Originally posted by IngoB:
It's just so beautiful to watch Christian compassion in action.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
quote:Very. Least it's short.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Boring.
quote:I'm beginning to wonder if we need an "It's Been X Days Since IngoB Was Last Called to Hell" sign.
Originally posted by comet:
Ah, the comforting familiarity of home. The tea kettle in the same spot, the same smell of fresh bread, grandma's afghan draped on the old comfy chair, and our Bingo is called the Hell.
This is the life. Someone bring me a cocoa and a novel.
quote:He enjoys the attention.
Originally posted by Ariston:
I'm beginning to wonder if we need an "It's Been X Days Since IngoB Was Last Called to Hell" sign.
quote:Aging baby-boomer, pearl-clutching subtype.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Anankastic, puritanical subtype.
quote:Thumps down mug of cold cocoa with skin on plus copy of The Da Vinci Code for Comet's delectation. Enjoy.
Originally posted by comet:
This is the life. Someone bring me a cocoa and a novel.
quote:No, just a rota.
Originally posted by Ariston:
I'm beginning to wonder if we need an "It's Been X Days Since IngoB Was Last Called to Hell" sign.
quote:I like your response. Although given your location it arguably still fits in with mine, which was "Oh look, a bear is shitting in the woods again."
Originally posted by comet:
Ah, the comforting familiarity of home. The tea kettle in the same spot, the same smell of fresh bread, grandma's afghan draped on the old comfy chair, and our Bingo is called the Hell.
This is the life. Someone bring me a cocoa and a novel.
quote:That must be your shortest post ever!
Originally posted by IngoB:
Boring.
quote:Most comprehensible too.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:That must be your shortest post ever!
Originally posted by IngoB:
Boring.
Tubbs
quote:Click.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Most comprehensible too.
quote:It feels like I never left. I'll have a little cocoa myself, if that's OK.
Originally posted by comet:
Ah, the comforting familiarity of home. The tea kettle in the same spot, the same smell of fresh bread, grandma's afghan draped on the old comfy chair, and our Bingo is called the Hell.
quote:I like it. Short and to the point. And still the same amount of meaningful content as you usually provide.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Click.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Most comprehensible too.
quote:He's a sick fuck of a bully who has very cleverly found a way and a place to beat people up, but do it just this side of the line, to not get planked. It's quite clever, as befits his clockwork Jesuitical mind. It's also sick.
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
And to be honest, while I think Ingo is dangerously wrong and pretty fucking wilfully offensive, I haven't the necessary bile to get worked up over his walls of text any more.
quote:And only irrefutably true one.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:Most comprehensible too.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:That must be your shortest post ever!
Originally posted by IngoB:
Boring.
Tubbs
quote:I find him dumber than people make him out to be. What he does is easier than it looks; it's just a trick you can teach yourself. It's easily mistaken for cleverness.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:He's a sick fuck of a bully who has very cleverly found a way and a place to beat people up, but do it just this side of the line, to not get planked. It's quite clever, as befits his clockwork Jesuitical mind. It's also sick.
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
And to be honest, while I think Ingo is dangerously wrong and pretty fucking wilfully offensive, I haven't the necessary bile to get worked up over his walls of text any more.
quote:I'm not saying his posts are clever, mind. I'm saying his finding a way to abuse people but not have to pay any penalty for it (other than the occasional hell thread, which he blows off, because all he cares about is keeping on keeping on, not what people think about him).
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I find him dumber than people make him out to be. What he does is easier than it looks; it's just a trick you can teach yourself. It's easily mistaken for cleverness.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:He's a sick fuck of a bully who has very cleverly found a way and a place to beat people up, but do it just this side of the line, to not get planked. It's quite clever, as befits his clockwork Jesuitical mind. It's also sick.
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
And to be honest, while I think Ingo is dangerously wrong and pretty fucking wilfully offensive, I haven't the necessary bile to get worked up over his walls of text any more.
quote:And yet you are completely unable to duplicate it yourself. It's like advertisement for the sad consequences of Dunning-Kruger effect.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I find him dumber than people make him out to be. What he does is easier than it looks; it's just a trick you can teach yourself. It's easily mistaken for cleverness.
quote:But, why would anyone want to?
Originally posted by RooK:
And yet you are completely unable to duplicate it yourself.
quote:Bitch.
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:Thumps down mug of cold cocoa with skin on plus copy of The Da Vinci Code for Comet's delectation.
Originally posted by comet:
This is the life. Someone bring me a cocoa and a novel.
quote:You probably do gather about the same amount of information from all of my posts.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I like it. Short and to the point. And still the same amount of meaningful content as you usually provide.
quote:What have the Jesuits done to deserve me, and what have I done to deserved them? Let's keep the gratuitous insults at a humane level, shall we?
Originally posted by mousethief:
He's a sick fuck of a bully who has very cleverly found a way and a place to beat people up, but do it just this side of the line, to not get planked. It's quite clever, as befits his clockwork Jesuitical mind. It's also sick.
quote:What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Click.
quote:THAT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE MEANINGLESS. Nobody cares, IngoB. Why are you wasting your time typing them?
Originally posted by IngoB:
You probably do gather about the same amount of information from all of my posts.
quote:What the 'humane' level where you designate yourself the ability to read other people's minds and motives?
What have the Jesuits done to deserve me, and what have I done to deserved them? Let's keep the gratuitous insults at a humane level, shall we?
quote:Just fuck off already.
mousethief, you are a walking self-fulfilling prophecy. And that prophecy goes something like this: "The world is a hateful place, full of mean people not listening and hurting each other." Here's a song for you.
quote:You get one in every class.
Originally posted by mousethief:
He's a sick fuck of a bully who has very cleverly found a way and a place to beat people up, but do it just this side of the line, to not get planked.
quote:And again with the sick fucks, really, I'd get a lotion for that, STAT.
Originally posted by mousethief:
He's a sick fuck of a bully who has very cleverly found a way and a place to beat people up, but do it just this side of the line, to not get planked. It's quite clever, as befits his clockwork Jesuitical mind. It's also sick.
quote:Fuck off and start your own thread, you lazy bastard. This one is about IngoB.
Originally posted by Byron:
I doubt I agree with IngoB on much of anything, but he ain't the one hiding behind a screen and a cybermob. So long as he doesn't gang up to spew abuse from his keyboard, he's a better man than you'll ever be.
Now please, get some help for whatever ails ya.
quote:That's Hell for ya
Originally posted by Byron:
I've been driven to distraction by the dogmatism in some of IngoB's posts. I don't know if he's doing it to get a rise, but regardless, like I said, I doubt we agree on much of anything.
That's by the by. It's not worse than, or as bad as, dogpiling and posting up abuse that'd get folk hooked up if done face to face. The cure's worse than the supposed disease.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:So are my replies. They have his nick in 'em and everything.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fuck off and start your own thread, you lazy bastard. This one is about IngoB.
quote:I don't think there is anything underhanded about IngoB's posting style. When he stabs you, or your argument, he stabs you in the front.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Byron, just because IngoB is not up front about it doesn't make him kind and thoughtful. His digs are hidden and underhand - they keep this side of the planking line very cleverly.
quote:It's quite clear that you simply don't understand the purpose of Hell. Hell is not here so "we" (meaning "not you") can heap abuse on anyone we find annoying (meaning "yes, that includes you") from the safety of our anonomised keyboards without fear of retribution.
Originally posted by Byron:
I've been driven to distraction by the dogmatism in some of IngoB's posts. I don't know if he's doing it to get a rise, but regardless, like I said, I doubt we agree on much of anything.
That's by the by. It's not worse than, or as bad as, dogpiling and posting up abuse that'd get folk hooked up if done face to face. The cure's worse than the supposed disease.
quote:He knows a lot. But as they say, knowledge is not necessarily wisdom (or cleverness).
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I find him dumber than people make him out to be. What he does is easier than it looks; it's just a trick you can teach yourself. It's easily mistaken for cleverness.
quote:Sorry. You should try this instead.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Click.
quote:It's a gift.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Why the fuck do you think you can read other people's minds?
quote:The universe has this nasty habit of asserting itself. When it does, one gets what is called a "reality check". Why don't you go and get one? I'm sure its overdue. Have your oils changed as well, and don't forget to have your forehead stamped "loser".
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What the fuck makes you think that the universe you can imagine is the only possible universe - and therefore anyone else who says anything else is lying?
quote:For the most part, I'm here for my entertainment and some procrastination. To some extent I'm here for the vast array of heretical and sloppy thinking on offer. I would say "iron sharpens iron", but to be honest it's more "how long does the edge hold if you cut through gristle and fat".
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What the fuck are you here for?
quote:Lots of people, usually. You, for one.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Who do you think gives a flying fuck about any of the pages of drivel that you write?
quote:Myself.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Who are you trying to impress?
quote:I enjoy my writing. Both the process of writing itself, and reading the result.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Why are you wasting your time typing them?
quote:Let's see. You have started a Hell thread about me, and called me "tosser", while you would also insist that you are completely incapable of reading my mind and motives?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What the 'humane' level where you designate yourself the ability to read other people's minds and motives?
quote:I have never claimed to be an angel. But you are really mistaken if you think that I am a windup merchant. I'm not at all interested in making people upset. I'm interested in being right, and to be honest, in being right after some fight. Yes, it's a character flaw, but not one that feeds off "winding people up". For the most part I find it annoying when people get wound up. One cannot really argue Rumpelstilzchen into submission.
Originally posted by Boogie:
But that doesn't make him any kind of angel. Like I say, you get one in every class. They wind the others up surreptitiously, then it's always those who eventually retaliate who get in trouble.
quote:I'm always amazed that people say this sort of thing in public as if it showed something bad about me, rather than about themselves. Seriously, if the words of some random idiot on the internet had determined crucial life choices I have made, here's what I would do: shut the hell up about it! It's pretty difficult for me to imagine a more embarrassing lack of good judgement.
