despised and rejected, as well as his not clinging to equality with God but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. Some posters here seem to be stressing his divinity to the extent of making his humanity a pretence, which makes me uneasy.
quote:Did you miss Bingo's post on the Oxford definition of an underdog? Jesus fits it very well.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:It only cuts across it if you don't understand, as many people apparently don't, what "underdog" actually means. Having bad things happen to you does not make you an underdog.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
This idea that he was not an underdog seems to me to cut right across the idea that he was despised and rejected, as well as his not clinging to equality with God but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. Some posters here seem to be stressing his divinity to the extent of making his humanity a pretence, which makes me uneasy.
quote:Well we too, as humans, are supposed to be able to move mountains with the faith of a mustard seed.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:But a bit later he says:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Or indeed there are daddies and then there is Daddy, as far as answering such a quick call goes...
Originally posted by Gildas:
Probably not, but the son of a Duke who signed up as a private during the Great War or Francis of Assisi renouncing the life of a wealthy playboy to embrace Holy Poverty or the Crown Prince of Luxemburg serving in the British Army as a lieutenant couldn't make a quick phone call to daddy when things got tough. There is renunciation and renunciation.
And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed, "Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling upon the ground. (Luke 22:41-43)
"Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? "
quote:See above.
Originally posted by Justinian:
This does not follow. Being man does not make you underdog. Being man makes you an average dog. If the Gospels are accurate he was a charismatic man able to work miracles. Even incarnate he was still incredibly powerful. Even as man he was slumming it.
quote:This is true.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You'd argue in favour of practically any person, no matter how suspect their position,
quote:This is not true.
Originally posted by orfeo:
just because you have this nonsensical idea that this creates 'balance'.
quote:But Jesus wasn't wrong. But the mob killed him anyways.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Even if Jesus is an underdog - a notion I still find highly debatable - that doesn't make all underdogs Jesus. Nor does it make Jesus some kind of patron of 'underdog' causes. Not when your definition of 'underdog' consists of anyone in a minority position with no apparent thought of WHY they're in a minority position. Has it ever occurred to you that one reason they might be in a minority position is that the most people can see that the position is wrong?
quote:DAFUQ? Yes I am!
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
This "there are two sides to every story, no matter what, therefore we need to hear both sides" thing is very Liberal. I didn't think that Evensong is theologically Liberal.
quote:I'm going to be charitable to you and assume that these two sentences are actually supposed to be one sentence, or at the very least in one paragraph. Because the first sentence on its own is twaddle.
Originally posted by Evensong:
It matters not if someone's position is wrong.
Mob violence is never the answer to Truth.
quote:Bullshit! Dogpiles = virtual slow clapping, booing, and shouting down.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Dogpiles = virtual mob violence.
quote:You can't be serious. You usually strike me as intelligent.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Only if shooting someone on a ps3 game is morally equal to murder.
quote:I see. And your role is... what, exactly?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Dogpiles = virtual mob violence.
quote:Mildly likewise - your statement strikes me as ridiculous and pointless hyperbole.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:You can't be serious. You usually strike me as intelligent.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Only if shooting someone on a ps3 game is morally equal to murder.
quote:There is some truth to this. However, one should not consider the role of His miracles in the wrong way. Jesus did not work the miracle of turning the occupying Roman forces into dust, for example. Neither did He work the miracle of making all Pharisees agree with His teaching and become His disciples. There is a sort of overarching theme to His miracles, they are basically either about healing / helping people or about validating His claim to be Divine, or both. But He does not work miracles that would somehow directly establish Him as a supreme political / social / military power. There is a clear avoidance of Divine interference that would make Him a king of this world.
Originally posted by Justinian:
This does not follow. Being man does not make you underdog. Being man makes you an average dog. If the Gospels are accurate he was a charismatic man able to work miracles. Even incarnate he was still incredibly powerful. Even as man he was slumming it.
quote:Perhaps because you've likely never been at the bottom of a dogpile.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:Mildly likewise - your statement strikes me as ridiculous and pointless hyperbole.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:You can't be serious. You usually strike me as intelligent.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Only if shooting someone on a ps3 game is morally equal to murder.
quote:In my own way I am. Apologies if I'm not sufficiently explicit enough for you.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I see. And your role is... what, exactly?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Dogpiles = virtual mob violence.
It's not as if you're actually stopping it. It's not as if you're even SAYING to stop.
quote:I don't have a problem with people calling people to hell, just dogpiles. And you know as well as I do being a caller does not preclude being on the receiving end of a dogpile.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, might I remind you who actually started THIS thread? The one we're on? It's not as if EE was dragged here by a baying mob and set upon. No, he dragged others here.
quote:Dude. You're missing the point. It's not about the ideas. It's about the way we handle difference and conflict. It's about the way it's done.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're another one of these people who have some abstract notion of 'equality' that's divorced from context. Not all ideas are equal. It's as simple as that. Giving all ideas equal credence and support as if they're equally supportable is fundamentally stupid.
quote:The two words "with dogpiles" add nothing at all to this sentence, Evensong. IN HELL it is ugly and nasty. IN HELL that is how ideas are dealt with.
Originally posted by Evensong:
In Hell with dogpiles it just plain ugly, nasty and wrong.
quote:I amazed you cannot see the distinction between a dogpile Hell thread and a non-dogpile Hell thread.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:The two words "with dogpiles" add nothing at all to this sentence, Evensong.
Originally posted by Evensong:
In Hell with dogpiles it just plain ugly, nasty and wrong.
quote:No I'm not.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're not in fact arguing against dogpiles, you're just arguing against Hell in general.
quote:Well then, perhaps you'd better spend some time explaining it to me carefully, instead of engaging people with different opinions to yours via glib one liners that express your disbelief.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I amazed you cannot see the distinction between a dogpile Hell thread and a non-dogpile Hell thread.
quote:I have. For days. Obviously to no avail in your case.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Well then, perhaps you'd better spend some time explaining it to me carefully,
Originally posted by Evensong:
I amazed you cannot see the distinction between a dogpile Hell thread and a non-dogpile Hell thread.
quote:Good thing this isn't a Christian website, then. In other words, we don't enforce Christian morality on our posters.
Originally posted by Jamat:
No Leaf, Evensong is quite right. The ganging up on people I so often see here is just playground bully behaviour which is unloving, deeply unchristian and frankly unforgiveable. Evensong's attempts to lighten the place up are welcome diversions. The excuse,'But this is Hell' is a bit like saying: 'I couldn't help hitting that pole officer, I was drunk!'
quote:Not at all, I think it is a genius invention for a site like this functioning as it does as a safety valve. The issue is never the technology only the use to which it is put. Is this discussion in fact more appropriate in the Styx. Perhaps someone should have told Evensong and Orfeo.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So you don't think the hell board should exist, but it does - if you don't win the argument in the styx, is it appropriate to just attempt sabotage ?
quote:I freely forgive you, Orfeo, for your deliberate misunderstanding of my sentiments. The issue is the bully culture, the habit of ganging up. Do you think any attempt to suggest my comment was in some way a collective insult to the community changes that? And, do you not also think most discussion here occurs through a Christian lens? And isn't
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Good thing this isn't a Christian website, then. In other words, we don't enforce Christian morality on our posters.
Originally posted by Jamat:
No Leaf, Evensong is quite right. The ganging up on people I so often see here is just playground bully behaviour which is unloving, deeply unchristian and frankly unforgiveable. Evensong's attempts to lighten the place up are welcome diversions. The excuse,'But this is Hell' is a bit like saying: 'I couldn't help hitting that pole officer, I was drunk!'
Including, by the way, allowing you to find other people's posts "unforgiveable". I doubt a website imposing Christian standard would allow you to deny forgiveness.
quote:I've already explained why in my view 'a lot of people with the same opinion' is not 'ganging up'. A gang is a bunch of people who agree to support one another, not a bunch of people who all independently share the same opinion and who are completely free to NOT share the same opinion next time around.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:I freely forgive you, Orfeo, for your deliberate misunderstanding of my sentiments. The issue is the bully culture, the habit of ganging up. Do you think any attempt to suggest my comment was in some way a collective insult to the community changes that? And, do you not also think most discussion here occurs through a Christian lens? And isn't
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Good thing this isn't a Christian website, then. In other words, we don't enforce Christian morality on our posters.
Originally posted by Jamat:
No Leaf, Evensong is quite right. The ganging up on people I so often see here is just playground bully behaviour which is unloving, deeply unchristian and frankly unforgiveable. Evensong's attempts to lighten the place up are welcome diversions. The excuse,'But this is Hell' is a bit like saying: 'I couldn't help hitting that pole officer, I was drunk!'
Including, by the way, allowing you to find other people's posts "unforgiveable". I doubt a website imposing Christian standard would allow you to deny forgiveness.
love, the primary Christian virtue? Here's a thought, commandment 1 could read "Don't be a jerk ..unless you are in Hell." Let's amend the rule to reflect what actually happens.
quote:here
Orfeo: Also, I have no idea where you got the notion I was trying to suggest your comment was "a collective insult to the community".
quote:Maybe 'mob rule' is a better description.
Orfeo:'ganging up' is a gross mischaracterisation. The entire point is that people who could not conceivably be described as part of each other's gang are in agreement.
quote:Anywhere you want I guess if you think being nasty and provocative helps people. Seriously, Hell functions well when posters take disagreements here to vent. Mostly, it is more heat than light but that's all good and not what I was talking about.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would have thought that being 'unchristian' would be helpful for many people. If you can't be nasty and provocative in Hell, where can you be? And if you want to say that you should not be nasty and provocative, well, create a thread on it.
quote:That's not what normally happens. What normally happens is that someone gets in a snit with someone [not a bunch] and everyone chooses sides,usually one side so you get 5 on 1. Occasionally, such can hold their own for a while but sooner or later,bruised and battered they retreat to lick their wounds. Such a Christ - like environment don' t you think? Snapping dogs with no mercy. Shame on all of you that do it!
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Alright, so a poster angers a bunch of other posters; are they to choose a representative to handle the situation? Why should they, because they are many, restrict their voices?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:I believe, in this irregular verb system, that would be "fellowshipping".
Originally posted by JonahMan:
If lots of shipmates independently decide to exhibit Christian attitudes and behaviours, is that ganging up? Would multiple forgiveness be considered dogpiling?
quote:I've never seen that happen where the 5 didn't all have their own, personal grievances against the 1. Again, you will have someone blasting away at shipmates left and right, but not able to be held accountable to any but one of them, because, oh veh! that would be dogpiling.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:That's not what normally happens. What normally happens is that someone gets in a snit with someone [not a bunch] and everyone chooses sides,usually one side so you get 5 on 1.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Alright, so a poster angers a bunch of other posters; are they to choose a representative to handle the situation? Why should they, because they are many, restrict their voices?
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I think Jamat is saying Hell's fine as long as it's not Hellish.
quote:No
Orfeo:I can't reconcile your last two posts. Are you going to tell me you've explained it all, like Evensong did?
quote:Both
Orfeo: Either this place works well when people bring their disagreements here to vent, or it doesn't work well because everyone chooses sides and it's snapping dogs. Which?
quote:If abuse and rudeness are the reasons for the hell-call then so be it. If the reason for dogpiling is general opprobrium of someone's opinions then they might feel bullied or put upon.
Mousethief: If you abuse 20 people, then 20 people have the right to call you to Hell, and if they want to be parsimonious and only use one thread, well then sucks to be you. You should have thought of that before you were so rude.
quote:I totally get your point here and You certainly have the mileage to back your view. The issue is perhaps 'legitimate grievance'? 'Hellish' in the sense we use the word should not mean putting in the boot just because you can.. That is cruel.
Mousethief: And before you start bitching about my right to say this, I have the right to say this because I was on the bottom of a 25-to-1 dogpile which I fully deserved. Were some people without a legitimate grievance jumping in? Sure. Did that take away from the main point that I was behaving for some time like a total prick? Nope. If you're going to hit the ship with both barrels blazing, you need to grow a pair of testes or ovaries and be able to face the heat when the heat inevitably comes
quote:And who gets to decide that? You? Evensong? What you two are basically saying is, "You people who feel like you have been maltreated have no right to feel that way." Who are you to say that? Who made you judge between us and EE? Fuck off under the rock you came out from.