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
Hey, lay off IngoB, he provides a valuable service around here. A few years ago I was wavering on the brink of going back to the Catholic Church, everyone here was giving me great advice and encouragement and I was about two days from an appointment for a chat at my local church. Then IngoB waded in and I cancelled.
quote:I get it: you're a prick.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sorry. You should try this instead.
quote:I get it: you're a prick.
quote:It's a gift.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Why the fuck do you think you can read other people's minds?
quote:Oh, I get it: you're a prick.
The universe has this nasty habit of asserting itself. When it does, one gets what is called a "reality check". Why don't you go and get one? I'm sure its overdue. Have your oils changed as well, and don't forget to have your forehead stamped "loser".
quote:Prick.
For the most part, I'm here for my entertainment and some procrastination. To some extent I'm here for the vast array of heretical and sloppy thinking on offer. I would say "iron sharpens iron", but to be honest it's more "how long does the edge hold if you cut through gristle and fat".
quote:Wrong.
Lots of people, usually. You, for one.
quote:Easily pleased then.
quote:Myself.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Who are you trying to impress?
quote:I get it: you're a prick.
I enjoy my writing. Both the process of writing itself, and reading the result.
quote:No, y'know, that was established when I tried to make sense of your drivel in the thread and you just spouted more.
Let's see. You have started a Hell thread about me, and called me "tosser", while you would also insist that you are completely incapable of reading my mind and motives?
Look, I know this logic stuff makes your head hurt. But try to think a little about what you are saying? Just a little? Please?
quote:Oh right, I get it: you're a prick.
I have never claimed to be an angel. But you are really mistaken if you think that I am a windup merchant. I'm not at all interested in making people upset. I'm interested in being right, and to be honest, in being right after some fight. Yes, it's a character flaw, but not one that feeds off "winding people up". For the most part I find it annoying when people get wound up. One cannot really argue Rumpelstilzchen into submission.
quote:Yes, gotcha: you're a prick.
I'm always amazed that people say this sort of thing in public as if it showed something bad about me, rather than about themselves. Seriously, if the words of some random idiot on the internet had determined crucial life choices I have made, here's what I would do: shut the hell up about it! It's pretty difficult for me to imagine a more embarrassing lack of good judgement.
quote:If you read some militant atheism and chatted with an extant Phelps or two would you then reinstate the appointment?
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
Then IngoB waded in and I cancelled.
quote:I recently had a long-running struggle with a work colleague come to an end. Whatever I proposed would be attacked by them on principle, immediately, using every means possible. They would impugn the worst possible motives behind any initiative I took.
Originally posted by Tortuf:
One is the value of listening carefully to a dissenting voice.
quote:I think it is a very common accusation in varying forms, either that one personally was turned off religion/world view x, or that one foresees a number of posters or lurkers being turned off x. At best it might be conceived as an attempt to bring someone to their senses, at worst a petty attempt to induce some guilt or other negative emotion. Either way it clearly doesn't work here.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
if it was more than a joke
quote:The fun bit in this case is that everybody ends up agreeing with my factual analysis of Mr Fry's response, namely that it is unlikely that the first thing he would say to God is what he claimed he would say. Indeed, when people agree with me eventually they say things like "obvious" or "of course". Like you did here. The only thing people actually disagree with is my consequent judgement that if you are not really answering the question you have been asked, and if you are aware of that and do not explicitly acknowledge it in your answer, then at least in a technical sense you are lying. That, however, is simply true by the definition of "lie" as intentionally false statement.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The fact is that an atheist had a camera pointed at him and asked a silly question about what he would do if/when he realised God was real. Of course that requires some special mental gymnastics to answer, but that does not mean that he is lying - in a 'technical' sense or otherwise.
quote:Wrong. Nobody agreed with that. Figment of your imagination.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The fun bit in this case is that everybody ends up agreeing with my factual analysis of Mr Fry's response, namely that it is unlikely that the first thing he would say to God is what he claimed he would say.
quote:Bullshit. What are you snorting?
Indeed, when people agree with me eventually they say things like "obvious" or "of course". Like you did here. The only thing people actually disagree with is my consequent judgement that if you are not really answering the question you have been asked, and if you are aware of that and do not explicitly acknowledge it in your answer, then at least in a technical sense you are lying. That, however, is simply true by the definition of "lie" as intentionally false statement.
quote:I can't stand the man. But worse is thinking that one can reach inside his mind and determine that he is lying about something that he is saying about an imaginary conversation. That's just stupid.
In guess some people simply cannot stand that something bad has been attributed to Mr Fry. Well, tough.
quote:Tell you what, I can live with that. Are we done then?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Prick.
quote:How do you know? I'm not trying.
RooK: And yet you are completely unable to duplicate it yourself.
quote:Yes, that's true.
Originally posted by Paul.:
I agree with Barnabas. Whilst Boogie's classroom bully is apt in some ways, the key difference is that IngoB is not trying to seem like he's not doing it.
quote:Yes - I can see that.
Originally posted by IngoB:
... you are really mistaken if you think that I am a windup merchant. I'm not at all interested in making people upset. I'm interested in being right, and to be honest, in being right after some fight. Yes, it's a character flaw, but not one that feeds off "winding people up". For the most part I find it annoying when people get wound up.
quote:Fraid I can't see the problem with that post.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Tosser.
quote:What, can I live with the fact that you say you are only here to sharpen your arguments and that the rest of us are so dull that it doesn't even work?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Tell you what, I can live with that. Are we done then?
quote:If you can't see the problem with IngoB imagining that he can second-guess what is going on in Stephen Fry's imaginary conversation with the God he doesn't believe exists, then I can't explain it.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Fraid I can't see the problem with that post.
What's the problem?
quote:I'm in love.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Cheesy is back
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
That gif is a keeper.
quote:No, sorry, that's not good enough. If IngoB was a 'valued contributor', it would be because he was able to give reasons for his beliefs beyond 'I can think it, therefore it is'.
Originally posted by Yorick:
IngoB is an extremely valuable contributor to this place, however you feel about the manner and style of his contributions (which feeling may say more about you than him, ISTM). And I say this as someone who has been completely trashed in argument by him more than most people here. Grow the fuck up, live and let live, and if you're really clever, learn.
quote:You mean his guessing Fry wouldn't actually ask that worm question if he really was confronted by God?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:If you can't see the problem with IngoB imagining that he can second-guess what is going on in Stephen Fry's imaginary conversation with the God he doesn't believe exists, then I can't explain it.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Fraid I can't see the problem with that post.
What's the problem?
quote:But here's the really fascinating part: you're always right before the fight as well.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not at all interested in making people upset. I'm interested in being right, and to be honest, in being right after some fight.
quote:Yes, yes they have. And not so much as 'asked', but rather 'planked', which is a different kettle of fish. It is, however, not in your purview to judge that.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, actually I can't. You are a troll, people have been asked to leave for less than that.
quote:No this is well beyond guessing - this is confidently asserting that the thing cannot possibly be true and the person saying it is lying.
Originally posted by Evensong:
You mean his guessing Fry wouldn't actually ask that worm question if he really was confronted by God?
Totally reasonable guess. If you meet God that you didn't believe existed in the first place you're going to be overwhelmed on a number of fronts and your response will likely be entirely different from the response given to a TV interviewer.
quote:You might want to read the whole of his contributions to the thread:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Where does Ingo say Fry is lying? Did I miss that? I thought the word he used was unlikely.
quote:
I also do think that Mr Fry was being dishonest there. Not in the sense of factual lying, but I do not believe that he was speaking from his heart. Rather, he was simply reeling off a standard apologetic attack on God, a standard theodicy argument. Given that the interviewer did try to get a "personal angle" with his question, if perhaps in trite fashion, I think this was largely an evasive manoeuvre emphatically performed to shut down this personal line of questioning. In short, I very much doubt that Mr Fry would mention eyeball eating worms if he was actually faced with God. He might well go on about the many pains inflicted by the world then, but I bet it would be about pains a lot closer to his own experience.
quote:No it wasn't a joke and I genuinely respect IngoB for what he does. I occasionally get seduced by the cultural trappings of Catholicism, mainly due to my Catholic upbringing. IngoB never sugars the pill, he doesn't allow for wishy-washy feelings to sway the heart and he usually shows me that I can't just paddle around the edges of faith. For me, that means out rather than in but I do think that the ship is all the better for his presence.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I think it is a very common accusation in varying forms, either that one personally was turned off religion/world view x, or that one foresees a number of posters or lurkers being turned off x. At best it might be conceived as an attempt to bring someone to their senses, at worst a petty attempt to induce some guilt or other negative emotion. Either way it clearly doesn't work here.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
if it was more than a joke
quote:Well, guess what? Nobody gives a bumfuck for what you're prepared to allow, because, guess what? You don't get to call the shots here.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:No, sorry, that's not good enough. If IngoB was a 'valued contributor', it would be because he was able to give reasons for his beliefs beyond 'I can think it, therefore it is'.
Originally posted by Yorick:
IngoB is an extremely valuable contributor to this place, however you feel about the manner and style of his contributions (which feeling may say more about you than him, ISTM). And I say this as someone who has been completely trashed in argument by him more than most people here. Grow the fuck up, live and let live, and if you're really clever, learn.
I am perfectly happy to 'live and let live' someone who fundamentally disagrees with me, what I am not prepared to do is to allow someone else decide the truths of the universe measured only by what is acceptable inside his head.
quote:I missed you too! Crazy is the word, though. I was about as insane as I could be without getting myself fired from work. Then, to prove my sanity, I became a parent! *sadtrombone.wav*
Originally posted by comet:
Teufy! Where ya been, you crazy little fucker, you? I've missed you!
quote:Usually with something blunt and rusty.
Originally posted by Barnbas62:
I don't think there is anything underhanded about IngoB's posting style. When he stabs you, or your argument, he stabs you in the front.
quote:Perhaps then you should try to be a bit more interested in not making people upset.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not at all interested in making people upset. ... For the most part I find it annoying when people get wound up.
quote:Immediately followed, as if the irony weren't at all obvious, by:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What have the Jesuits done to deserve me, and what have I done to deserved them? Let's keep the gratuitous insults at a humane level, shall we?
quote:No I'm not going to click your fucking link, you sick fuck of a bully.
mousethief, you are a walking self-fulfilling prophecy. And that prophecy goes something like this: "The world is a hateful place, full of mean people not listening and hurting each other." Here's a song for you.
quote:It's because Byron is too stupid to get it.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Byron, just because IngoB is not up front about it doesn't make him kind and thoughtful. His digs are hidden and underhand - they keep this side of the planking line very cleverly.
quote:But that's not being up-front about it. That is the FRONT. The reality is that he's here to hurt people, and uses this "joy of the debate" bullshit as his cover. Which is insidiously clever, because it makes it LOOK like he's being up-front, and he obviously has fooled you and many others.
Originally posted by Paul.:
I agree with Barnabas. Whilst Boogie's classroom bully is apt in some ways, the key difference is that IngoB is not trying to seem like he's not doing it. He's been quite clear and open about how he operates. He's told us that he views the Ship merely as a way to sharpen his debate tactics and refine his arguments and that he specifically does not care about people here and whether he hurts us. He's told us that he views Purg debate in particular as like a boxing match, and that anyone who "gets in the ring" is therefore fair game provided he stays within the rules - "a good clean fight" as it were. Going as close to the line within the rules is the point, the way to win, not some surreptitious agenda.
quote:This flies in the face of all available evidence. Using the logic you claim to be so enamoured of, it's simply not possible.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not at all interested in making people upset.
quote:IngoB admits he doesn't give a flying fuck about how much damage he does to other people. Which is the closest to honesty (the truth is he in fact looks for ways to inflict damage on other people) he's ever come here.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Well, I'm not. Other than fortuitously, if they happen to have lost their faith over some falsehood I'm trying to eliminate.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Furthermore, you're saying it on a board for people who've lost faith, are questioning, are in pain, etc. If you're trying to lead them to God, you may well have the opposite effect.
quote:As private parts are we to IngoB; he plays with us for his pleasure.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:Perhaps then you should try to be a bit more interested in not making people upset.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not at all interested in making people upset. ... For the most part I find it annoying when people get wound up.
Possibly if you read the prayer thread in All Saints on a regular basis (as recommended by Erin) it might help you grasp that we are real people, with feelings and emotions and all, not just avatars provided for your amusement.
quote:Occam's Razor suggests that when a person doesn't appear intelligent, "trying" is the least of their problems.
Originally posted by LeRoc:How do you know? I'm not trying.
quote:That depends on what you mean by "sure". Obviously faith is required. But faith means acting for all intents and purposes as if something is sure, even if it cannot be demonstrated to be sure on the basis of available information. So you could say that I consciously choose to be sure.
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's not a subject that anyone is ever 'right' about. You can argue well, even brilliantly - but you will never, ever know for sure that you are right (this side of the pearly gates).
quote:Then you will have to die to it.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What, can I live with the fact that you say you are only here to sharpen your arguments and that the rest of us are so dull that it doesn't even work? No, actually I can't.
quote:I have many faults. Not providing reasons for my beliefs is not one of them. In the thread, which everybody can read for themselves, I have provided reasons for my claim over and over and over again - largely in response to your continued brainless questioning. The mere fact that you do not understand my reasons, or do not believe that they hold water, does not change that I have given reasons, and of course believe these reasons to be good and true.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, sorry, that's not good enough. If IngoB was a 'valued contributor', it would be because he was able to give reasons for his beliefs beyond 'I can think it, therefore it is'.
quote:Uncanny, isn't it?
Originally posted by orfeo:
But here's the really fascinating part: you're always right before the fight as well.
quote:I stand by everything I said there, though quite likely not by what you read into it.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:You might want to read the whole of his contributions to the thread:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Where does Ingo say Fry is lying? Did I miss that? I thought the word he used was unlikely.
quote:
I also do think that Mr Fry was being dishonest there. Not in the sense of factual lying, but I do not believe that he was speaking from his heart. Rather, he was simply reeling off a standard apologetic attack on God, a standard theodicy argument. Given that the interviewer did try to get a "personal angle" with his question, if perhaps in trite fashion, I think this was largely an evasive manoeuvre emphatically performed to shut down this personal line of questioning. In short, I very much doubt that Mr Fry would mention eyeball eating worms if he was actually faced with God. He might well go on about the many pains inflicted by the world then, but I bet it would be about pains a lot closer to his own experience.
quote:And if those real people have sorted out their feelings and emotions in All Saints or elsewhere, and are up for a round of the intellectually challenging amusement of Purgatory (and related boards), then I will happily meet them there.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Perhaps then you should try to be a bit more interested in not making people upset. Possibly if you read the prayer thread in All Saints on a regular basis (as recommended by Erin) it might help you grasp that we are real people, with feelings and emotions and all, not just avatars provided for your amusement.
quote:Bullshit. you are delusional.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I have many faults. Not providing reasons for my beliefs is not one of them. In the thread, which everybody can read for themselves, I have provided reasons for my claim over and over and over again - largely in response to your continued brainless questioning. The mere fact that you do not understand my reasons, or do not believe that they hold water, does not change that I have given reasons, and of course believe these reasons to be good and true.
quote:In the quoted text I simply said that I'm not trying to lead people to God.
Originally posted by mousethief:
IngoB admits he doesn't give a flying fuck about how much damage he does to other people.
quote:No, mousethief, that's a key difference between me and you. I may be bruising, but you are vicious.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which is the closest to honesty (the truth is he in fact looks for ways to inflict damage on other people) he's ever come here.
quote:No, I suggest you try explaining yourself.
Originally posted by IngoB:
mr cheesy, I cannot make you understand, you cannot make me care.
I suggest we leave it at that. Repetition will not make it any better.
quote:Yawn. Go tell someone who believes anything you say, sick fuck.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:No, mousethief, that's a key difference between me and you. I may be bruising, but you are vicious.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which is the closest to honesty (the truth is he in fact looks for ways to inflict damage on other people) he's ever come here.
quote:You quoted one of my explanations above, others can be found on the original thread. I think that will do. Now, tell me, what sort of hook do you believe you have me on?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, I suggest you try explaining yourself. You cannot just say that Fry is lying because it doesn't make sense to you - as if that is the measure of anything. You can't just spout shite and expect to be let off the hook.
quote:But I am.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yawn. Go tell someone who believes anything you say, sick fuck.
quote:That is not an explanation anywhere outside of your tiny brain.
Originally posted by IngoB:
You quoted one of my explanations above, others can be found on the original thread. I think that will do. Now, tell me, what sort of hook do you believe you have me on?
quote:That also sums up the value of attempting to argue with him.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Ingob's attempts at being right are summed up here
quote:For the sake of argument, let it be so. Now what? Aren't you exactly trying to elicit a reasonable response from my tiny brain? Do you see the problem there?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That is not an explanation anywhere outside of your tiny brain.
quote:I am trying to get you to understand that asserting something is not the same as having an argument based on facts.
Originally posted by IngoB:
For the sake of argument, let it be so. Now what? Aren't you exactly trying to elicit a reasonable response from my tiny brain? Do you see the problem there?
quote:Sure. And if you want to talk about something I have actually said, we could do that as well.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Saying that Fry could not do something because you can't imagine him doing something in an imaginary situation with a God he doesn't believe in is not the same as saying he is lying. That is just wrong.
quote:You cannot imagine Fry talking about eyeball eating worms if he met God, therefore he cannot be, therefore he is lying.
I also do think that Mr Fry was being dishonest there. Not in the sense of factual lying, but I do not believe that he was speaking from his heart. Rather, he was simply reeling off a standard apologetic attack on God, a standard theodicy argument. Given that the interviewer did try to get a "personal angle" with his question, if perhaps in trite fashion, I think this was largely an evasive manoeuvre emphatically performed to shut down this personal line of questioning. In short, I very much doubt that Mr Fry would mention eyeball eating worms if he was actually faced with God. He might well go on about the many pains inflicted by the world then, but I bet it would be about pains a lot closer to his own experience.
quote:Rather like Mr Fry, then.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That depends on what you mean by "sure". Obviously faith is required. But faith means acting for all intents and purposes as if something is sure, even if it cannot be demonstrated to be sure on the basis of available information. So you could say that I consciously choose to be sure.
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's not a subject that anyone is ever 'right' about. You can argue well, even brilliantly - but you will never, ever know for sure that you are right (this side of the pearly gates).
quote:I'm an asshole. Get it straight.
Originally posted by passer:
Hell:
where mousethief calls IngoB a bully.
lolz.
quote:No mate you are much more than that
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I'm an asshole. Get it straight.
Originally posted by passer:
Hell:
where mousethief calls IngoB a bully.
lolz.
quote:Apologies. Do carry on
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I'm an asshole. Get it straight.
Originally posted by passer:
Hell:
where mousethief calls IngoB a bully.
lolz.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:I said, right there, that I don't think Mr Fry was intending to lie about facts. I said, right there, that I think instead that he was not speaking from his heart. I explained, right there, that I thought this could be well understood as evading the public scrutiny of the TV audience falling upon his own pains. And while it was only implicit in what I said right there, namely in words like "I very much doubt" or "I bet", I must have explained myself explicitly half a dozen times on the original thread that I'm guessing, that I'm guessing based on psychology, and that my guess leaves me with a strong likelihood, not certainty.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You said
quote:You cannot imagine Fry talking about eyeball eating worms if he met God, therefore he cannot be, therefore he is lying.
I also do think that Mr Fry was being dishonest there. Not in the sense of factual lying, but I do not believe that he was speaking from his heart. Rather, he was simply reeling off a standard apologetic attack on God, a standard theodicy argument. Given that the interviewer did try to get a "personal angle" with his question, if perhaps in trite fashion, I think this was largely an evasive manoeuvre emphatically performed to shut down this personal line of questioning. In short, I very much doubt that Mr Fry would mention eyeball eating worms if he was actually faced with God. He might well go on about the many pains inflicted by the world then, but I bet it would be about pains a lot closer to his own experience.