Originally posted by Jamat:
If abuse and rudeness are the reasons for the hell-call then so be it. If the reason for dogpiling is general opprobrium of someone's opinions then they might feel bullied or put upon.
quote:Again, legitimate according to whom? You? As far as I know there isn't a legitimacy coordinator who approves hell calls.
totally get your point here and You certainly have the mileage to back your view. The issue is perhaps 'legitimate grievance'? 'Hellish' in the sense we use the word should not mean putting in the boot just because you can.. That is cruel.
quote:You have officially lost any credibility on this subject. Feel free to be ignored.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Both
Orfeo: Either this place works well when people bring their disagreements here to vent, or it doesn't work well because everyone chooses sides and it's snapping dogs. Which?
quote:So have you then as you are seeing a contradiction where there is none. It can work well in one function but in the other 'dogpile mode ', it can also become a bully's playground IMV as happened as this thread deteriorated. Here's a plan, let's agree to mutually ignore. I am over this so I promise I am really gone this time.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:You have officially lost any credibility on this subject. Feel free to be ignored.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Both
Orfeo: Either this place works well when people bring their disagreements here to vent, or it doesn't work well because everyone chooses sides and it's snapping dogs. Which?
quote:But 'anywhere you want' is incorrect. Some forums don't have a hell section, so people either have to swallow their disgruntlement, or it tends to leak out anyway in the general threads. I used to be a mod, and it is a real pain to moderate, as people get more and more exasperated with each other, and sometimes end up with 'fuck you', and then the mods are supposed to step in and control it.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Anywhere you want I guess if you think being nasty and provocative helps people. Seriously, Hell functions well when posters take disagreements here to vent. Mostly, it is more heat than light but that's all good and not what I was talking about.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would have thought that being 'unchristian' would be helpful for many people. If you can't be nasty and provocative in Hell, where can you be? And if you want to say that you should not be nasty and provocative, well, create a thread on it.
quote:I'd just like to say that, while I don't really go in for the personal abuse angle that some Shipmates pursue in Hell, I absolutely see the merit in having this forum as a place where people can be as abusive, argumentative and vitriolic as they wish. (Subject to the law of the land(s), of course!)
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So Hell is a useful safety-valve, leaving the other threads relatively angst-free. Well, not angst, let's say rage-free.
quote:< Warning > Side A is over represented currently. Your comment is interpreted as representing Side A. Please delete your post or modify to either represent Side B, be neutral, equally antagonistic or arrange a Side C.
Originally posted by orfeo:
What do you want? A pairing system?
quote:Thank you, orfeo, for the fucking flashbacks. I'm taking away the gin.
Originally posted by orfeo:
What do you want? A pairing system?
quote:Answer my arguments or STFU. This post is winding-up defined. You are such a hypocrite, I'm amazed your mother could call you and know which of you she's talking to.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well that's just fine and dandy. Watch your blood pressure old son. I truly was not trying to wind you up. Hand wringer over and out.
quote:They have less than that. They have a desire to be contrary and wind people up. Period.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The whole reason for asking you about this stuff is that I'm a Host, and I'm holding out the ever-so-faint hope that either of you have some meaningful food for thought here. You don't. You have a vague vibe that says that people heatedly expressing their opinion is absolutely fine until a number of people heatedly express the same opinion in agreement with each other.
quote:FWIW, I have no particular attachment to underdogs, but I still consider the regular dog-piling in Hell to be (1) evident and (2) unhelpful.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You and the bloody underdog-defender are spectacularly bad at giving any kind of criterion for identifying this dogpiling other than 'the bits I don't like'.
quote:You are confusing individual and group behaviour. Let us for the sake of argument assume that it is licit or even helpful for individual Shipmates to scream abuse at each other in Hell. It is then of course the case that by the usual principles of equal treatment for all, every single individual of say a group of twenty Shipmates is perfectly in their rights to scream abuse at one particular Shipmate, the one at the bottom of the dog pile. At least they certainly all can be within their rights, if they are genuinely outraged etc.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The whole reason for asking you about this stuff is that I'm a Host, and I'm holding out the ever-so-faint hope that either of you have some meaningful food for thought here. You don't. You have a vague vibe that says that people heatedly expressing their opinion is absolutely fine until a number of people heatedly express the same opinion in agreement with each other.
quote:It is certainly true that this ancient software makes it very difficult to propose solutions, quite simply because some organisation and control would be required. And since the software largely is incapable of providing this, it would end up being the job of hosts to enforce any sort of regulations.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It has no foundation of logic and can't possibly be turned into a principle that Hosts and Admins could apply other than telling people they'll be suspended for agreeing with each other too much. A more stupid principle for a message board trying to encourage activity, I cannot imagine.
quote:Then they should't have been an asshole to so many other people, should they?
Originally posted by IngoB:
A lot of people will simply be intimidated by so much opposition.
quote:For somebody who goes around pissing off 20 people at a time, that might not be such a bad thing.
This may lead to them not showing up, or "flouncing" at the first opportunity,
quote:Sure, but then if their assholic ways continues, everyone will know it was fake. So, no real harm done there.
or issuing a fake apology just to get out.
quote:Could be. How would you prevent this, short of removing Hell? Answers on a postcard.
There are also other effects that one can consider good or bad (though I personally consider them mostly bad). For example, the sheer number of voices raised against someone can greatly encourage yet another person to join the chorus. It appears then, simply by virtue of numbers, to have become socially acceptable or even virtuous to attack this particular person.
quote:That means if the callee never shows up, there is no Hell thread. Which is a completely different way of organizing Hell than has been the case heretofore. It also means a hell of a lot more work for the hosts.
But sensible measures are not exactly unthinkable. For example, here is a simple rule: In any individual hell call, the format has to follow a strict pattern - every second post has to come from the person called to hell.
quote:This reminds me a lot of the boxing-ring board you championed some years back, which was a spectacular failure. Giving it another go, eh?
Originally posted by IngoB:
But sensible measures are not exactly unthinkable. For example, here is a simple rule: In any individual hell call, the format has to follow a strict pattern - every second post has to come from the person called to hell.
quote:Of course it does. Because mob rule and the pillory is what a free society is all about.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Looks like control freakery to me IngoB.
quote:Because we are talking about how Hell encourages a specific kind of group jerkishness? And the Hell hosts will do nothing about it, because currently such group jerkishness is considered entirely acceptable? Nobody is saying that the H&A's are not doing their job. We are discussing whether the job should be adjusted.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why not just trust the hosts and Admins to do their job and prevent jerkishness?
quote:IIRC, it hosted two hellish duels, both of which resulted in the participants resolving their differences in under one page of posts. So that was a rather excellent performance. It got killed because instead of a Hellish duel, we were going to run a more Purgatorial one. And Erin decided that she did not want that happening. Its main "failing" was that it did not attract much traffic running in parallel to Hell. So if generating traffic is what Hellish boards are about, then indeed it was a failure.
Originally posted by mousethief:
This reminds me a lot of the boxing-ring board you championed some years back, which was a spectacular failure. Giving it another go, eh?
quote:Did you really miss the part where I said this would increase the work load for Hell board hosts considerably? Or do you really not have an answer to that? Do you really think the hosts not have lives outside the volunteer work they do here for the ship? Does it really not bother you to ask volunteers to increase their workloads by factors of 10 in order to try out your idle whims that you admit probably won't work? Do you really hate your fellow man that much? Are you really incapable of conducting a conversation without snarky rhetorical questions? Are you really as much of an asshole as you have made yourself look in your very few postings on this thread?
Originally posted by IngoB:
I have my ideas of things I would like to see trialled. Foremost on my list would be a prayer/spirituality board, not some reform of Hell. But heck, yeah, why not run Hell differently for a while just to see how that would work out? Do you really have no creativity and no curiosity? Same old for the win? Is this really the best of all possible BBs to you, a better place cannot be thought of? Do you really think that it is some kind of insult to the H&As if one suggest other stuff that we could try here, or even - horror of horrors - other ways that could be better than what we have now?
quote:That's probably because someone seems to have disabled the "joint post" button on my copy of the Ship.
Originally posted by IngoB:
You are confusing individual and group behaviour.
quote:Passive aggressive is so you, darling. You should do it more.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Mousethief,
I apologise for upsetting you. It was an attempt at humour and to defuse the aggro.
Blesings,
Jamat
quote:OK Buddy so what is the next step here. You want a grovel?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Passive aggressive is so you, darling. You should do it more.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Mousethief,
I apologise for upsetting you. It was an attempt at humour and to defuse the aggro.
Blesings,
Jamat
quote:Why is it the only possible objection to your half-assed ideas that comes to your mind is that people feel threatened by them? Why can't you take their criticisms at face value without psychologizing them? Does it make you feel better if you can put it down to their fears, rather than accept the shittiness of your ideas? Or even that they have reason to think your ideas are shitty, whether or not they in fact are? Are you so threatened by the fact that they might have reasons, even bad reasons, for thinking your ideas suck, other than they are threatened by them?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, why precisely is it such a threatening idea to try out new things?
quote:That's fine, I do not have an issue with anyone having to answer for their behaviour. Did I ever say it was about his beliefs?
Originally posted by mousethief:
I won't want you to grovel, I want you to stop being patronizing. "Oh, I'm so sorry I made you angry. There, let me kiss it and make it better." If there's a better way anger somebody who wasn't already angry, I can't think of it.
If all you got was anger, then I'm afraid all I can say is the old SOF cliché: read for content.
On the off chance you are finally being sincere, I will repeat my point. There are many people on the Ship with theological positions similar to EE's. Yet the vast majority of them don't get shredded in Hell for being assholes. Most logical conclusion: it's not about EE's beliefs. It's about his behavior. Just as people have been saying here for seven pages.
But if you haven't believed them (us) yet, why would this post make you start?
quote:Okay, why? Because I can think of some beliefs that would get people hauled down here in double-quick time. Believing that sex with children is perfectly fine is the first one that sprang to mind.
Originally posted by Jamat:
What I said from memory, was that IF opprobrium collectively descends because of beliefs then that is a problem.
quote:I don't think I'd go that far. There are people who have the same beliefs as a hundred other people but whose behavior gets them into trouble.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think a belief/behaviour distinction is maintainable.
quote:Everything is fine with the machinery. In this case for mine, everything was not fine with the treatment of the person no matter what he had done. I read the thread and I saw one guy being mauled.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, if you thought everything was fine, presumably you wouldn't have made such a stink about the evils of dogpiling. And the fact that you brought belief into it at all, given the context of the thread and the disagreement about what constitutes dogpiling and when it's appropriate for multiple people to air their grievances about the same person, and EE's own claims that he was being attacked for his beliefs .... in that context, it's hard to give your words any other meaning.
quote:You don't need permission to stop posting. Just stop posting.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Can we stop now? I am so over this.
quote:Really - that one happened. It was a particularly nasty Hell thread and I was particularly nasty on it. Someone who was regularly called to Hell anyway was eventually banned, but there were quite a few of us finding the whole thing unpleasant.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding sex with children Orfeo, is that not special pleading? Really, who would state they thought it OK as a belief even if they did?
quote:Yes, sorry, I agree with this and should've been clearer. What I was trying to say was that either belief OR behaviour could contribute to you getting in trouble.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I don't think I'd go that far. There are people who have the same beliefs as a hundred other people but whose behavior gets them into trouble.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think a belief/behaviour distinction is maintainable.
And contrariwise, somebody who thought sex with children was okeydokey could be very polite about it, but the belief itself is still hellworthy.
There may be some grey muddled area in the middle, but I don't think that means the distinction isn't valid.
quote:What Curiosity Killed said. You'd be surprised.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding sex with children Orfeo, is that not special pleading? Really, who would state they thought it OK as a belief even if they did?
quote:I agree with you. When I said anywhere you like I meant generally, not just on the internet. Now you are outed as a potential host. Watch out.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:But 'anywhere you want' is incorrect. Some forums don't have a hell section, so people either have to swallow their disgruntlement, or it tends to leak out anyway in the general threads. I used to be a mod, and it is a real pain to moderate, as people get more and more exasperated with each other, and sometimes end up with 'fuck you', and then the mods are supposed to step in and control it.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Anywhere you want I guess if you think being nasty and provocative helps people. Seriously, Hell functions well when posters take disagreements here to vent. Mostly, it is more heat than light but that's all good and not what I was talking about.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would have thought that being 'unchristian' would be helpful for many people. If you can't be nasty and provocative in Hell, where can you be? And if you want to say that you should not be nasty and provocative, well, create a thread on it.
So Hell is a useful safety-valve, leaving the other threads relatively angst-free. Well, not angst, let's say rage-free.
quote:This system would mean less work for Hell hosts overall. Deleting a post is one or two mouse clicks - and since it would be part of the rules, the hosts would not have to make any kind of host post about doing it. (They could do so in order to be nice, and I expect that they would do so for newbies. But people who know how the system works need no explanation.) Arguably, as such this is a reduction of work already: If we imagine a lengthy post out of sequence, the host would not have to read it, but could just delete it. A mouse click is faster than reading a post. Whereas posts that keep to the sequence are the same work as now. Furthermore, overall this is intended to cut down the circle-jerkishness of Hell. If it works at all like intended, then there will be fewer posts on such threads. Fewer posts mean less work.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Did you really miss the part where I said this would increase the work load for Hell board hosts considerably? Or do you really not have an answer to that?
quote:How the duel board would have stood up under a real stress test, like taking over all Hell calls, we simply do not know. It mostly lacked any activity at all. For a means to resolve conflict I do not consider that to be bad as such... and I'm not convinced that its failure to attract more activity from regular Hell tells us all that much about how well it would have worked.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But what you propose as a solution is unworkable for the exact same reason that the proposed Duel board was unviable: this is not how message boards naturally work.
quote:Nope. You do have to deal with my actual suggestion here. I've said to simply delete all posts that are out of sequence - no questions asked, no explanations given. Of course, you could be nice and tell the occasional newbie who did not read the rules what is happening. But that being nice to newbies is extra work is not a criterion for judging the system.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You would end up with 80% of posts being a Host saying "Nope, it's not your turn, it's his turn... well you just have to wait until he takes his turn... hi there, newbie, sorry, but you can't post here at the moment... no, look, that doesn't count as a turn because it was just commenting on whose turn it was... HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU TO WAIT?... THAT'S IT, THREAD CLOSED".
quote:You know that that is not true, because Hell relies on the fact that this is not true. The number of actually active posters on these boards is in the hundreds at most, and highly active posters in Purgatory (where most of the Hell traffic originates from) are in the dozens. It is a group of people reasonably well known to each other, not some kind of anonymous mass. Hence you can make Hell work: people have learned what sort of posts should be moved here, and in fact most of the time do not even to be reminded of that any longer. If this forum truly had over 18 thousand posters, then your Hell system would be entirely dead. Posts would be on page 10 of insults before the first host manages to even read the OP. Look at online comment sections of major newspapers or the like, which really do have traffic of that order. They are entirely ungovernable. The truth is that this place is small enough, and people are nice enough, for you to impose pretty much whatever rules you want. It will take some patrolling, yes. But so does the current system.
Originally posted by orfeo:
We are in a space where a large number of individual people each have their own power to press the buttons to create a post, and any system of policing that we have has to deal with that reality, and can't possibly be along the formalistic, rigid lines that you propose.
quote:That is one of the convenient lies people tell each other about Hell, to justify its existence in their minds. Hell of course does not "contain" conflict in the slightest. It puts conflict on a stage, it makes a big show out of it! This is not some kind of firefighting, or the erecting of firewalls. One does not climb firewalls to watch the fire rage, one hides behind them. This is making sure that the fire burns bright and furious but mostly in one particular place. It is the equivalent of people "going outside" to beat each other up in the streets, because the bouncers won't let it happen inside the club. Still, the crowd from the club will come out to watch it happen, it's part of their evening amusement. That this generally does not resolve or reduce conflict is rather amply demonstrated by this very thread we are posting in. This must be iteration one thousand of EE vs. Gamaliel? But it also does not contain this conflict in the sense of removing it from the community somehow. Every regular will groan and roll their eyes if you say "EE vs. Gamaliel", why? Precisely because we have seen this conflict play out in its full glory umpteen times.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
IngoB you nut, the purpose of Hell is not to work things through, or to convince someone to improve, or to bring about reconciliation between posters, or whatever-the-hell you keep thinking it is. Its purpose is simply containment. It keeps the raging wildfires off the other boards. That is all. It's clear that Hell succeeds spectacularly at this goal.
quote:Your version would be as well, however. The board's very existance, regardless of form, is a reflection of brokenness.
Hell just is brokenness.
quote:For someone that has the nature of God so spectacularly wrong on some accounts, you're bloody good at human nature (except for trying to change things on the Hell board).
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:FWIW, I have no particular attachment to underdogs, but I still consider the regular dog-piling in Hell to be (1) evident and (2) unhelpful.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You and the bloody underdog-defender are spectacularly bad at giving any kind of criterion for identifying this dogpiling other than 'the bits I don't like'.
quote:You are confusing individual and group behaviour. Let us for the sake of argument assume that it is licit or even helpful for individual Shipmates to scream abuse at each other in Hell. It is then of course the case that by the usual principles of equal treatment for all, every single individual of say a group of twenty Shipmates is perfectly in their rights to scream abuse at one particular Shipmate, the one at the bottom of the dog pile. At least they certainly all can be within their rights, if they are genuinely outraged etc.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The whole reason for asking you about this stuff is that I'm a Host, and I'm holding out the ever-so-faint hope that either of you have some meaningful food for thought here. You don't. You have a vague vibe that says that people heatedly expressing their opinion is absolutely fine until a number of people heatedly express the same opinion in agreement with each other.
This however does not mean at all that there is no difference in the cumulative effect. Being shouted at by twenty just is different from being shouted at by one or two. And of course, you yourself have acknowledged that already. Except that you tried to construct a cumulative outcome that is somehow positive. Your claim was that because the person at the bottom of the dog pile sees very different people scream at them about the same thing, people that perhaps usually rather scream at each other, they will realise that the critique is justified. Consequently, they will reconsider their behaviour, reform themselves and the world will become a better place.
That is ... possible. It probably even has happened in the living memory of the present Shipmates. It is however not very likely at all. Other things are a lot more likely, and generally the outcomes are not positive. A lot of people will simply be intimidated by so much opposition. This may lead to them not showing up, or "flouncing" at the first opportunity, or issuing a fake apology just to get out. Any sort of real dialogue gets no chance there at all. Other people will think "the more, the merrier" and will produce sheer endless and enormously repetitive threads as they take on everybody in turn. Since it is near impossible to "peace out" so many people at once, this ends usually just in mindless exhaustion when really nobody can even bear turning to they latest post on page 15+. Other people feed on the aggressive emotions raised, and will attempt to derail any such thread into their favourite little corner of hate and abuse. The more people are screaming at each other, the easier it becomes to find a pivot point to turn the debate onto a tangent. Etc.
There are also other effects that one can consider good or bad (though I personally consider them mostly bad). For example, the sheer number of voices raised against someone can greatly encourage yet another person to join the chorus. It appears then, simply by virtue of numbers, to have become socially acceptable or even virtuous to attack this particular person. One could argue that this will help some timid people to genuinely express their anger. But frankly, I think it mostly just unleashes a kind of negative creativity: as the others are so nicely beating on that person, let me find some new angle where I can hit them as well. And as these things go, doing such things often creates its own justification, i.e., one convinces oneself that the nasty things one says are well deserved because if they weren't one surely would not have said them.
There is, in fact, very little value to adding more and more emotionally charged voices to a discussion. This generally adds little content (most of the contributions are of the type "damn right, and here's another example of how this person is bad in this way"), and simply pours on group pressure. Two people might find a way to negotiate their difficulties in a reasonable manner. It is however rather unlikely that anything resembling a fair process will happen between one person on one side, and a dozen on the other. The balance of power is just too uneven. There is a lot of relentless pressure on the single person, but almost none on the members of the group. They can always reassure each other that they are in the right, they have no real need to question their own role.
There is of course one final justification that can be given for the dog pile, and that is that it acts as a kind of purification mechanism. That is to say, while the process itself is rather obviously one-sided and unfair, at least in the long term it eliminates the worst offenders. Apart from the question whether the end can justify the means, experience however tells us otherwise. The worst offenders usually don't care about dog piles, in fact, it seems that some of them positively delight in getting yet another one on top of them. All attention is good attention...
quote:It is certainly true that this ancient software makes it very difficult to propose solutions, quite simply because some organisation and control would be required. And since the software largely is incapable of providing this, it would end up being the job of hosts to enforce any sort of regulations.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It has no foundation of logic and can't possibly be turned into a principle that Hosts and Admins could apply other than telling people they'll be suspended for agreeing with each other too much. A more stupid principle for a message board trying to encourage activity, I cannot imagine.
But sensible measures are not exactly unthinkable. For example, here is a simple rule: In any individual hell call, the format has to follow a strict pattern - every second post has to come from the person called to hell. If a post by someone else than this person has been made, then everybody has to wait until the person called to hell has responded. (In the meantime all other attempted posts simply get deleted.)
Then we would get the following structure:
OP attack
response
attack
response
attack
response
...
This would still allow everybody to have a go, eventually. But it would not overcrowd the responder. And furthermore, since attack space is limited, we would not get the umpteenth "me too" repeat in that slot. There is pressure on the individual attackers to actually add content, because otherwise they "waste the slot" for other who want to have a say.
Anyway, if Evensong is indeed rather absurdly helping ever "underdog", regardless of their actual position, then this need not have anything to do with a crazy kind of egalitarian / anarchic approach to opinion. It can simply be considered as a kind of passive resistance to the systemic unfairness of Hell. You could argue that complaining about Hell is supposed to be done in Styx, not by messing with Hell. Well, that is officially the case. However, trying to change the Ship via posting in Styx is, shall we say, an uphill battle. Where the hill in question is Olympus Mons. Whereas the pretensions of Hell to be a kind of everything goes place make it rather easy to mess with it. So it would be entirely understandable if people who don't like the current Hell are trying to subvert it. Perhaps Evensong simply needs to be a bit more subtle about that...
quote:False. It, as you say, keeps conflict in one place so that it doesn't occur on all the other boards. That's what containment is.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Hell of course does not "contain" conflict in the slightest.
quote:You are fucking kidding me.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Deleting a post is one or two mouse clicks - and since it would be part of the rules, the hosts would not have to make any kind of host post about doing it. (They could do so in order to be nice, and I expect that they would do so for newbies. But people who know how the system works need no explanation.)
quote:That is a large number of people, Ingo, and the fact that you think that call-and-response could possibly work in an arena with 'dozens' of people tells me you've never tried to run a meeting with more than 6 people in it. You're living in a fantasyland, mister.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:You know that that is not true, because Hell relies on the fact that this is not true. The number of actually active posters on these boards is in the hundreds at most, and highly active posters in Purgatory (where most of the Hell traffic originates from) are in the dozens.