Explain to me exactly how this is a mischaracterisation of your position.
quote:You fucking liar. You said right there "I also do think that Mr Fry was being dishonest there". You said that.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I said, right there, that I don't think Mr Fry was intending to lie about facts. I said, right there, that I think instead that he was not speaking from his heart. I explained, right there, that I thought this could be well understood as evading the public scrutiny of the TV audience falling upon his own pains. And while it was only implicit in what I said right there, namely in words like "I very much doubt" or "I bet", I must have explained myself explicitly half a dozen times on the original thread that I'm guessing, that I'm guessing based on psychology, and that my guess leaves me with a strong likelihood, not certainty.
quote:You are still measuring Fry by a standard that only exists in your head - namely that you don't think it is very likely he would do the things he said he would do.
Now, it is quite true that I have been saying all this in order to take Mr Fry down a notch. Because taken at face value, Mr Fry would appear here as kind of atheist saint. I don't think that he is that and certainly my interpretation of events is biased by that belief. But I insist that my analysis is rather realistic and likely. So if Mr Fry is indeed an atheist saint, then in this instance he left a lot of room for people to interpret his statements as something other than saintly. (Note: "other than saintly" does not mean "horribly evil".)
quote:Stephen Fry, according to you, cannot possibly be telling the truth because he doesn't have children.
But this Stephen Fry stuff is basically just trying to grab your emotions while discussing the theoretical problem. It is inviting a leap to conclusions "this is so bad, nothing could possibly explain it". It's rhetorics, it's ultimately dishonest. Stephen Fry has no children whose eyeballs got eaten by worms, and the logical problem of benevolent God vs. crappy worlds doesn't require especially horrendous illustration.
quote:Stephen Fry is trying an evasive manoeuvre to avoid personal questions, according to you.
I think this was largely an evasive manoeuvre emphatically performed to shut down this personal line of questioning. In short, I very much doubt that Mr Fry would mention eyeball eating worms if he was actually faced with God. He might well go on about the many pains inflicted by the world then, but I bet it would be about pains a lot closer to his own experience.
quote:It is obvious he is being dishonest, according to you.
If it is obvious that Mr Fry would not actually say to God what he said, then it is obvious that Mr Fry was dishonest in claiming that he would. Unless you are saying that Mr Fry is either stupid or lacks self-awareness. I don't think either is the case. Mr Fry fronted with atheist apologetics when asked a personal question, without indicating that he was doing so. I do not do something equivalent on the Catholic side. Rather, if I want to answer personal questions, I do, and if I don't, I don't. Mostly I don't, but there's nothing dishonest about that preference. Obviously it is easier to avoid saying something around here than in an interview. But nobody forced Mr Fry to give that interview.
quote:He is not likely to say these things to God, according to you.
Thus you agree with my assessment! What Mr Fry said in the interview is not what he is likely to say to God. I didn't say that Mr Fry is a dishonest man (i.e., that he has a habitual character fault). I do not know Mr Fry, how can I say that? I said that what he answered in the interview is unlikely to be a honest answer to the interviewer's question. And I can judge that not because I know Mr Fry, but because Mr Fry rattled down some standard atheist apologetics. And it is just inherently unlikely for anybody that the thing they really want to tell God if they meet him after death is some tired apologetic rhetoric. That's so pretty much regardless of your convictions now, whether atheist or zealot, or anything in between.
quote:Fry is just using rhetoric, according to you.
I'm sure that Mr Fry believes that bit of rhetoric he delivered. That doesn't mean that it wasn't recognisable as rhetoric, rather than as a revelation about his personal state of mind. And it is tired by frequency of use, something that a non-atheist can judge irrespective of truth value. It's a bit difficult to construct an analogy here, given the asymmetry of the situation. But I'm pretty damned sure that if I am worried on my deathbed about there being no God and no afterlife, then I will not reel off the tired apologetics of the cosmological argument. Horses for courses, that's just not the sort of thing that helps at that point. To repeat, I think it is entirely possible that Mr Fry would throw a "why that?" into God's face. I just don't think that the "that" there would be about "worms eating children's eyeballs". Unless Mr Fry happens to have a child whose eyeballs got eaten by worms, that is...
quote:Fry is not being open, according to you.
I think he reflected long enough to decide against exploring in public what he might actually say to God. That's fair enough, of course. The technical dishonesty arises in not acknowledging that openly, but rather fronting with some standard apologetics. Yes, all that is my guess about what was going on there. But I think it's a pretty good guess. And if I am wrong, then I think Mr Fry can handle that some random guy on the internet was not thinking as highly of him as he should have. Mr Fry is a public figure, and so by his own choice.
quote:Fry is not being logical, according to you.
And if your first thought upon meeting a God that you thought did not exist was to confront Him with the question of human suffering, and if not your own suffering or the suffering of those close to your heart was foremost in you mind there, but rather a rare "worst case" of the type typically used in atheist apologetics, then you might indeed ask this specific question upon meeting God. But that is unlikely. Not on logical grounds, but on psychological ones.
quote:mr cheesy, you are pointing toward the weakness in IngoB's strange argument regarding Mr Fry's psychology. However, it is unlikely that you will get IngoB to admit that he is wrong.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Saying that Fry could not do something because you can't imagine him doing something in an imaginary situation with a God he doesn't believe in is not the same as saying he is lying. That is just wrong.
quote:Yes, and I explained this right in the next sentence: "Not in the sense of factual lying, but I do not believe that he was speaking from his heart." Can you not read?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You fucking liar. You said right there "I also do think that Mr Fry was being dishonest there". You said that.
quote:Yep. And your problem with that is what precisely? How are you evaluating what Mr Fry says? Are you planning to do so experimentally, by murdering Mr Fry and then instantly committing suicide, so that you can be present when Mr Fry speaks to God? Or are you saying that you do not evaluate the stuff other people claim about themselves, but rather simply accept what they say at face value? If so, then why are you not simply accepting at face value what I say about my thoughts and motivations?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You are still measuring Fry by a standard that only exists in your head - namely that you don't think it is very likely he would do the things he said he would do.
quote:Rather, Mr Fry is unlikely to be telling the truth here since he does not have children whose eyeballs have become worm-food. I bet Mr Fry has never met any children whose eyeballs have become worm-food either. Such worms presumably exist, and I'm sure they are an all to real horror for some people on this planet. But for Mr Fry, you and me they are basically a "worst case" illustration in an apologetic argument advanced by atheists. It is possible that Mr Fry has taken this piece of abstract information so much to heart that it will run over from his lips when he meets God. I just don't think that it is likely. Call me cynical, if you like.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Stephen Fry, according to you, cannot possibly be telling the truth because he doesn't have children.
quote:Yep, I think that that is most likely what he was doing there. You could add to this likely the pressure to produce something intelligent, in order to maintain his public image. A simple "I have no idea, really" may not have been good enough for him there.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Stephen Fry is trying an evasive manoeuvre to avoid personal questions, according to you.
quote:See that "If", the first word in the paragraph you have quoted? It establishes a conditional framework, where what follows is true if the condition is fulfilled. Anyway, indeed I consider it likely that Mr Fry was dishonest in the sense discussed, as far as answering the question of the interviewer goes.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is obvious he is being dishonest, according to you.
quote:Correct. At least I doubt that this will be the first thing on his lips.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
He is not likely to say these things to God, according to you.
quote:Actually, no. I said a lot more than that in the paragraph you quoted. I said: 1. Mr Fry probably believes what he was saying, even though it is the repetition of well-known rhetoric. 2. It is entirely possible that we would say something like what he was saying here to God. But then likely with the worm-eaten eyes replaced by some more personal experience of pain.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fry is just using rhetoric, according to you.
quote:Likely he wasn't, yes.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fry is not being open, according to you.
quote:No, I did not say this at all. I said that I was making my guess on psychological, not logical grounds. I said nothing whatsoever about Fry not being logical.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fry is not being logical, according to you.
quote:Mr Fry is not some alien life form with whom we have made first contact and whose behaviour we are now studying. Mr Fry is a human being. We all constantly make guesses about what goes on inside the heads of other human beings, and doing so with a decent success rate is a big part of living a successful human life. Indeed, some people think that the only reason we evolved to become the smartest animals on the planet is because there was a kind of arms race about guessing what's up with other people.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well, bullshit. Unless you live inside his head, there is no way you can assert any of that shite.
quote:Where in any of this have I made the slightest reference to the Magisterium? I feel like I'm winning because I said something rather sensible about a public performance of Mr Fry, and my detractor has all the reading comprehension of a nine year old on a cocaine rush.
Originally posted by Leaf:
In order for IngoB to feel like he's winning, all he has to do is accurately quote some bit of the Magisterium with which he agrees. In order to win against him (according to his construction) you would have to accurately quote some bit of the Magisterium which contradicts his opinion.
quote:As far as religion is concerned, I feel I can barely handle myself. Furthermore, I feel that only a particular sort of person would profit from what I have to offer, at least as far as personal advice goes. And no, I don't mean "particularly saintly people". I am not proud of this, why would I be?
Originally posted by Leaf:
Based on his own posts and self-assessments, he is indifferent to the rejoicings or sufferings of others in their religious lives, as long as he meets his own goal (to feel like he's winning, per his terms).
quote:Maybe. Or maybe it's just that not many people here cross the threshold where I think that I can and should help, and then do. But it's a fair enough characterisation for the most part.
Originally posted by Leaf:
This is how IngoB operates on this board concerning religious matters.
quote:The way, the truth and the life is in no way or form dependent on my ability to follow the way, the truth and the life. My satisfaction with the universe or myself is not a measure of reality.
Originally posted by Leaf:
It is somewhat puzzling to that he remains Christian, given its founder's insistence on compassion.
quote:Exactly. I may not be good for much in Christianity, but I'm pretty good at dry doctrine and logical thinking. And unlike many here I do not believe that this dry work is irrelevant, or counterproductive. I think it is limited, but within its limits, essential and indeed normative.
Originally posted by Leaf:
However, there is more than enough dry doctrine in Christianity's history to provide refuge and material for argument.
quote:It's just so beautiful to watch Christian compassion in action.