Originally posted by orfeo:
We are in a space where a large number of individual people each have their own power to press the buttons to create a post, and any system of policing that we have has to deal with that reality, and can't possibly be along the formalistic, rigid lines that you propose.
quote:Not particularly, when you bear in mind that they're generally those posters who seem to make a habit of winding other posters up or simply pissing them off on a regular basis.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Funny that those that can see my point of view have likely been on the end of a dopile themselves, frequently. HHHHmmnnnn....?
quote:Yes, the lone voice might be the Truth. Though if one is the only voice singing in a particular key, one should at least check the signature.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Jamat. Thanks for chipping in about the problem with dogpiling. I appreciate it. Some people have this weird notion that Truth is only Truth if corroborated by others. A standard logical fallacy.
quote:Yeah, I agree that is funny. But I don't think we are laughing at the same punch line.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Funny that those that can see my point of view have likely been on the end of a dopile themselves, frequently. HHHHmmnnnn....?
quote:Have you yet provided a meaningful definition of dogpile? By you apparent definition, a person could walk up to a group, spit on each and every member yet expect only one to spit back. Or walk through a crowd throwing punches and kicks and expect only one to complain.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Dogpiles don't aid Truth.
quote:Classy, Evensong. Really classy.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Quotes filing. For posterity.
quote:Ah, the light dawns. It's an irregular verb:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Jamat. Thanks for chipping in about the problem with dogpiling.
quote:I think 'contain' has multiple senses today. IngoB is partly right, in that it's commonly used to mean to 'hold and work through'. Thus, parents are supposed to contain their children's rage, grief, and so on, by allowing them to have these feelings, and go through them. This might actually involve a degree of interpretation, e.g., telling the kids that such feelings are OK and normal and will pass.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:False. It, as you say, keeps conflict in one place so that it doesn't occur on all the other boards. That's what containment is.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Hell of course does not "contain" conflict in the slightest.
quote:No doubt. But as I've just told y'all which sense we're using when we say "Hell exists to contain conflict", that's pretty much irrelevant.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think 'contain' has multiple senses today.
quote:Hell exists to contain conflict. Hmm - is this written on lasting pillars of onyx somewhere? I thought that the whole point of IngoB's reply to Lamb Chopped was to exploit the polysemy of 'contain'; as he says, 'the only containment that is happening is separating it and putting it on show'.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:No doubt. But as I've just told y'all which sense we're using when we say "Hell exists to contain conflict", that's pretty much irrelevant.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think 'contain' has multiple senses today.
quote:Tell me something I don't know.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh and mousetheif? You're a prick.
quote:If you have never been extended a false olive branch, only to have it shoved in your teeth, I forgive you. In the meanwhile I will remind you that you yourself have said repeatedly that the things you say in Hell do not reflect the real you. Any olive branch you extend me in Hell, I will automatically assume is insincere.
Both Jamat and I extended you an olive branch and you shoved it right back in our faces.
quote:If the government tells you "we have contained the violence," then I assume you are not expecting that somewhere in the city is a place where you can sit down and have a nice BBQ and a beer while watching the combatants murder each other. Much less would you expect that the government is now actually maintaining a free access area for violence, where they will hand you a club and a helmet and wish you good luck as you enter the war zone.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
False. It, as you say, keeps conflict in one place so that it doesn't occur on all the other boards. That's what containment is.
quote:I've organised, hosted and run many committees, seminars, summer schools, workshops and international conference of sizes between three and eight hundred attendees. For that matter, I have run and hosted a private board on SoF.
Originally posted by orfeo:
That is a large number of people, Ingo, and the fact that you think that call-and-response could possibly work in an arena with 'dozens' of people tells me you've never tried to run a meeting with more than 6 people in it. You're living in a fantasyland, mister.
quote:That is one of many different dictionary definitions. The 'eradicate' part is not inherent in the word. It is equally 'containment' if all that you do is prevent something from expanding any further. Forest fires are frequently described as 'contained' while burning furiously, so long as they are burning inside 'containment lines'.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Actual containment tries to isolate and eradicate things.
quote:No, I said a meeting. A conference does not involve handing between three and eight hundred people a microphone, does it? If you have eight hundred people at a conference, at any given time I would suggest that at least 792 of them are sitting in the hall as an audience, facing a stage which is where the small number of people who are in a position to be heard are placed.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I've organised, hosted and run many committees, seminars, summer schools, workshops and international conference of sizes between three and eight hundred attendees.
quote:Which one? If you're referring to the Duel board, then it is almost an anti-board for the reason given above. It deliberately subverted the very essence of a message board. It was basically PMs delivered in public.
For that matter, I have run and hosted a private board on SoF.
quote:Pretty much! I love that btw. It is my new favourite thing!
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:Ah, the light dawns. It's an irregular verb:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Jamat. Thanks for chipping in about the problem with dogpiling.
I chip in
You dogpile
They maul
I see.
quote:No, he means Stella Maris. Which, amazingly, he did not run along the lines he's suggesting; It was a free-for-all just like every other board on the ship.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Which one? If you're referring to the Duel board, then it is almost an anti-board for the reason given above. It deliberately subverted the very essence of a message board. It was basically PMs delivered in public.
Originally posted by IngoB:
For that matter, I have run and hosted a private board on SoF.
quote:Only if you were a non-conformist, you had to get someone to vouch for you before you were allowed to join. Basically the SOF usual free for all, but where you could be blackballed like a Frat or a Private Members Club!!
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:No, he means Stella Maris. Which, amazingly, he did not run along the lines he's suggesting; It was a free-for-all just like every other board on the ship.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Which one? If you're referring to the Duel board, then it is almost an anti-board for the reason given above. It deliberately subverted the very essence of a message board. It was basically PMs delivered in public.
Originally posted by IngoB:
For that matter, I have run and hosted a private board on SoF.
quote:Which is the only containment it purports to achieve. All other definitions of the word are irrelevant. Exploiting the polysemy of "contain" is so much mental masturbation. It would be like saying, "What? You claim Purgatory is our place for rational debate, but there are no judges, no time limits, no scoring, no well-defined presentation and cross-examination phases -- how can you call that a debate?" All of which, come to think of it, IngoB may have actually said at some point.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hell exists to contain conflict. Hmm - is this written on lasting pillars of onyx somewhere? I thought that the whole point of IngoB's reply to Lamb Chopped was to exploit the polysemy of 'contain'; as he says, 'the only containment that is happening is separating it and putting it on show'.
quote:I'm not sure but I think you're talking out of turn here.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm afraid I have conflicted personal feelings about this procedure. I need a deeper circle of Hell to take the conflict to.
quote:In fact, the first person who gave the analogy to a fire above was me, above. And I will repeat what I said there: "This is not some kind of firefighting, or the erecting of firewalls. One does not climb firewalls to watch the fire rage, one hides behind them." For that matter, when firefighters are containing a fire, the last thing they will do is handing bystanders matches and flamethrowers and inviting them to walk right in to have a go at burning things up a bit more.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nice x-post, orfeo! Great minds.
quote:Thank you. I do not see why this should be confusing though. Apart from questions of timing - I think Stella Maris predates the duel board (?) - I have never claimed that I want to change all discussions here. My suggestions have primarily targeted Hell, and personal Hell calls in particular. To me these things precisely are not yet another regular topic of discussion, but rather something else. Consequently, if one wants to resolve them in a public forum at all, then it makes sense to treat them differently.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
TBF, it was a well run board and the discussion were extremely interesting. But it was run exactly like any other board.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:I see none of either.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Of course it does. Because mob rule and the pillory is what a free society is all about.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Looks like control freakery to me IngoB.
quote:If this is supposed to represent my recent suggestion in any shape or form, then you have simply not understood it!
Originally posted by orfeo:
In the meantime, can you all confer amongst yourselves, and then one of you can post once you have an agreed text. And please indicate who else you are representing in the joint judgement, er, I mean post.
quote:Hey, fuckwit, the purpose was to say the meaning of "contain" that we are trying to achieve here, not create a perfect analogue of Hell. Which aspect you have totally failed to engage with perhaps because you realize you're wrong. Oh hell what am I saying? Of course you don't realize you're wrong. You're incapable of believing you're wrong.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:In fact, the first person who gave the analogy to a fire above was me, above. And I will repeat what I said there: "This is not some kind of firefighting, or the erecting of firewalls. One does not climb firewalls to watch the fire rage, one hides behind them." For that matter, when firefighters are containing a fire, the last thing they will do is handing bystanders matches and flamethrowers and inviting them to walk right in to have a go at burning things up a bit more.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nice x-post, orfeo! Great minds.
quote:You really are in love with yourself, aren't you? Get the fuck over yourself. Hell will never be run the way you want, and all you are doing is proving why it shouldn't. Oh and stroking your own insatiable ego.
Originally posted by IngoB:
So we would have something like ...
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, argument.
mousethief: Stupid short response.
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage.
quote:Who said we want to resolve them? Must we say over and over: that's not the purpose of Hell. Hello? Anybody in there? That's. Not. The. Purpose. Of. Hell.
Originally posted by IngoB:
My suggestions have primarily targeted Hell, and personal Hell calls in particular. To me these things precisely are not yet another regular topic of discussion, but rather something else. Consequently, if one wants to resolve them in a public forum at all, then it makes sense to treat them differently.
quote:No, it doesn't. What keeps snark away from other areas is the relentless patrolling of hosts, who will tell people to cut it out. If the patrols and threat of punishment (shore leave, banning, ...) remained in place, then people would continue to behave pretty much as they do now without Hell. And if the hosts on the other boards would stop their relentless patrolling, then within a very short timeframe Hell would be empty (at least of personal Hell calls), as people would simply revert to being snarky wherever they are.
Originally posted by Boogie:
It works because snark is allowed - it keeps that snark well away from the other areas of the Ship.
quote:That would be fun. I think anyhow that this place (SoF, not Hell specifically) should be more adventurous. The best way of finding out whether something new would work is simply trial and error.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Perhaps on the next Host and Admins Days they'll make you a guest host and you can try it out, IngoB. Though I'm not holding my breath.
quote:It is good to reduce and resolve conflict, it is evil by omission to fail to do so when one could, and it is outright evil to increase and intensify conflict.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Who said we want to resolve them? Must we say over and over: that's not the purpose of Hell. Hello? Anybody in there? That's. Not. The. Purpose. Of. Hell.
quote:Once again, you miss the point. The purpose of Hell is not to satisfy your understanding of conflict resolution. Get over it. You prolong this conflict, therefore your actions are evil.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:It is good to reduce and resolve conflict, it is evil by omission to fail to do so when one could, and it is outright evil to increase and intensify conflict.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Who said we want to resolve them? Must we say over and over: that's not the purpose of Hell. Hello? Anybody in there? That's. Not. The. Purpose. Of. Hell.
quote:Conflict resolution is surely a bonus, but it isn't guaranteed. As any fool know, just because people aren't fighting doesn't mean there isn't a conflict. It just means that they're not fighting now. At least this way, if it bothers you that much, you don't have to read it. It's not like we go round your house and make you read / post on threads that don't interest you on a board that you disapprove of.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Once again, you miss the point. The purpose of Hell is not to satisfy your understanding of conflict resolution. Get over it. You prolong this conflict, therefore your actions are evil.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:It is good to reduce and resolve conflict, it is evil by omission to fail to do so when one could, and it is outright evil to increase and intensify conflict.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Who said we want to resolve them? Must we say over and over: that's not the purpose of Hell. Hello? Anybody in there? That's. Not. The. Purpose. Of. Hell.
quote:We'll give the control freak his own board where nobody else can post, and thereby not mess up his perfectly constructed rules.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Perhaps on the next Host and Admins Days they'll make you a guest host and you can try it out, IngoB. Though I'm not holding my breath.
quote:The only board I've been a member of that deleted posts systematically did so at the whim of the woman who ran it. As she was a nasty bit of work, posts were edited to maintain her version of truth and put others in a very bad light. As well as being a hell of a lot of work - as CK rightly points out - it can enable abusive behaviour and bullying.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I have moderated a board where posts were deleted. One of the reasons was that it was for parents of children with medical needs and when they moved on it did not seem reasonable to leave personal information in place. The other reason was to remove conflicts.
It is a lot more difficult to delete stuff in the way you seem to think IngoB. Things move on while people are out to work and the posts to be deleted were quoted in later answers. So just removing a post was not enough, all the other posts that referred to it needed editing or partially deleting, which is a whole lot of work. Serious amounts. Took bloody hours it did.
quote:Why take her word that she's different in the real world? Talk about unreliable narrators.
Originally posted by mousethief:
... But I forget, you check your brain at the door when you enter Hell. In real life I'll bet you're a wonderful person. On the ship you're two completely different people. You have admitted so yourself. The person you pretend to be in Hell, I hope, isn't the real you. So why should I even try to get along with it? Roll that you into a ball and fuck every exposed orifice with a rusty farm implement. Until you forswear being a phony in Hell, I will not treat you as real here.
quote:Well there is that. I do know that the Evensong in Hell is much different from the Evensong on the other boards, and she has taken great pains to point this out and insist we take the latter seriously despite the behavior of former. But you're right, just because one of them is phony doesn't mean that it's the Hell version that's the phony, and the non-Hell version non-phony. Indeed, both could be equally divorced from the real-world Evensong, who for all we know could be a New Atheist taking a gigantic piss on us all.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Why take her word that she's different in the real world? Talk about unreliable narrators.