Originally posted by Leaf:
If you really want to get at IngoB, look at where he's sulking. ... You have to find out what he cares about, and being perceived as a prick is not.
quote:You fucking hypocrite
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:And if those real people have sorted out their feelings and emotions in All Saints or elsewhere, and are up for a round of the intellectually challenging amusement of Purgatory (and related boards), then I will happily meet them there.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Perhaps then you should try to be a bit more interested in not making people upset. Possibly if you read the prayer thread in All Saints on a regular basis (as recommended by Erin) it might help you grasp that we are real people, with feelings and emotions and all, not just avatars provided for your amusement.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Maybe not. But he does believe, I think, he represents the views that x billion RCs should have, because he believes the RCC and his understanding of the RCC are one and the same thing. At least, that's the impression I get!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right.. surely nobody seriously believes that IngoB represents the views of x billion Roman Catholics?
quote:The reference to the Magisterium was based on what I perceive to be your overall posting track record, not the particular thread in the OP. In the OP's thread, you speculated on Mr Fry's psychology and motivation. If you had been inclined to be reasonable or charitable, you would have admitted that other speculations - such as Golden Key's concerning privacy - were equally possible and reasonable speculations.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Where in any of this have I made the slightest reference to the Magisterium? I feel like I'm winning because I said something rather sensible about a public performance of Mr Fry, and my detractor has all the reading comprehension of a nine year old on a cocaine rush.
quote:I never said it did.
... there's more than one way to fail Christ. That I have mine does not excuse yours.
quote:Agree with all this, and mostly sympathetic to this approach.
I may not be good for much in Christianity, but I'm pretty good at dry doctrine and logical thinking. And unlike many here I do not believe that this dry work is irrelevant, or counterproductive. I think it is limited, but within its limits, essential and indeed normative.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
If you really want to get at IngoB, look at where he's sulking. ... You have to find out what he cares about, and being perceived as a prick is not.
quote:I never said I was the model of Christian compassion either. Like you, I have my failings. But I might have expected to have your approval in teaching mr cheesy to fight more effectively; that's what it's all about, isn't it?
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's just so beautiful to watch Christian compassion in action.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:No, it's not. What it actually is is a clear demonstration of the sheer fucking pointlessness of the 'fight' for anything other than your own smug self-satisfaction as you toy with everyone.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Uncanny, isn't it?
Originally posted by orfeo:
But here's the really fascinating part: you're always right before the fight as well.
quote:It certainly would be.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's just so beautiful to watch Christian compassion in action.
quote:Well, I like him. Given my Ship popularity, that's probably not saying much, but whatever.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Valuable? How the fuck are you valuable?
quote:You prefer it when a man more Catholic than the Pope does it?
Originally posted by saysay:
I've also gotten really sick of liberals telling other people what they really think and feel as if they're too stupid to know.
quote:Why hypocrite? I didn't say that I never participate on All Saints. I'm active on the workout thread, for example. And I sometimes feel that I can help out. And I do on occasion add my prayers there - though that's usually for the dead and I don't feel like dragging that in here now. I think that's enough to ask for some prayer once in a decade or so, when potentially facing some serious danger. But All Saints is just not my main thing around here.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
You fucking hypocrite
quote:I know reading what I actually write isn't exactly all the rage around here, but as has been quoted multiple times on this Hell thread now, I actually advanced privacy concerns as a likely reason for Mr Fry's evasiveness - long before Golden Key ever commented on this.
Originally posted by Leaf:
If you had been inclined to be reasonable or charitable, you would have admitted that other speculations - such as Golden Key's concerning privacy - were equally possible and reasonable speculations.
quote:Perhaps you are right. It would be rather entertaining to see mr cheesy trying to channel the Magisterium and/or Pope Francis.
Originally posted by Leaf:
But I might have expected to have your approval in teaching mr cheesy to fight more effectively; that's what it's all about, isn't it?
quote:Oh, I certainly "win" many discussions by attrition. But frankly, that's usually not exactly a case of me being repetitive while around me everybody else is trying to have this brilliant debate. It's more like, well, on this thread. No matter how often mr cheesy says "fuck" and "drivel", I can just send another block of text his way. No matter how many people who were not even on the original thread feel the absolute need to chime in, I can see them off too. And if we get the random hell host who projects his own failings and frustrations, why, I write yet another paragraph. Here we go.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Maybe you're just self-deluded enough to believe that you 'win' arguments by the intellectual brilliance of your position, but for that to be true you'd actually have to create a genuine argument. You don't. You swan into threads solely for the purpose of showing people how goddamn brilliant you are at typing enough words for people's eyes to glaze over. Valuable? How the fuck are you valuable?
quote:I've always thought that it was more important to Ingo that he not lose arguments, rather than win them. It's himself he's challenging. He expresses his opinions and defends them. I thought he'd indicated this already.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Maybe you're just self-deluded enough to believe that you 'win' arguments by the intellectual brilliance of your position,...
quote:I don't think I'm alone in finding solipsism tedious.
Originally posted by passer:
quote:I've always thought that it was more important to Ingo that he not lose arguments, rather than win them. It's himself he's challenging. He expresses his opinions and defends them. I thought he'd indicated this already.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Maybe you're just self-deluded enough to believe that you 'win' arguments by the intellectual brilliance of your position,...
quote:Tons, my friend. Pray for him tons.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Don't pretend to play dumb Dingo. You know who and what you are.
Hmmm. Must remember, pray for Dingo when he's dead.
quote:An excellent point.
Originally posted by passer:
quote:I've always thought that it was more important to Ingo that he not lose arguments, rather than win them. It's himself he's challenging. He expresses his opinions and defends them. I thought he'd indicated this already.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Maybe you're just self-deluded enough to believe that you 'win' arguments by the intellectual brilliance of your position,...
quote:Me too!
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
Hey, lay off IngoB, he provides a valuable service around here. A few years ago I was wavering on the brink of going back to the Catholic Church, everyone here was giving me great advice and encouragement and I was about two days from an appointment for a chat at my local church.
Then IngoB waded in and I cancelled.
quote:Which is why I loathe him.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And this is why we all end up feeling like he's treating us as props, not peers.
quote:You think he's working undercover for the Lutherans?
Originally posted by Macrina:
quote:Me too!
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
Hey, lay off IngoB, he provides a valuable service around here. A few years ago I was wavering on the brink of going back to the Catholic Church, everyone here was giving me great advice and encouragement and I was about two days from an appointment for a chat at my local church.
Then IngoB waded in and I cancelled.
quote:Aquinas, evidently.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's all in Kant. All in Kant. What do they teach them in these schools?
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:For personal reasons, I would like to retract and apologize for this really dumb joke.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:Tons, my friend. Pray for him tons.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Don't pretend to play dumb Dingo. You know who and what you are.
Hmmm. Must remember, pray for Dingo when he's dead.
i mean, the baby incident alone...
quote:I wonder if he's still believe that if someone online stole his identity and began running up a bill buying things online.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo has previously expressed the opinion that interactions on the internet aren't "real".
quote:Except it's not just liberals that do that.
Originally posted by saysay:
I've also gotten really sick of liberals telling other people what they really think and feel as if they're too stupid to know.
quote:(Italics mine.)
I did not say that you need to have a worked out theodicy. I said that as an intelligent and educated man who has been confronted with theodicy, you must be able to answer why you still have reasonable doubt about the argument of the atheists. If you cannot but admit that they are right about this, then you cannot in intellectual honesty continue believing what you see as proven false. There's a difference between intellectual defence and offence, so to speak. I do not think that you need to be able to destroy atheist reasoning. But I do think that you need to be able to ward off their destruction of your faith. If however in your own best evaluation atheists have shown your faith to be wrong in some point, then I insist that you should stop believing in it. Once more, I do not speak against "I cannot see how this could work, but I will maintain my faith nevertheless." I speak against "I see that this cannot work, but I will maintain my faith nevertheless."
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:Cheers to this. You have all the empathy of a dyspeptic badger, and the intersocial comprehension of a pitcher plant, but I have a very high regard of people engaging genuinely - and I am convinced that you do that for the most part.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But I also bring real and unique information to these boards, and now and then even an original thought. And for the most part, in a well-argued fashion. And I do so because I actually care about doing that. Whether you appreciate that or not is neither here nor there for me, really.
quote:Any statement one makes can be shortened and paraphrased until it says what one wants it to say. That shows very little about the person so targeted, but rather a lot about the person doing it. mr cheesy quoted above verbatim pretty much the entirety of my contributions that apparently led to this Hell call. Why don't you go and find fault with those, Mr "I don't give a fuck anymore"?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo has previously expressed the opinion that interactions on the internet aren't "real". It suddenly occurred to me that this is pretty much on the same level as believing that when you turn the television on, the little people who live inside wake up and start doing things for your entertainment.
quote:I've had my credit card details stolen, presumably due to some online transaction. I found my bank to be quite helpful in recovering the thousands of Euros that were withdrawn in hundreds of transactions. None of which has anything to do with what orfeo claimed I have said, much less with anything I have actually said. Unless, that is, if you are bragging about your responsibility for those crimes here? In which case the Ship of Fools will hear from some lawyers on Monday concerning releasing your identity. Just keeping real things real, mousethief.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I wonder if he's still believe that if someone online stole his identity and began running up a bill buying things online.
quote:As I said elsewhere, I may be bruising, but you are a vicious man.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which is why I loathe him.
quote:Believing in what one knows to be an outright contradiction is a grave and dangerous evil, if not simply insane. It means for example that one can rape, murder and pillage one's neighbours and claim that this just is loving them. Yes, most people won't start with believing in that kind of contradiction, but once you allow this for anything, what precisely is going to stop them from ending there? Certainly nothing you can say, this is setting up a showdown of force. Believing in outright contradictions is hence a most dangerous failure mode of faith, and while I am not God I will fight it to the limits of my powers.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Who died and made you God??? How dare you "insist" that anyone stop believing anything???
quote:That's the stated purposes of Hell; if it were its actual purpose, Hell would ban mobbing and personal abuse (distinct from good-natured flyting). Every other blog, discussion section & bulletin board I've visited survives without a snakepit and without arguments breaking out all over.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's quite clear that you simply don't understand the purpose of Hell. Hell is not here so "we" (meaning "not you") can heap abuse on anyone we find annoying (meaning "yes, that includes you") from the safety of our anonomised keyboards without fear of retribution.