The Evensong seen in Hell is probably the real person and the one the real world just wears more disguise.
quote:I've understood it perfectly. And I am pointing out one possible way of people avoiding having their stuff deleted all the time.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:If this is supposed to represent my recent suggestion in any shape or form, then you have simply not understood it!
Originally posted by orfeo:
In the meantime, can you all confer amongst yourselves, and then one of you can post once you have an agreed text. And please indicate who else you are representing in the joint judgement, er, I mean post.
Under that system, while of course nothing stops you from exchanging hundreds of PMs to agree upon a consensus response and a presenter, nothing stops you or anybody else from directly posting your thoughts this very second.
The only thing that will happen is that whoever posts first will be the new attack, and all other posts will be deleted by the host until I have responded (assuming that this is my Hell call, which of course it isn't).
So we would have something like ...
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, argument.
mousethief: Stupid short response.
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage. *DELETED*
Lamb Chopped: Nit-picking for the heck of it. *DELETED*
Evensong: Triumphant postmodernist Angli-trash. *DELETED*
quetzalcoatl: Void utterings from beyond. *DELETED*
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, response to mousethief.
Lamb Chopped: Nit-picking for the heck of it.
quetzalcoatl: Void utterings from beyond. *DELETED*
mousethief: Stupid short response. *DELETED*
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage. *DELETED*
Evensong: Triumphant postmodernist Angli-trash. *DELETED*
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, response to Lamb Chopped.
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage.
Evensong: Triumphant postmodernist Angli-trash. *DELETED*
etc.
Of course, in reality we would see the deleted stuff only until a host got around to deleting it. And I assume that after a few iterations of this people would stop posting out of turn.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So we would have something like ...
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, argument.
mousethief: Stupid short response.
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage. *DELETED*
Lamb Chopped: Nit-picking for the heck of it. *DELETED*
Evensong: Triumphant postmodernist Angli-trash. *DELETED*
quetzalcoatl: Void utterings from beyond. *DELETED*
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, response to mousethief.
Lamb Chopped: Nit-picking for the heck of it.
quetzalcoatl: Void utterings from beyond. *DELETED*
mousethief: Stupid short response. *DELETED*
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage. *DELETED*
Evensong: Triumphant postmodernist Angli-trash. *DELETED*
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, response to Lamb Chopped.
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage.
Evensong: Triumphant postmodernist Angli-trash. *DELETED*
etc.
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Same as in the real world, you can't make people be nice to each other, and there is no magic bullet structure that will make everything will run smoothly. The path to peace is long and bumpy.
quote:More work for the Crew deleting posts after endless discussions about whose turn it was with the talking stick and if they were on topic.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I've understood it perfectly. And I am pointing out one possible way of people avoiding having their stuff deleted all the time.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:If this is supposed to represent my recent suggestion in any shape or form, then you have simply not understood it!
Originally posted by orfeo:
In the meantime, can you all confer amongst yourselves, and then one of you can post once you have an agreed text. And please indicate who else you are representing in the joint judgement, er, I mean post.
Under that system, while of course nothing stops you from exchanging hundreds of PMs to agree upon a consensus response and a presenter, nothing stops you or anybody else from directly posting your thoughts this very second.
The only thing that will happen is that whoever posts first will be the new attack, and all other posts will be deleted by the host until I have responded (assuming that this is my Hell call, which of course it isn't).
So we would have something like ...
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, argument.
mousethief: Stupid short response.
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage. *DELETED*
Lamb Chopped: Nit-picking for the heck of it. *DELETED*
Evensong: Triumphant postmodernist Angli-trash. *DELETED*
quetzalcoatl: Void utterings from beyond. *DELETED*
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, response to mousethief.
Lamb Chopped: Nit-picking for the heck of it.
quetzalcoatl: Void utterings from beyond. *DELETED*
mousethief: Stupid short response. *DELETED*
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage. *DELETED*
Evensong: Triumphant postmodernist Angli-trash. *DELETED*
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, response to Lamb Chopped.
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage.
Evensong: Triumphant postmodernist Angli-trash. *DELETED*
etc.
Of course, in reality we would see the deleted stuff only until a host got around to deleting it. And I assume that after a few iterations of this people would stop posting out of turn.
But if you think that Hosts constantly deleting stuff without explanation makes sense because it would be 'within the rules', you are a complete idiot. At the top of the page you will see me saying "you are fucking kidding me". I repeat with elegant variation: are you fucking kidding me? Have you observed NOTHING about how this place actually works?
I'll tell you what would happen if Hosts performed hostly actions without explanation. People would go to the Styx. People would go there on a daily basis. The Styx would become absolutely flooded with "why was my post deleted" threads. There would be constant debate about whether a post counted as a turn, and whether it had been taking a subtly different position to another post so that it was a different 'side' and didn't violate this rule. Or whether someone else's post WAS a turn that then provided an opportunity to post.
And as for the notion that we would only see things 'until a host deleted them'... I'm sorry, but exactly how many of us do you think there are, and how many minutes of every day do you think we are hovering over an individual thread pressing "refresh" constantly? Exactly how many replies do you think people might get in before a passing Host comes along? What do you want us to do? Delete the past 10 responses in a heated argument because responses 1 and 7 were out of sequence?
That you think that deleting a post is a couple of simple clicks and that there would be 'less work' is a statement of both breathtaking naivety and complete stupidity.
quote:You are holding up a mirror to this, I trust.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is good to reduce and resolve conflict, it is evil by omission to fail to do so when one could, and it is outright evil to increase and intensify conflict.
quote:So, now that Bingo has called out mousethief, orfeo, Lamb Chopped, Evensong, and quetzalcoatl, do each of them get their own individual sub-thread to have call-and-response debates in?
Originally posted by IngoB:
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, argument.
mousethief: Stupid short response.
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage. *DELETED*
Lamb Chopped: Nit-picking for the heck of it. *DELETED*
Evensong: Triumphant postmodernist Angli-trash. *DELETED*
quetzalcoatl: Void utterings from beyond. *DELETED*
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, response to mousethief.
Lamb Chopped: Nit-picking for the heck of it.
quetzalcoatl: Void utterings from beyond. *DELETED*
mousethief: Stupid short response. *DELETED*
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage. *DELETED*
Evensong: Triumphant postmodernist Angli-trash. *DELETED*
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, response to Lamb Chopped.
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage.
Evensong: Triumphant postmodernist Angli-trash. *DELETED*
etc.
quote:Tell it to the RCC. They could do with trying out a few new policies and doctrines to see if they work better than the ones they've got as well...
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think anyhow that this place (SoF, not Hell specifically) should be more adventurous. The best way of finding out whether something new would work is simply trial and error.
quote:That's not strictly accurate.
Originally posted by Ariston:
Ingo, the reason nobody posted on MAAN, why you never got a good test case, was probably because nobody but you cared. It was a service that only had a market for you. It was made just for you and your idea of how a duel should work, your "beat people up with swords" model. It fit you, and you alone—and therefore, nobody else.
quote:Yes, I remember doing this as a mod, and it was a nightmare. This was partly because we discussed it as a team of mods, and by the time you got round to deleting a post, quite often somebody had already replied to it, usually copying it.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I have moderated a board where posts were deleted. One of the reasons was that it was for parents of children with medical needs and when they moved on it did not seem reasonable to leave personal information in place. The other reason was to remove conflicts.
It is a lot more difficult to delete stuff in the way you seem to think IngoB. Things move on while people are out to work and the posts to be deleted were quoted in later answers. So just removing a post was not enough, all the other posts that referred to it needed editing or partially deleting, which is a whole lot of work. Serious amounts. Took bloody hours it did.
quote:Too small a sample, though. I would opine that Ariston might not be precisely correct, his point is essentially accurate.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Essentially, MAAN worked.
It was doing a different job to Hell, and it seems to have been thought that the job Hell does is more vital for the wider purposes of the Ship (I view that I share, FWIW), but MAAN did perform to specification during the trial period, and IngoB's views about what might make a healthy venue for conflict resolution were, IMO, largely vindicated.
quote:There's the thing (emphasis added). If people really have a will to solve the problem, they could do it by PM. The MAAN board just added exhibitionism to that dynamic. "Look at us! We're resolving our differences!" The rest of you can be spectators!
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with MAAN was it only worked for a tiny subset of problems Shipmates have with others - where two people have a specific problem they want to resolve. And I still don't see why that can't be done by PM.
quote:Please tell me that that doesn't actually exist - although it does sound scarily plausible.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's like a cable channel that shows married couples apologizing to one another over morning coffee. It's voyeurism.
quote:Dear God, I hope not. But now that it comes to it, I'll bet I could pitch it to enough advertisers to have a go at it.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Please tell me that that doesn't actually exist - although it does sound scarily plausible.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's like a cable channel that shows married couples apologizing to one another over morning coffee. It's voyeurism.
quote:I think a comparison to SoF over a decade ago is pretty meaningless, frankly. There is just no question that one can manage conflict without Hell. Tell people to stop it, and if they don't, give them shore leave. I would suggest to use shorter periods (a day or two) for minor infringements, since long enforced breaks can mean losing a poster. Anyhow, there's no question that that sort of "enforcing peace" can work.
Originally posted by mousethief:
IngoB, how many people who were here before Hell have to say it before you believe it? Oh wait, never mind. That would mean admitting you were wrong. As you were.
quote:"Gladiatorial style combat" actually had a 100% success rate, but the sample size was a admittedly small. As far as running SoF without Hell goes, just tell people to stop it, and if they don't, give them shore leave. That's all. I see no particular reason why the Ship has to help people behave like adults. It could be a service offered, and then we could talk about the best way of doing it. But there is no particular reason why SoF should be in the business of educating people about basic manners.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Also, what on earth would Ingo have the Crew do?! Make Shipmates apologise to each other and a huggie every time harsh words are exchanged?! Engaging in gladiatorial style combat didn't work!!!
quote:Let me monopolise the conversation?! Oh, I see. The above was simply an example of how things would work if I was called to Hell under my suggested scheme. If someone else was called, then they would get to do 50% of all posts. And that is all this scheme does, it gives the person called to Hell the chance to talk 50% of the time and thus enforces something resembling a conversation even if an entire group of people want to trash that person.
Originally posted by Ariston:
This is the Ship of Fools, Magazine of Christian Unrest. We have a worldwide audience of people in different time zones who have other things to do besides post in turn, and, above all, don't like being micromanaged or silenced because they talked out of turn in order to let Ingo monopolize and direct the conversation.
quote:Can we get this straight, please? There were two good test cases, they were successfully resolved, and MAAN got killed officially while gearing up for a third, more Purgatorial, run. MAAN did not have enough pull to empty Hell, not even of Hell calls. But it certainly worked as intended, and there were other people than me using it.
Originally posted by Ariston:
Ingo, the reason nobody posted on MAAN, why you never got a good test case, was probably because nobody but you cared. It was a service that only had a market for you.
quote:It is interesting that you accuse me of control-freakery and bang on about glorious unrest, while posturing as a tyrant shutting down dissent by force. My rules would apply to everybody without exception, and they care not about what is being said. They are neutral. Perhaps they are stupid, perhaps they won't work. Fine. But they are exactly not dictatorial and discriminatory. Whereas you are being that right there.
Originally posted by Ariston:
Otherwise, be prepared to find that we've decided you're the one always speaking out of turn, and all your own posts deleted.
quote:But that's not my suggestion. I'm not talking about editing out contributions. I'm talking about mechanically deleting every post that is out of order. That will take seconds. The idea here is not at all that the hosts shape the debate. The idea is that they create a channel which gives 50% of time to each side. How people deal with that is their problem. I expect that rather rapidly people will adapt, and thus that the actual workload for hosts will reduce further. People will not post if they see that they would not be in turn, and people will not respond to things posted out of turn (because they will vanish soon). But if they do, then a couple of clicks will deal with that.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It is a lot more difficult to delete stuff in the way you seem to think IngoB. Things move on while people are out to work and the posts to be deleted were quoted in later answers. So just removing a post was not enough, all the other posts that referred to it needed editing or partially deleting, which is a whole lot of work. Serious amounts. Took bloody hours it did.
quote:I see zero value in providing a venue for the public venting of personal conflict. That rarely if ever resolves anything, and generally will exacerbate the problem precisely by bringing others to the fight. Nobody in the real world does conflict resolution in a public arena, that's just a sensationally stupid idea. If somebody else than the opponents is brought in, then as a professional and impartial moderator or counsellor, not as a potential stakeholder. And admitting that you are wrong gets ten times harder if (hostile!) public scrutiny makes it a walk to Canossa.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I also know that I can't just call someone an idiot, I have to attack their argument, not them - this is a huge aid to discussion. Nevertheless, when people at like complete dicks on the rest of the ship, it is also great to know that this conflict doesn't just have to be repressed (as it would be without Hell, or with only your ill-thought out suggestions), but is given freedom to be vented and perhaps resolved.
quote:That's exactly right. If you post out of sequence, your post gets deleted whenever the next host swings by. No if and buts, or indeed any further thought. Do that a few times, and people will learn. And put the rule set on top of the board, or as a sticky, or whatever. If somebody complains on Styx, point him or her to the rule set. End of discussion.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Delete the past 10 responses in a heated argument because responses 1 and 7 were out of sequence?
quote:If the Ship did this for Hell calls, ideally in its own board with the rules posted on top, then it would work perfectly fine. The deleting takes practically zero effort. There is no talking stick or consideration of topic or anything. All one has to do is to remember the name of the person called to Hell, say X, and then then it is a strict pattern: Non-X (OP), X, Non-X, X, Non-X, X, ... The Non-X can be one person, or many different ones, all one has to remember is X.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
If the Ship did this it would close within a week because the Crew would resign due to the increased workload and the stress levels.
quote:As far as sin is concerned, I generally follow the "do as I say, don't do as I do" approach...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are holding up a mirror to this, I trust.
quote:Sure, that's true. But of course it inherited this from trying to (partially) replace the Jerry Springer Show of SoF, Hell, with something slightly less obnoxious. If you want to campaign for banning all discussion (and potential resolution) of personal conflict to PM, you get my thumbs up.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If people really have a will to solve the problem, they could do it by PM. The MAAN board just added exhibitionism to that dynamic. "Look at us! We're resolving our differences!" The rest of you can be spectators! It's like a cable channel that shows married couples apologizing to one another over morning coffee. It's voyeurism.
quote:Once again you spectacularly fail to get my point. I think you do it on purpose, frankly.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Sure, that's true. But of course it inherited this from trying to (partially) replace the Jerry Springer Show of SoF, Hell, with something slightly less obnoxious. If you want to campaign for banning all discussion (and potential resolution) of personal conflict to PM, you get my thumbs up.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If people really have a will to solve the problem, they could do it by PM. The MAAN board just added exhibitionism to that dynamic. "Look at us! We're resolving our differences!" The rest of you can be spectators! It's like a cable channel that shows married couples apologizing to one another over morning coffee. It's voyeurism.
quote:Problems.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Nobody in the real world does conflict resolution in a public arena,
quote:My point is that your style of engagement often fails your own test.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:As far as sin is concerned, I generally follow the "do as I say, don't do as I do" approach...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are holding up a mirror to this, I trust.
quote:And you have stated you do not care, which also fails your own test.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is good to reduce and resolve conflict, it is evil by omission to fail to do so when one could, and it is outright evil to increase and intensify conflict.
quote:If X does not show, then indeed there will be no further expression of disgust with X. Frankly, I think it is entirely fine to just have one "X is an idiot" OP sit there unopposed, and slowly move down the ranks of threads on the board. As far as additional threads go, allowing that will require a judgement call by the hosts. I would handle that just as for regular topics. If a thread on the topic is still around, then people need to post there. (And as stated, if X does not show, then people simply have to be satisfied with what the existing OP.) However, if it is about something else, or if a sufficient time has passed for the old thread to have faded away, then a new thread about the same person is perfectly fine.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Just out of interest, what happens if there is a Hell call - OP 'X is an idiot'. And X doesn't show up? Do the massed ranks of others offended by his idiocy have to forever hold their peace? Or does each one get to start a new thread, with OPs variously derisive of X? And if you say only one call per callee, does that not privilege X to be as disagreeable as he likes - until such time as flaming breaks out on the other Boards, because Hell is effectively closed?
quote:I had (over-)acknowledged your point there...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:My point is that your style of engagement often fails your own test.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:As far as sin is concerned, I generally follow the "do as I say, don't do as I do" approach...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are holding up a mirror to this, I trust.
quote:This. A stupid idea is still a stupid idea however much you explain it.
Originally posted by St Deird:
What this thread has started doing, from my perspective:
IngoB: "Here is a way that we could fix the Hell board by doing A, B, and C."
everyone else: "That really wouldn't work very well. In fact, it'd kinda suck."
IngoB: "No, you're not getting it! We'd do A, B, and C!"
everyone else: "Yeah... and A would screw up the board, B would piss everyone off, and C would just be a waste of time. Crappy idea."
IngoB: "No, you don't understand. I'm not saying we should screw things up, I'm saying we should do A, B, and C."
Ingo, you have now explained precisely how you envision this working many times, and don't seem to understand that we have already heard your brilliant idea. We just... don't like it.
quote:It may be a cultural difference, and you are attempting to recommend the Mensur to those more given to the riot, brawl or donnybrook. But TBH, I think it is more an incomprehension of the nature of anger. It is not rational or civil or content to wait its turn: it will not read the instructions or observe the rules: it will kick over the furniture and leave bloody stripes on all and sundry because it has FUCKING HAD ENOUGH.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If X does not show, then indeed there will be no further expression of disgust with X. Frankly, I think it is entirely fine to just have one "X is an idiot" OP sit there unopposed.
quote:Jesus tossed tables, threw money all over the place and shouted whilst waving a whip of cords whilst cleansing the Temple. When pondering WWJD, it's comforting to know that this is within the realms of possibility.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:It may be a cultural difference, and you are attempting to recommend the Mensur to those more given to the riot, brawl or donnybrook. But TBH, I think it is more an incomprehension of the nature of anger. It is not rational or civil or content to wait its turn: it will not read the instructions or observe the rules: it will kick over the furniture and leave bloody stripes on all and sundry because it has FUCKING HAD ENOUGH.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If X does not show, then indeed there will be no further expression of disgust with X. Frankly, I think it is entirely fine to just have one "X is an idiot" OP sit there unopposed.
There are times when you don't wish to come to a rational adjustment of differences. When, in fact, the very idea of rapprochement equals the betrayal of everything you believe. Sometimes you need Hell, not Heck.
quote:Fine. But most of the regular posters in Hell, the hosts and, I assume, the Admins and Proprietors do see some value in such a forum.
I see zero value in providing a venue for the public venting of personal conflict.
quote:We have the answer to Tubbs' question, then. You will manintain your complete unreality about how people behave and how message boards work.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I expect that rather rapidly people will adapt, and thus that the actual workload for hosts will reduce further. People will not post if they see that they would not be in turn, and people will not respond to things posted out of turn (because they will vanish soon). But if they do, then a couple of clicks will deal with that.
quote:This is a perfect illustration of how bizarrely unrealistic your cunning little plan is, Ingo. And how you are thinking of each Hellcall as a neat little closed system. They tend to be closed systems NOW, of course, but that's precisely because we let them range widely.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you waste the precious attack slot with something pointless, then the other people who wanted to say something will get mad at you.
quote:Possibly that was a crosspost, I dealt with that question in the post just previous to yours.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
One thing that puzzles me, according to your logic, if X manages to piss off loads of people, each of them would have to call them to Hell.
quote:Oh, I know fully well what anger is. I just don't see any reason for giving it room in a public discussion. If you want to kick over the furniture and leave bloody stripes on all and sundry, then go to your room, destroy your own furniture and inflict those bloody stripes on yourself.
Originally posted by Firenze:
But TBH, I think it is more an incomprehension of the nature of anger. It is not rational or civil or content to wait its turn: it will not read the instructions or observe the rules: it will kick over the furniture and leave bloody stripes on all and sundry because it has FUCKING HAD ENOUGH.
quote:Obviously, Gildas, obviously. But I sometimes argue on more than one level, and nothing demonstrates a point better than a little practical demonstration...
Originally posted by Gildas:
I can kinda sorta see where you are coming from but I think that you might find yourself fighting a losing battle.
quote:I always try to answer all, or at least most, posts addressed to me or of interest to me since my last post. I actually invest some editing efforts to collate that into a single post. If you prefer me posting about half a dozen separate posts in a row, I'll happily do that.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Let me tell you, Sunshine, this is not actually the most helpful or enjoyable posting style for the reader, no matter how much you enjoy composing it in your ivory tower.
quote:You did indeed. Your response was to refuse to allow any similarly aggrieved person to say jackshit, on that thread or a new one, AT ALL, until the Heck callee had honored the existing OP with his presence. Which of course he is perfectly free not to do--thereby choking off all expression of anger against him until "a reasonable time"--what, two months or so? had passed.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Possibly that was a crosspost, I dealt with that question in the post just previous to yours.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
One thing that puzzles me, according to your logic, if X manages to piss off loads of people, each of them would have to call them to Hell.
quote:If people get their own Hell call because they wasted a Hell call slot in my system by posting pointless drivel or brainless repeats or the like, then I would love that. Hell has rather horrible standards, and it is about time that people force each other to raise them. I would actually agree that transiently Hell would get really busy if that became a thing, just because trash posting is so common in Hell. But it would sort itself out, and it would be well worth the extra effort in the long run.
Originally posted by orfeo:
What do you think is going to happen when people get mad at a poster? Wait, wait, don't tell me... I'm sure we had some kind of mechanism for dealing with that. Oh! That's right... THEY'LL START A HELL CALL. Well done, Ingo. You've just invented the perfect mechanism for generating more Hell calls than ever before. Hell will be frenetically busy.
quote:Yes, I know. It's rather encouraging, really.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's not going to happen. You've been told it's not going to happen. You've been told by an Admin that it's the worst Ship idea you've ever had.
quote:Don't worry, orfeo. I know that you are a clever, clever boy - and you have a Mensa membership to prove it, too.
Originally posted by orfeo:
At this point you're just providing further opportunities for me to illustrate that your analytical skills are pathetically awful.
quote:Heck, I laughed, too. I have a weak spot for well-executed smart-ass.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So we would have something like ...
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, argument.
mousethief: Stupid short response.
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage. *DELETED*
Lamb Chopped: Nit-picking for the heck of it. *DELETED*
Evensong: Triumphant postmodernist Angli-trash. *DELETED*
quetzalcoatl: Void utterings from beyond. *DELETED*
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, response to mousethief.
Lamb Chopped: Nit-picking for the heck of it.
quetzalcoatl: Void utterings from beyond. *DELETED*
mousethief: Stupid short response. *DELETED*
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage. *DELETED*
Evensong: Triumphant postmodernist Angli-trash. *DELETED*
IngoB: Entirely reasonable, if overly long, response to Lamb Chopped.
orfeo: Self-convinced garbage.
Evensong: Triumphant postmodernist Angli-trash. *DELETED*
etc.
quote:I qualify, but why would I want to associate myself with even more unrealistic intellectual wankery when I've already got you to keep me company right here?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Don't worry, orfeo. I know that you are a clever, clever boy - and you have a Mensa membership to prove it, too.
quote:You are a slut, and you know it...
Originally posted by orfeo:
I qualify, but why would I want to associate myself with even more unrealistic intellectual wankery when I've already got you to keep me company right here?
quote:And you are a pimp.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:You are a slut, and you know it...