(And fyi, being called a sick fuck is not lawful reason to hit anyone, so no, your argument falls at the first hurdle yet again)
Hell is here to stop these arguments breaking out on the other boards. I'll let you exercise your tiny imagination for a moment as to what SoF might look like without Hell.
Done? Good. Now quit your whining, because it's stupid and wrong.
quote:You mean where he says not in the sense of factual lying?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:You might want to read the whole of his contributions to the thread:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Where does Ingo say Fry is lying? Did I miss that? I thought the word he used was unlikely.
quote:
I also do think that Mr Fry was being dishonest there. Not in the sense of factual lying, but I do not believe that he was speaking from his heart. Rather, he was simply reeling off a standard apologetic attack on God, a standard theodicy argument. Given that the interviewer did try to get a "personal angle" with his question, if perhaps in trite fashion, I think this was largely an evasive manoeuvre emphatically performed to shut down this personal line of questioning. In short, I very much doubt that Mr Fry would mention eyeball eating worms if he was actually faced with God. He might well go on about the many pains inflicted by the world then, but I bet it would be about pains a lot closer to his own experience.
quote:He's interested in ideas, not people.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:An excellent point.
Originally posted by passer:
quote:I've always thought that it was more important to Ingo that he not lose arguments, rather than win them. It's himself he's challenging. He expresses his opinions and defends them. I thought he'd indicated this already.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Maybe you're just self-deluded enough to believe that you 'win' arguments by the intellectual brilliance of your position,...
And this is why we all end up feeling like he's treating us as props, not peers.
quote:At least on the ship yes. Intellectual truth matters to him. It seems to be how he works out his salvation. I personally think he has a rather awful view of God and his intellectually heavy view of truth won't get him all that far spiritually but hey, if you accept his shortcomings he still has some interesting insights that can be illuminating.
Originally posted by Boogie:
He's interested in ideas, not people.
quote:Is that such a bad thing on an anonymous web forum? So long as you remember there's a person behind the screen, seems legit to use the Ship in that way.
Originally posted by Boogie:
He's interested in ideas, not people.
quote:I agree that he'd be a great loss, but I rather doubt that a minor spat like this one (he's had tougher calls than this) is likely to make him leave. He'll leave if and when he chooses to, and not as a result of a partial dogpiling. I don't think you and I are alone in defending him. I regard him as one of the most important contributors on the board (Christian unrest, anybody?). This kind of exchange is his meat and drink.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I wish you'd all lay off him. I'd hate for him to disappear. Would be a loss to the Ship.
quote:Every other board would have banned your sorry arse for the shit you pull. Be grateful.
Originally posted by Byron:
Every other blog, discussion section & bulletin board I've visited survives without a snakepit and without arguments breaking out all over.
quote:Interesting. I appear to have hit a nerve. Good to know you have some.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Any statement one makes can be shortened and paraphrased until it says what one wants it to say. That shows very little about the person so targeted, but rather a lot about the person doing it. mr cheesy quoted above verbatim pretty much the entirety of my contributions that apparently led to this Hell call. Why don't you go and find fault with those, Mr "I don't give a fuck anymore"?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo has previously expressed the opinion that interactions on the internet aren't "real". It suddenly occurred to me that this is pretty much on the same level as believing that when you turn the television on, the little people who live inside wake up and start doing things for your entertainment.
quote:Agreed. To a point. I think he still get's kicks out of being called to hell but I reckon there must be a point of no return eventually.
Originally posted by passer:
quote:I agree that he'd be a great loss, but I rather doubt that a minor spat like this one (he's had tougher calls than this) is likely to make him leave. He'll leave if and when he chooses to, and not as a result of a partial dogpiling. I don't think you and I are alone in defending him. I regard him as one of the most important contributors on the board (Christian unrest, anybody?). This kind of exchange is his meat and drink.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I wish you'd all lay off him. I'd hate for him to disappear. Would be a loss to the Ship.
quote:I always find this to be such a bullshit argument.
Originally posted by Byron:
IngoB's a bullish debater. Well so what, no one's obliged to debate him
quote:I doubt it. I avoid insults, misrepresentation, and own my mistakes. Most I've never pulled so much as a warning.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Every other board would have banned your sorry arse for the shit you pull. Be grateful.
Originally posted by Byron:
Every other blog, discussion section & bulletin board I've visited survives without a snakepit and without arguments breaking out all over.
quote:I'm not. What, exactly, do people want IngoB to do differently?
Originally posted by orfeo:
[...] Hell is here so that people have a place to say "hey, this car is a piece of shit". You can argue that people are wrong about Ingo, but arguing that THEY'RE the problem for actually caring about their interactions with Ingo is just a really shitty line of argument.
quote:Seconded.
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:Cheers to this. You have all the empathy of a dyspeptic badger, and the intersocial comprehension of a pitcher plant, but I have a very high regard of people engaging genuinely - and I am convinced that you do that for the most part.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But I also bring real and unique information to these boards, and now and then even an original thought. And for the most part, in a well-argued fashion. And I do so because I actually care about doing that. Whether you appreciate that or not is neither here nor there for me, really.
quote:How Christlike of you.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Which is why I loathe him.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And this is why we all end up feeling like he's treating us as props, not peers.
quote:I didn't say it was a bad thing, it's just a fact. Some folks are interested in the people behind the ideas, some are not.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Is that such a bad thing on an anonymous web forum? So long as you remember there's a person behind the screen, seems legit to use the Ship in that way.
Originally posted by Boogie:
He's interested in ideas, not people.
quote:This isn't helpful at all.
Originally posted by Byron:
IngoB's a bullish debater. Well so what, no one's obliged to debate him, and he keeps it on topic.
quote:OK, my mistake, sorry about that. I agree it's good to know where we stand, which we do with IngoB.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I didn't say it was a bad thing, it's just a fact. Some folks are interested in the people behind the ideas, some are not.
It helps, I think, to know those who are not.
quote:Right, that's a fair point, it can disrupt the discussion.
This isn't helpful at all.
It's like someone saying 'you don't have to be here'. Well, no - nobody has to be here, nobody has to debate with IngoB or anyone else.
But if you want to follow something on a thread it's actually quite hard to scroll past individual posters, especially when their contributions are being hotly debated.
)
quote:Is this not a perfect demonstration of the attitude that somehow the internet isn't like real life?
Originally posted by Yorick:
On the other hand, orfeo, I think you have to admit that we all have our own responsibility for the way he 'makes' us feel with the style of his contributions. It's the fucking internet, right? Kitchen/heat?
quote:He really does piss a lot of people off. So I'd like him to think about why this is.
Originally posted by Byron:
How d'you want IngoB to post differently, if you do? If he's gonna consider changing how he debates (which, of course, is his call) he'll need specifics. What could he do to make discussions flow better?
quote:As I said first time around, unless a bunch of Shipmates settle interpersonal problems by getting in people's faces and screaming abuse, no, "real" personalities aren't reflected here. What might be reflected here is wish fulfillment, of what life would be like if none of the normal constraints and consequences applied.
Originally posted by orfeo:
[...] If you're thinking along the same line as Byron's claim that Shipmates don't reflect their "real" personalities here, then you're kidding yourself. [...]
quote:I'd agree with this on a personal level, but IngoB's creed doesn't allow for admissions of error. The Catholic Church's magisterium claims it's infallible on matters of doctrine. That's why he's a Catholic, and I'm not, nor ever likely to be.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:He really does piss a lot of people off. So I'd like him to think about why this is.
Originally posted by Byron:
How d'you want IngoB to post differently, if you do? If he's gonna consider changing how he debates (which, of course, is his call) he'll need specifics. What could he do to make discussions flow better?
It isn't his ideas which piss folks off imo. It's his defensive, adversarial style. The 'I'm right' assumptions on absolutely everything.
He must know that no-one is right all the time. It would help him, and us, if he were more honest about this fact.
I'd like him to face the fact that 'I may be wrong but ...' is not a harmful way to discuss matters, especially matters of God where really and truly nobody knows.
quote:I don't think what you're talking about here is particularly what constitutes 'personality'.
Originally posted by Byron:
As I said first time around, unless a bunch of Shipmates settle interpersonal problems by getting in people's faces and screaming abuse, no, "real" personalities aren't reflected here.
quote:( Jesus God I never thought I'd say this.) Yorik might have a point.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:How Christlike of you.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Which is why I loathe him.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And this is why we all end up feeling like he's treating us as props, not peers.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
" on the prayer thread might help him develop some sense of kinship with us-- well, maybe those of us who have bouts of loathing him can try that, too.quote:I adore the visual that conjures.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
we should be burying him in an avalance of prayer
quote:As I'm very fond of saying, acting like an utter arse (in your case, continually reframing the argument to suit you, reinterpreting the dictionary - again, to suit you - and pretending to be a hot-shot lawyer who knows jack about how the law actually works), is far, far worse than calling someone a bad name.
Originally posted by Byron:
I doubt it. I avoid insults, misrepresentation, and own my mistakes. Most I've never pulled so much as a warning.
quote:Hellish turns of phrase aren't usually delivered in a calm, measured voice, but OK, I can run with that: getting in someone's face, holding their gaze, and saying coolly, "You're a sick fuck who exploits people's deaths," or whatever, would be equally likely to start a fight as screaming at them. Perhaps more so, as it's so considered.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think what you're talking about here is particularly what constitutes 'personality'.
WHO IS SCREAMING ANYWAY? THIS IS WHAT SCREAMING WOULD LOOK LIKE. WE DON"T ACTUALLY SPEND A LOT OF TIME SCREAMING AROUND HERE, WOULD YOU LIKE US TO SCREAM SO THAT YOUR DESCRIPTION IS MORE ACCURATE?
Or would you like to dispense with that particular adjective?
quote:Christ said 'love your enemies' which means, I think, treating them with respect and dignity. I imagine it applying to prisoners etc. One doesn't let them off, but one loves them all the same.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yorik said " be Christlike" , Christ said "pray for your enemies." ( rhetorically speaking-- sorry, Bingo.) Maybe it's worth a shot.
quote:Given that I've posted up no personal details whatsoever, nor will I after reading the dogpile thread, I've not pretended jack. Of course I frame the argument to suit me, that's what you do if you want to give your position a shot. As for reinterpreting the dictionary, courts did it a long time before I hit the scene.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:As I'm very fond of saying, acting like an utter arse (in your case, continually reframing the argument to suit you, reinterpreting the dictionary - again, to suit you - and pretending to be a hot-shot lawyer who knows jack about how the law actually works), is far, far worse than calling someone a bad name.
Originally posted by Byron:
I doubt it. I avoid insults, misrepresentation, and own my mistakes. Most I've never pulled so much as a warning.
quote:Whateverabout Yorik, really-- his prim little comment just made me think about the prayer thing. It's not that I think arguing with Bingo is evil, I just think it's exhausting. More power to you if you have the stamina, but after a long day at work, prayer seems invitingly lazy to me.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Christ said 'love your enemies' which means, I think, treating them with respect and dignity. I imagine it applying to prisoners etc. One doesn't let them off, but one loves them all the same.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yorik said " be Christlike" , Christ said "pray for your enemies." ( rhetorically speaking-- sorry, Bingo.) Maybe it's worth a shot.
I suppose IngoB would say 'respect' would be treating one as a worthwhile adversary. Which, actually, he does. I never expect a reply from him (because my questions are usually very bumbling and fumbling) but he does reply all the same.
quote:You called me a sick fuck who exploits people's deaths. You didn't have the sense or decency to apologize, even by PM. If you expect me to give a damn what you think about anything until you do, you're dreaming.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
actually do imagine myself saying most of the stuff I post in a measured, calm tone, no matter how strongly worded it is-- that us, in fact, how I argue. I rarely raise my voice. I've just been trained out if it. Interestingly, I rarely " hear" anyone else as shouting, UNLESS THEY DO THIS, or stuff like this??!!
And while I am here, everything you have said this far tells confirms what I calmly, measuredly posted a while back-- you prefer rhetorical bouncing around to being real. Expect that to piss people off if they are trying to be real with you, and don't be baffled if people are not giving you a chance when you refuse to be real.
quote:Well bully for them. All that means is you've only recently become an arse on the internet.
Originally posted by Byron:
I've posted from time to time on everything from op-ed sites to movie forums, and have yet to be banned, so safe to say that most disagree with you about the relative importance of slinging abuse and framing the argument to your advantage. Which is fine, takes all sorts.
quote:This is just so absurd...
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is a clear pattern to your posts on that thread:
1. Stephen Fry is being dishonest.
I called you on this, so you qualified it
2. This is a 'technical' dishonesty
and then finally
3. This is just your opinion, based on the balance of probabilities as you see it.
Of course, if you actually believed that and were not just randomly spouting shite, believing that it exists inside your head and therefore it must be true - if you really believed that on the balance of probabilities he would not say that if he met God, you'd have said it in the first place.
quote:I'm not unnerved by the content, but by the reference and quotation free paraphrasing, and pretending that "what I remember IngoB said" is identical with what I actually said.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Interesting. I appear to have hit a nerve. Good to know you have some.
quote:One ... more ... time.
Originally posted by Boogie:
He really does piss a lot of people off. So I'd like him to think about why this is.
quote:I know, I know.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:One ... more ... time.
Originally posted by Boogie:
He really does piss a lot of people off. So I'd like him to think about why this is.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Numerous people at work and other friends and family are aware I'm a Hellhost. I'm sure my church would know if I had one.
Originally posted by Byron:
Can I take it you wouldn't want your hellish exploits shared with your boss, colleagues, friends, family and church?
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:And there is the sociopathy writ large. The law is the sum total of what I care about, and if my neighbours all hate me I don't care so long as the cops don't come round.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And yes, I know that there are different types of discussions styles. And that's OK. But that's the point. It really is OK. Until the day I hear from the H&As that the way I discuss is not allowed anymore, I will discuss the way I like to discuss. And if you don't like that, then that is decidedly your problem. I just don't care. At all. I never have, I never will. If you feel some other style of discussion is better, go right ahead and use it. Do what you wish. I will do what I wish.
quote:Plaiting sand
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Boogie-- see what I mean? Spaghetti wrangling.
quote:Is it? I wouldn't have thought so, but you'd know best, wouldn't you?
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:How Christlike of you.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Which is why I loathe him.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And this is why we all end up feeling like he's treating us as props, not peers.
quote:Ah, the heroes of old!
Originally posted by orfeo:
Many a person has succeeded in completely pissing off their entire community while staying on the right side of the law.
quote:And me.
Originally posted by Macrina:
quote:Me too!
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
Hey, lay off IngoB, he provides a valuable service around here. A few years ago I was wavering on the brink of going back to the Catholic Church, everyone here was giving me great advice and encouragement and I was about two days from an appointment for a chat at my local church.
Then IngoB waded in and I cancelled.
quote:And yet, of course it is perfectly fine for you to write things like this.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If that was an effort to make a joke out of my sexuality by labelling me with a gay stereotype, then you are beneath contempt.
quote:Double standard? I was writing about you, the abhorrent individual, not making jokes about you being a stuck-up German.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:And yet, of course it is perfectly fine for you to write things like this.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If that was an effort to make a joke out of my sexuality by labelling me with a gay stereotype, then you are beneath contempt.
You have so internalised your double standards, you can't even see them any longer.
quote:This says more about you, and Bingo, than it does about the Ship.
So yeah, Hell might work as a test of who were are in the dark. If so, the answer's mighty depressing. Ever the optimist, I prefer to think of it as an ongoing, uncontrolled Stanford prison experiment, which makes a lot of folk act out-of-character.
quote:I think this is half right. Certainly the spark that lit the tinder of is-Fry-a-liar doesn't really seem worth more dissection and emotion. On the other hand I think the good number of people are not pretending or bored - there is a lot of pent-up angst here that emerges every IngoB-hell-call.
Originally posted by IngoB:
You have exercised your offensive offendedness. I have exercised my not-giving-a-shit-ness. A good number of people have pretended that it matters one way or the other. The sum total of what this is ever going to achieve has been reached. From now on it will be just bored people desperately fanning some flame or the other to keep their boredom at bay just a little bit longer.
quote:Actually - and I really mean this, it's not just some "boom, boom" joke - I think mt is being pretty unfair to Jesuits, who (in my limited experience) are often charming, complex, deep and, in a sense, open-minded. Well, not clockwork-minded anyway.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:What have the Jesuits done to deserve me, and what have I done to deserved them?
Originally posted by mousethief:
He's a sick fuck of a bully who has very cleverly found a way and a place to beat people up, but do it just this side of the line, to not get planked. It's quite clever, as befits his clockwork Jesuitical mind. It's also sick.
quote:You really have not understood one word of this thread have you?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Given the massive preponderance of opinion against most of IngoB's core beliefs and in favour of the liberal line on things on these boards, ganging up on him over and over again, purportedly over his "style" of arguing is just vindictive and self-indulgent. Why not instead just, you know, grow the fuck up?
quote:You're right. I'm playing on a cheap stereotype and it's past its sell-by date. I'll try to come up with a new metaphor for IngoB's mode of presentation that doesn't insult the SJ, who as you say are by and large very good people, now that they've given up burning Protestants, which I don't believe they've done in centuries.
Originally posted by QLib:
Actually - and I really mean this, it's not just some "boom, boom" joke - I think mt is being pretty unfair to Jesuits, who (in my limited experience) are often charming, complex, deep and, in a sense, open-minded. Well, not clockwork-minded anyway.
quote:Yeah, there's more than ten of us. We just take it in turns.
the problem is that IngoB quotes the Magisterium and pretends that beats any argument. Simple as that.
quote:Excellent advice. Happy Valentine's Day!
get better fucking positions
quote:Actually, that's not quite the whole picture, because also along with that comes a typical-of-many liberal perception that some points of view are not "valid" but unacceptably wrong - and many of them happen to be RC dead-horsey ones.
Originally posted by Leaf:
It is fair to point out the liberal-ish ethos of most posters in Purgatory. Along with that comes a liberal-ish perception that almost all points of view are valid.
quote:But by and large it's not the ones who are really looking just for a good chat who call IngoB to Hell or have a bash at him there - it's almost always those who want to have it out hammer and tongs with him, to trounce his ideas as he wants to trounce theirs, and give just as good as they get on the "opponents" front. Like Mr Cheesey. Funny that.
Originally posted by Leaf:
It seems to me that you perceive Purg as being about debate, and if it is, IngoB makes very strong cases and is always technically correct ("the best kind of correct"). You would therefore think that "the other side" are sore losers. But if they came expecting friendly discussion rather than the framework of opponents and debate, it would be natural that they would be annoyed.
quote:Um, er...
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:Excellent advice. Happy Valentine's Day!
get better fucking positions
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:WGAFWYOI?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
(IMHO).
quote:Thank you.
Originally posted by RooK:
Byron, you are a particularly loathsome being. You accuse others of affecting personalities while also shrugging off your pathetic point-scoring mode of pretend discussion. You seem to value decorum in words used, while having essentially no consideration for how people actually feel about the miserable shit you say. The statistical probability of you developing a clue seems quite tiny, leaving people with the impression that you really are just a talking lower intestine. Look forward to being told this often, asshole.
quote:I beg leave to maintain that I have, actually. Don't make me insist - you won't like me when I'm insisty.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:You really have not understood one word of this thread have you?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Given the massive preponderance of opinion against most of IngoB's core beliefs and in favour of the liberal line on things on these boards, ganging up on him over and over again, purportedly over his "style" of arguing is just vindictive and self-indulgent. Why not instead just, you know, grow the fuck up?
quote:I've been pretty fucking clear that the issue here is the way IngoB behaves like he is literally spouting the thoughts of the deity rather than his ideas.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But by and large it's not the ones who are really looking just for a good chat who call IngoB to Hell or have a bash at him there - it's almost always those who want to have it out hammer and tongs with him, to trounce his ideas as he wants to trounce theirs, and give just as good as they get on the "opponents" front. Like Mr Cheesey. Funny that.
quote:Who gives a fuck whom yawping Orthos imprecate? Why, I should imagine their confessors do, but that's matter for them.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:WGAFWYOI?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
(IMHO).
quote:Uhuh.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've been pretty fucking clear that the issue here is the way IngoB behaves like he is literally spouting the thoughts of the deity rather than his ideas.