Originally posted by orfeo:
I qualify, but why would I want to associate myself with even more unrealistic intellectual wankery when I've already got you to keep me company right here?
quote:It's your system which is brainless, IngoB. It takes no account of the way people interact or the way the Ship works.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If people get their own Hell call because they wasted a Hell call slot in my system by posting pointless drivel or brainless repeats or the like, then I would love that. Hell has rather horrible standards, and it is about time that people force each other to raise them.
quote:Interesting that you take my allusion to the model for righteous anger as the description of insensate rage (cue moneychanger limping out of Temple muttering 'Bloody fanatic').
Originally posted by IngoB:
I know fully well what anger is. I just don't see any reason for giving it room in a public discussion. If you want to kick over the furniture and leave bloody stripes on all and sundry, then go to your room, destroy your own furniture and inflict those bloody stripes on yourself.
quote:It wouldn't be wrong to suggest it, no. Though sadly it would probably be wrong for a Host to act on it until an Admin gives us permission.
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Would it be wrong for someone to suggest that a host deletes Ingob's next lengthy post and replaces it with Evensnog's latest underdog defence? Then he could get a real feel for how his proposed system would work.
quote:Please do not include me in Bingo's facile attempts at a top down approach.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Boogie, he's either trolling or trying to derail Hell, because he and Evensong are arguing for other systems that would prevent 20 people telling them that their behaviour is out of line, just one at a time that they can wear down with arguments.
quote:How exactly are you championing "self-responsibility" when you side with the minority in all cases? Are you not actually taking the heat off people who are in the wrong?
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm championing the bottom up approach: a bit of humanity, a bit of compassion, a bit of self-responsibility in a world of ugly mob rule.
quote:Your questions and ensuing statement make me believe you have not read the last four odd pages of debate on underdog theology brilliantly explicated by myself, Jamat and Bingo.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Evensong - a couple of questions:
Has a mob has posted on the Justinian thread?
Second question: why has Justinian not been dog-piled when others are?
It's not the culture of Hell that causes the dog-piles - it's how much irritation the person being attacked has caused across the Ship. Twenty people don't decide just to chip in for fun, they chip in because they are irritated and frustrated by their interactions with the Shipmate called to Hell and are taking the opportunity to express that anger.
quote:I quotes filed his brilliant explication of underdog theology.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Take Ingo, for example. You ask us not to include you in his approach. So why are you cheering it on? Why are you QUOTES FILING it?
quote:Wtf? Brilliant?
Originally posted by Evensong:
... you have not read the last four odd pages of debate on underdog theology brilliantly explicated by myself, Jamat and Bingo.
quote:Hallefuckinlujah!
Originally posted by QLib:
Underdog theology is Christian theology.
quote:Oooh, that could be interesting. What thread is that in?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Your questions and ensuing statement make me believe you have not read the last four odd pages of debate on underdog theology brilliantly explicated by myself, Jamat and Bingo.
quote:Brilliant doesn't do justice to your reasoning, Evensong. The word does not have the right flavour. I am not certain any word truly encapsulates that which is the splendour of you. Perhaps we can enlist two words for this task. Evensong, you are a real geniuramous.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Hallefuckinlujah!
Originally posted by QLib:
Underdog theology is Christian theology.
Someone else has got it!
(Seems to be very difficult for everyone else. Perhaps you're just brilliant too?)
quote:Probably. Even though Adolf will tell her to butt out and get back to her kitchen, church and any children she has. And Evensong has an epic meltdown when one Shipmate too many assumes that she's fighting Adolf's corner because she agrees with him rather than because of her mission to defend the underdog at all costs.
Originally posted by QLib:
Look at it this way, Evensong:
Supposing they had had the internet in the 1930s. Suppose there was a Ship of Fools back then.
Suppose a shipmate called Adolf had inflamed things in Purg by protesting the links between "international Jewry" and capitalist exploitation of the working class.
He's called to Hell, where his inflammatory comments about "our hook-nosed brethren" and "blood-sucking parasites" have resulted in him being dog-piled. You're going to stand up for him, are you?
quote:Fixed that for you.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Probably. Even though Adolf will tell her to butt out and get back to her kitchen, church and any children she has. And Evensong has an epic meltdown when one Shipmate too many assumes that she's fighting Adolf's corner because she agrees with him rather than because of her crusade to defend the underdog at all costs.
Tubbs
quote:Thank you. Most kind
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:Fixed that for you.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Probably. Even though Adolf will tell her to butt out and get back to her kitchen, church and any children she has. And Evensong has an epic meltdown when one Shipmate too many assumes that she's fighting Adolf's corner because she agrees with him rather than because of her crusade to defend the underdog at all costs.
Tubbs
quote:Okay, okay. <slinks away>
Originally posted by QLib:
We get it mt. Everyone gets it. Except for a couple of people dazzled by their own brilliance.
quote:Funny that you do not consider sniffily disassociating yourself from an "underdog" - in this case, by your own standards, IngoB - a similar ethical crime to dogpiling. If I were interested in how your measures vary, I'd call it interesting, but I'm not.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Please do not include me in Bingo's facile attempts at a top down approach.
I'm championing the bottom up approach: a bit of humanity, a bit of compassion, a bit of self-responsibility in a world of ugly mob rule.
(More psuedo-Girardian, postmodern Angli-trash stuff. - You like that Leaf?)
quote:Except lilBuddha pointed out that your definition of people on Hellcall threads as "underdogs" is completely screwy, AT LEAST 4 pages ago.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Hallefuckinlujah!
Originally posted by QLib:
Underdog theology is Christian theology.
Someone else has got it!
(Seems to be very difficult for everyone else. Perhaps you're just brilliant too?)
quote:Godwin's law. Well. We have reached the bottom of the barrel.
Originally posted by QLib:
Look at it this way, Evensong:
Supposing they had had the internet in the 1930s. Suppose there was a Ship of Fools back then.
Suppose a shipmate called Adolf had inflamed things in Purg by protesting the links between "international Jewry" and capitalist exploitation of the working class.
He's called to Hell, where his inflammatory comments about "our hook-nosed brethren" and "blood-sucking parasites" have resulted in him being dog-piled. You're going to stand up for him, are you?
quote:Or we could just close Hell. Because the very rationale of Hell is that you're allowed to attack the person and not just the issue. In fact, if you read the Commandment that you've just referred to, it clearly indicates that Hell is an exception.
Originally posted by Jamat:
How hard is it to stop? Maybe a judicial ruling by admins on the commandment that says attack the issue not the person?
quote:Does not apply here - I'm not calling you a fascist, I'm pointing out what idiocy your supposedly high-minded principles could lead to. Nobody is getting kicked or beaten here and people are always free to get up and walk away.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Godwin's law.
quote:It's also partly about wanting people to think well of them.
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:Funny that you do not consider sniffily disassociating yourself from an "underdog" - in this case, by your own standards, IngoB - a similar ethical crime to dogpiling. If I were interested in how your measures vary, I'd call it interesting, but I'm not.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Please do not include me in Bingo's facile attempts at a top down approach.
I'm championing the bottom up approach: a bit of humanity, a bit of compassion, a bit of self-responsibility in a world of ugly mob rule.
(More psuedo-Girardian, postmodern Angli-trash stuff. - You like that Leaf?)
Face it, Evensong: you only champion yourself. You do no favours to those whom you seem to think you ought to be defended. If you think that's what you are or ought to be doing, consider doing it more effectively. At least IngoB has a suggestion of how this might be accomplished (with which I disagree, fwiw). All you do is crusade in order to get yourself on camera. You are pathetically needy of attention, which you try to cover with the thin unconvincing cover of a "larf" (referring to your own brilliance, etc.) or the even less convincing pretense that this is an ethical stance based on theology.
This is why you are a pseudo-Girardian: it's not really about the underdog, or Jesus, but just about you.
quote:Remind me never to piss you off btw Leaf. I'm not sure I could cope with your character assessment!
Look at Evensong! Isn't it marvellous that she stands up for the underdog?! What a fantastic person she is. I wish I was more like her ...
quote:How hard it is not to read or contribute to it?!
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Or we could just close Hell. Because the very rationale of Hell is that you're allowed to attack the person and not just the issue. In fact, if you read the Commandment that you've just referred to, it clearly indicates that Hell is an exception.
Originally posted by Jamat:
How hard is it to stop? Maybe a judicial ruling by admins on the commandment that says attack the issue not the person?
quote:Damnit, orfeo - now I'm having visions of IngoB in a leisure suit, with a wide-brimmed hat (with a large feather, natch!) and a cane.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And you are a pimp.
quote:Sure, which is why I suggested 'judicial' tweaking. It is analogous to case law. Once a court has ruled on a law then subsequent similar cases follow precedent. If the 'Privy Council' of admins ruled on a case as to how the commandment was to be interpreted, then subsequently hosts have a steer on how to rule in similar cases. No reorganisation and no extra work for hosts as in a revamp.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Or we could just close Hell. Because the very rationale of Hell is that you're allowed to attack the person and not just the issue. In fact, if you read the Commandment that you've just referred to, it clearly indicates that Hell is an exception.
Originally posted by Jamat:
How hard is it to stop? Maybe a judicial ruling by admins on the commandment that says attack the issue not the person?
quote:Why do you post in a shit hole?
Originally posted by Jamat:
However, as most seem to like this shit hole as it is, it probably won't happen.
quote:No, it isn't analgous to case law at all. Because case law is designed to fill in the gaps and ambiguities and clarify the application of general principles in particular circumstances. What is ambiguous or unclear, and therefore in need of a ruling, in the indications that that commandment simply doesn't apply in Hell?
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Sure, which is why I suggested 'judicial' tweaking. It is analogous to case law. Once a court has ruled on a law then subsequent similar cases follow precedent. If the 'Privy Council' of admins ruled on a case as to how the commandment was to be interpreted, then subsequently hosts have a steer on how to rule in similar cases. No reorganisation and no extra work for hosts as in a revamp.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Or we could just close Hell. Because the very rationale of Hell is that you're allowed to attack the person and not just the issue. In fact, if you read the Commandment that you've just referred to, it clearly indicates that Hell is an exception.
Originally posted by Jamat:
How hard is it to stop? Maybe a judicial ruling by admins on the commandment that says attack the issue not the person?
However, as most seem to like this shit hole as it is, it probably won't happen.
quote:Precisely, that's the problem. You have just come out as a commandment 'inerrantist'. But I know you are right, the commandment would have to fundamentally change. It would need a rider to allow personal attacks on behaviour and arguments but not on the person themselves. Not exactly difficult. You would just need some agreed criteria on what is cruel vs what is fair comment and there is plenty of scope for discussion there. I can't see that hell couldn't still be a robust place of unrest if you weren't allowed to say for instance: 'You are a fW' rather than, 'You are behaving like one' which you would be allowed to say. 'You are being a hypocrite' , for instance, is fine. 'You are a hypocrite' isn't as it does not target the behaviour and is a wide personal slur. It is simply about the personal respect and dignity that we owe each other. Anyhow.. shrug.
Orfeo: People can go back and forth across that 'line' as much as they like down here.
quote:You lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.
Originally posted by Jamat:
MT : Because that's where the discussion is.
quote:No I haven't. I have pointed out to you that only 'hard law' changes will bring about a practical difference, and that your suggested 'soft law' changes wouldn't work. If you want to make a case for 'hard law' change, knock yourself out. For that you'll have to talk to the Admins, not me.
Originally posted by Jamat:
You have just come out as a commandment 'inerrantist'.
quote:Hallelujah. For once I'm right.
But I know you are right, the commandment would have to fundamentally change.
quote:Are you listening at all?
Originally posted by Jamat:
It would need a rider to allow personal attacks on behaviour and arguments but not on the person themselves. Not exactly difficult.
quote:I've no particular interest in being a host, mostly because of the attached requirement of reading every post on the board. I value my sanity. I do not have a problem with hosting an experimental run though. I understand that as a time-limited trial, like MAAN ended up being (though I'm not happy about how things ended with MAAN, but that's a different issue to that it ended).
Originally posted by Ariston:
Ingo, do you really want to be in charge of a community you've said repeatedly you don't believe is a real community—and is a great den of falsehood to boot—populated only by anonymous names on a screen rather than real people? I guess I don't see the point, given everything else you've said about how you view the Ship and online discussion in general.
quote:Now that is a good idea.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Seriously, I think SoF needs an experimental "play zone", so that we can try out ideas without going through apocalypse rhetoric. Not a play zone for my ideas exclusively, but for anybody's ideas about anything that could somehow fit into this format. Trial and error beats argument most of the time...
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:This was probably a rhetorical question, but I'm going to go ahead and answer it. Twice.
Originally posted by QLib:
I don't know what you're making such a fuss about, orfeo.
quote:The software is as it is, and will remain as it is. Any experiment will have to live with that, as my suggestion could. (I hear that the software will change, and probably that would give greater freedom to experimentation since more will become possible. But that's an independent process. If we stick to this software "forever", then that should still give plenty of room for trying out new stuff.)
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
What would you want to put in a play zone? Can the software handle it? Do you have the manpower to manage it?
quote:I have run a small scale BB (using phpBB), including at the admin / owner level. Installing a new board and giving some Shipmates host rights over it should be a matter of minutes. I suspect what can take time is the organisation apart from this basic software setup. But basically that's the problem of the "experimenter": If your suggestion is super-involved, then you should expect to put in quite some time to set things set up. If not, the not. Concerning my recent suggestion, one pretty much would have to only put the rule set somewhere prominent (board introduction paragraph, or perhaps a sticky post), and that would be it.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I know, because I had conversations about it, how complicated it was to set up the Nativity Play. I suspect things like the Simmies were equally complicated to organise.
quote:See, there's your problem right there. It is twofold.
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is simply about the personal respect and dignity that we owe each other.
quote:It's even more amusing when it's coming from a poster whose contributions to a recent Styx thread on a different subject ended up forming a significant part of the resulting policy announcement.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I find it terribly amusing when someone is peddling a shitty idea and concludes from the rejection of said shitty idea that all ideas will be rejected. Normally that conclusion is based on a steadfast refusal to accept that the idea is fundamentally shitty.
quote:I think these judgements say more about the people making them than about my recent suggestion. But anyhow, this has nothing to do with installing a "play zone" as permanent fixture. Indeed, who gets to play there has to be judged by someone. That will presumably be the H&As, to perhaps a specific subgroup of the H&As. And if they don't like my experiment, then it won't run. So what? That doesn't mean that other people do not have better ideas (in the H&A's judgement) that would deserve a trial run.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You've been told multiple times, Ingo, that your script is completely harebrained. You've actually been told it's the most harebrained script you've ever come up with. If you want to get the network to commission a pilot episode, ditch the script you're waving in your hand and come up with a plausible one.
quote:My picture of how things on SoF tend to go has formed over a decade of interactions. It is fairly independent of some recent idea about reforming Hell that I have posted now. (And the attentive reader would have noted that 1) that it is not even my priority, i.e., it is not what I would actually suggest for a play zone run if given that opportunity now, and 2) there might be some meta reason why I've pushed that hell reform idea a bit here...)
Originally posted by orfeo:
I find it terribly amusing when someone is peddling a shitty idea and concludes from the rejection of said shitty idea that all ideas will be rejected. Normally that conclusion is based on a steadfast refusal to accept that the idea is fundamentally shitty.
quote:Funny. Because earlier you said that what happened on the Ship a decade ago was irrelevant.
Originally posted by IngoB:
My picture of how things on SoF tend to go has formed over a decade of interactions.
quote:Indeed. Life is full of ironies like that.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It's even more amusing when it's coming from a poster whose contributions to a recent Styx thread on a different subject ended up forming a significant part of the resulting policy announcement.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I find it terribly amusing when someone is peddling a shitty idea and concludes from the rejection of said shitty idea that all ideas will be rejected. Normally that conclusion is based on a steadfast refusal to accept that the idea is fundamentally shitty.
quote:If everyone is thinking alike then no one is thinking. Franklin also said that,and I guess if you need to connect with the bottom feeders you have to jump in the pond.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:You lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.
Originally posted by Jamat:
MT : Because that's where the discussion is.
quote:IngoB, why must you do this? You're trying to convince people to your way of thinking, and yet you introduce a snide comment like this, implying the only reason your interlocutors have not yet been convinced is because of some defect on their part. I don't think that'll win people round...
Originally posted by IngoB:
(And the attentive reader would have noted that...
quote:Experience about something that changed over a decade ago is not particularly relevant now. Experience with something that has remained the same for over a decade is.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Funny. Because earlier you said that what happened on the Ship a decade ago was irrelevant.
Originally posted by IngoB:
My picture of how things on SoF tend to go has formed over a decade of interactions.
quote:Once more: Whether you would want to run my recent Hell reform suggestion in a play zone is simply a different question to whether you would want to have a play zone for running experimental trials. It is entirely possible to answer "hell, no" to the former and "why not" to the latter. Furthermore, with most people on SoF, you will get suggestions only if the play zone is right there to be used and you are asking for suggestions what could be run on it. Basically, start a thread on Styx about suggestions, create a play zone board (and, I would suggest, a meta board to handle discussions) and put a header on the play zone board saying "Post your suggestions in Styx (link to thread)." Then things will start moving.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
A play zone could have possibilities, but someone would still have to come up with an idea that sounded remotely workable before they'd get any Ship resources dedicated to it to actually put it to the test.
quote:First, it is an amazing demonstration of biased perception if you really think that I've been the one who has been primarily dishing out verbal aggression here. Second, the bit that you actually quoted exactly was not about "implying the only reason your interlocutors have not yet been convinced is because of some defect on their part." It was mostly about separating the play zone idea from the prior hell discussion, because they just are separate things. (And in fact, I suggested the general "play zone" idea way back when we ran MAAN, and probably before that...)
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
IngoB, why must you do this? You're trying to convince people to your way of thinking, and yet you introduce a snide comment like this, implying the only reason your interlocutors have not yet been convinced is because of some defect on their part. I don't think that'll win people round...
quote:Sure,it's all about assumptions. You are assuming that posting in this forum means forgoing a right to be regarded as someone with dignity and also that offending other posters is normally the fault of the 'offender' and is a justification for sadism. Your second assumption is reasonable.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:See, there's your problem right there. It is twofold.
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is simply about the personal respect and dignity that we owe each other.
1. You are assuming that we owe each other "personal respect and dignity" in Hell.
2. You are forgetting that those who are called to Hell have usually been called there precisely because they were failing to give "personal respect and dignity" to other posters on the thread from which the call originated.
quote:I think it's more basic than that. I think he's assuming you can read.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Sure,it's all about assumptions. You are assuming that posting in this forum means forgoing a right to be regarded as someone with dignity
quote:I'm assuming that everyone knows that posting in Hell is the equivalent of drawing a big, fat bull's eye on their chest, that they need to have a thick skin down here, and that they should back out if they don't want to be roasted to a crisp as our normal rules on civility are abandoned on this board.
Originally posted by Jamat:
You are assuming that posting in this forum means forgoing a right to be regarded as someone with dignity
quote:Yes. And where it isn't, you'll generally find that the caller is the one being attacked on the Hell Call rather than the callee.
and also that offending other posters is normally the fault of the 'offender'
quote:Melodramatic crap. Sadism? Really?
and is a justification for sadism.
quote:I'm satisfied that we've given as many warnings about the nature of this board as we can. If someone chooses to ignore the warnings and then gets horribly upset about what gets said that's on them. Especially if they're of the "can dish it out but can't take it" persuasion, as many of the usual complainers about Hell tend to be.
How responsible would you be as an admin if someone decided to top themselves after being dog piled here?
quote:I thought I had said “why not” to the latter provided that people could come up with a viable suggestion. Having to prove your suggestion is viable in order to get resource is how most things work in life. I doubt in your field of research people just hand you a grant and tell you to crack on without you having to jump through various hoops first to convince them that your research idea is worthwhile. If anyone reading wants to start a thread for suggestions for another board in the Styx then they can. That’s how we got The Circus.
Once more: Whether you would want to run my recent Hell reform suggestion in a play zone is simply a different question to whether you would want to have a play zone for running experimental trials. It is entirely possible to answer "hell, no" to the former and "why not" to the latter. Furthermore, with most people on SoF, you will get suggestions only if the play zone is right there to be used and you are asking for suggestions what could be run on it. Basically, start a thread on Styx about suggestions, create a play zone board (and, I would suggest, a meta board to handle discussions) and put a header on the play zone board saying "Post your suggestions in Styx (link to thread)." Then things will start moving.
While all people hear is that an idea has to be "worthy" to run, nothing will happen. That's a simple psychological truth, which is quite independent of how bad my ideas may be. Most people simply won't step forward without active encouragement and clear signs of willingness to give things a try.
That "play zone" stuff is not about me. It really isn't. Heck, I will give you a promise to not make any suggestion for a year or two for experiments to run in the play zone, if that is so important to you. I just think things have been way too static, and I want to see some venue for "bottom up" exciting stuff.
quote:So you’re basically saying that people in Hell are behaving like pond scum and sadists and that their words are damaging. But you’re fine with yours, even though you’ve just had a go at everyone posting here and made some fairly whooping assumptions about them.
Sure,it's all about assumptions. You are assuming that posting in this forum means forgoing a right to be regarded as someone with dignity and also that offending other posters is normally the fault of the 'offender' and is a justification for sadism. Your second assumption is reasonable.
Does posting under avatar names and the fact that we don't or mostly don't know each other make it ok to behave like pond scum just because we can? It has been demonstrated more than once that real damage can occur as words can be potent weapons. How responsible would you be as an admin if someone decided to top themselves after being dog piled here?
quote:This is both fucked-up emotional blackmail and an ignorance of how suicide triggers can work.
Originally posted by Jamat:
It has been demonstrated more than once that real damage can occur as words can be potent weapons. How responsible would you be as an admin if someone decided to top themselves after being dog piled here?
quote:It should be entirely possible, but you wouldn't have thought so given that you've done little to acknowledge the many reasons people have given why your original idea was hare-brained.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Whether you would want to run my recent Hell reform suggestion in a play zone is simply a different question to whether you would want to have a play zone for running experimental trials. It is entirely possible to answer "hell, no" to the former and "why not" to the latter.
quote:I'm sorry, but quite simply I have never said anything to that effect. I do not think that my Hell idea was crappy, and I have defended it. But that has nothing to do with the "play zone" idea.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You came up with a crappy idea, people understood it, pointed out flaws with it, and you kept trying to justify it, insinuating that the fault was in us for not understanding it properly. Now you've come up with a second (perhaps half-decent) idea, and are pretending that it was that second idea that we were rejecting all along, or that we were rejecting the idea of having ideas.
quote:I'm not sure what my Church has to do with any of this. Anyhow, I've repeated several times, rather clearly, that these are two rather different ideas. The reason I have not repudiated the Hell idea is quite simply that I think the critique of it is mistaken, or at least massively exaggerated. I have not defended the Hell idea in terms of the "play zone" idea. Other than for the fact that the Hell idea could be run (but apparently wouldn't be) on the "play zone", there is no connection.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
ISTM that you're doing the same thing that your Church often does - pretending that the different things they said before are really the same thing as they are saying now, even though it's obviously different. And then blaming the listener for not realising that when they were saying thing #1, they really meant thing #2, now that it's established that thing #1 is nonsense.
quote:Yes, you are right. I have opened up a Styx thread.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can I suggest, with my Host hat gently on in a casual fashion at this point, that if people want to kick around the experimental board idea, they go and do so on the Styx?
quote:No I am not, only that such things can happen and have happened.
Tubbs: So you’re basically saying that people in Hell are behaving like pond scum and sadists and that their words are damaging.
quote:I hope you are right.
Lil Buddah: This is both fucked-up emotional blackmail and an ignorance of how suicide triggers can work.
quote:Nope. Everyone in their right mind thinks the world is round. It's not because they're not thinking. It's because the evidence is overwhelming. It's because they ARE thinking.
Originally posted by Jamat:
If everyone is thinking alike then no one is thinking.
quote:I'm still alive.
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I wish the guy well, wherever he may be.