If you had more than the comprehension skills of a petulant 13 year old schoolgirl leaping to bitch-slap someone who you think disses a homie, you'd know that.
quote:FWIW I'm also getting sick of the 'but they do it too/ they started it' arguments. IRL IME liberals do this far more than conservatives - often with some condescending blather about how you just need to be educated or schooled in something and then you'll see it the same way they do when the person they're talking to knows more than they do about the subject.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Except it's not just liberals that do that.
Originally posted by saysay:
I've also gotten really sick of liberals telling other people what they really think and feel as if they're too stupid to know.
quote:Ah, the old tu quoque. IngoB's favorite tactic; no wonder it's yours, as you're clearly his lickspittle.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Who gives a fuck whom yawping Orthos imprecate? Why, I should imagine their confessors do, but that's matter for them.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:WGAFWYOI?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
(IMHO).
quote:I warn you, to make this old canard more interesting, I've turned it into a drinking game: I have to take a big swig of booze every time. My wife is abroad ("Or she'd be my husband!!!") so I've no-one to check I log off before I collapse, pissed as a pug on port slammers.
Originally posted by mousethief:
you're clearly his lickspittle.
quote:I agree he comes across like someone regurgitating doctrine rather than actually thinking.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've been pretty fucking clear that the issue here is the way IngoB behaves like he is literally spouting the thoughts of the deity rather than his ideas.
quote:Notice my weasel word "almost" all points of view being valid. What you are noticing is liberal-ish discomfort with insistence on one world view and acquiescence with it (and its moral demands) as representative of all reality - a variant of the "how to tolerate intolerance" dilemma. It correlates in Purg with RC only because it tends to be conservative RCs posting this point of view. If Purg had vocal conservative Calvinists, Anabaptists, or even Muslims posting dead-camel issues, the reaction would be the same. Mudfrog gets stick for being a conservative SA; any other conservative SA's would feel the same as you do.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... along with that comes a typical-of-many liberal perception that some points of view are not "valid" but unacceptably wrong - and many of them happen to be RC dead-horsey ones.
quote:Port slammers?! I hope you've got plenty of coffee in for the morning. You are so going to need it!!!
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:I warn you, to make this old canard more interesting, I've turned it into a drinking game: I have to take a big swig of booze every time. My wife is abroad ("Or she'd be my husband!!!") so I've no-one to check I log off before I collapse, pissed as a pug on port slammers.
Originally posted by mousethief:
you're clearly his lickspittle.
quote:Ironically, this is a perfect description of the problem, thanks to the fact that giving someone a beating also means assaulting them.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
For everyone for whom the principle problem is style, there's about a ten for who the problem is that IngoB beats them in arguments.
quote:Oddly, IngoB has had the opposite effect on me.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
As was said earlier:
And me.
Not Ingo only, or he'd be just a quirk, but a number of Catholics on the Ship including Ingo explaining in detail what that church teaches have so startled and dismayed me that they have totally turned me off the RCC. I no longer even bother to read what the sometimes newsworthy Pope says.
I was trained as a child to deeply admire the RCC. Ingo has made clear that what I was taught to admire as absolutely not what the RCC is at it's core. And that's a real service. I can stop wondering if the RCC has anything wholesome or beneficial to teach me about God or life. Thanks Ingo!
quote:People expecting merely an exchange of viewpoints in Purgatory would do well to read the board's header and guidelines.
Originally posted by Leaf:
[QB] Chesterbelloc: it seems to me a case of differing expectations of Purgatory. Purgatory itself is ambivalent about its nature, describing itself as a place for "debate and discussion." Which is it? There is overlap but also areas of non-intersection.
It is fair to point out the liberal-ish ethos of most posters in Purgatory. Along with that comes a liberal-ish perception that almost all points of view are valid. If you arrive in Purgatory expecting a casual coffee-house atmosphere of exchange of points of view - only to have one person come in wearing a barrister's wig, with a briefcase full of documents, intending to make a case and win it - you can see the mismatched expectations.
It reminds me of the saying that in social interactions, Americans want to be friendly and Europeans want to be correct. Each finds the other tedious and annoying.
It seems to me that you perceive Purg as being about debate, and if it is, IngoB makes very strong cases and is always technically correct ("the best kind of correct"). You would therefore think that "the other side" are sore losers. But if they came expecting friendly discussion rather than the framework of opponents and debate, it would be natural that they would be annoyed.
quote:Well yes, 'cause if you mean what you said, posting in a themed forum doesn't give you a pass.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What do I have to apologize for? Being mean in Hell?
quote:And if you'd expressed it like that first time around, we'd have something to say to each other. You didn't. You accused me of exploiting people's deaths.
For saying what I thought? For getting pissed off at watching someone deliberately wind up someone I have a ton of affection for, and express a great deal of glee at doing so? Fuck that. Everything you were saying at the time gave me the impression you were less concerned about the issue at hand, and more interested in treating orfeo like a hockey puck. I got that idea from ( here's me shouting) STUFF YOU YOURSELF SAID.
Whether or not orf make it easy for you to string him along is another issue, but you were fucking hectoring him about something he was clearly passionate about. And you pretty much said you were doing it. If you are gonna giggle at his reaction to you, how can you turn around and get all butthurt at my rhetoric? You can't have it both ways.
quote:You think your folksy yes ma'am shtick allows you to get away with saying, and doing, all kinds of shit just because you don't use expletives? It doesn't.
Originally posted by Byron:
What's bizarre is that you'd trashtalk me like that, and then expect, for a second, me to give the slightest weight to your opinion of me.
For realz.
quote:And what "miserable shit" is this? The Hell thread where a bunch of you slung abuse at a named judge, and (much worse) demanded a kid busted on a chickenshit misdemeanor pot charge get thrown in lockup 'cause (and here's the killer) the judge mentioned, in passing, his school. Without taking the trouble to check whether his sentence was too lenient (turns out, it wasn't).
Originally posted by RooK:
[...] Byron, you are a particularly loathsome being. You accuse others of affecting personalities while also shrugging off your pathetic point-scoring mode of pretend discussion. You seem to value decorum in words used, while having essentially no consideration for how people actually feel about the miserable shit you say. The statistical probability of you developing a clue seems quite tiny, leaving people with the impression that you really are just a talking lower intestine. Look forward to being told this often, asshole.
quote:Oh God, he still doesn't get it.
Originally posted by Byron:
Or the one where a bunch of you went apoplectic over whether "speech" could be used figuratively, to refer to something other than a set of vocal chords in action.
quote:I can't believe that even you believe that this is what the people on that thread were schooling you about. Somebody who took that away from that thread would have difficulty forming sentences, and you've formed far too many for me to believe it.
Originally posted by Byron:
Or the one where a bunch of you went apoplectic over whether "speech" could be used figuratively, to refer to something other than a set of vocal chords in action.
quote:And again short on the specifics (OK, I get that you loathe arguing in the alternative). I just ran a tedious thread in Purg. where I asked for alternatives to "scoring points," and finally managed to drag out that the objection lay more in terminology than, well, "scoring points."
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You think your folksy yes ma'am shtick allows you to get away with saying, and doing, all kinds of shit just because you don't use expletives? It doesn't.
quote:Actually, if I was acting the way you were acting IRL, I'd expect Kelly to look me in the eye and say exactly that. She's one of the few women willing and able to use any means necessary to point out to me just how much of an ass I'm being (I don't always understand subtle hints).
Originally posted by Byron:
You talk about being real. OK, so in RL, you lock someone's gaze, and say, coolly, "You're a sick fuck, you exploit people's deaths," or words to that effect?
No. You don't run your mouth like that. You do it here, where you're a boss, where the rules back your play.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
And again short on the specifics (OK, I get that you loathe arguing in the alternative). I just ran a tedious thread in Purg. where I asked for alternatives to "scoring points," and finally managed to drag out that the objection lay more in terminology than, well, "scoring points."
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:It's a pretty spectacular example of historical revisionism, isn't it?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I can't believe that even you believe that this is what the people on that thread were schooling you about. Somebody who took that away from that thread would have difficulty forming sentences, and you've formed far too many for me to believe it.
Originally posted by Byron:
Or the one where a bunch of you went apoplectic over whether "speech" could be used figuratively, to refer to something other than a set of vocal chords in action.
Then again, given what you said on that thread, perhaps this method of estimating your intelligence is severely flawed.
quote:You're just a wealth of misinformation. You RAN a thread? Seriously? You really don't understand how this place works, do you? You don't "run" a thread either in the sense of controlling it, or creating it like a newspaper column or an advert.
Originally posted by Byron:
I just ran a tedious thread in Purg. where I asked for alternatives to "scoring points," and finally managed to drag out that the objection lay more in terminology than, well, "scoring points."
quote:Well no, actually, you got pissed 'cause I took on a bossman and wouldn't bow to king mob, but that's such a common occurrence round here I needed a more specific tag.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can't believe that even you believe that this is what the people on that thread were schooling you about. Somebody who took that away from that thread would have difficulty forming sentences, and you've formed far too many for me to believe it.
Then again, given what you said on that thread, perhaps this method of estimating your intelligence is severely flawed.
quote:I liked the "incitement is speech plus some special magical ingredient that turns speech into incitement, but which is not itself speech" thing. That somebody could say that with a straight face, let alone maintain it over several pages, was a wonder to behold.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The very starting point was when he waltzed in to tell me that defamation wasn't speech. I'm pretty damn sure we took it all as a given that you can defame someone both vocally and in print.
quote:Tell you what, clue sink, how about you don't try to tell me what I am thinking or have thought in the past? Because you suck at it, and it just makes you look like a microphallic stomorrhetic.
Originally posted by Byron:
Well no, actually, you got pissed 'cause I took on a bossman and wouldn't bow to king mob, but that's such a common occurrence round here I needed a more specific tag.
quote:You also wouldn't bow to several members of Congress, their professional researchers, your own New York Times article or every legal textbook printed in this galaxy.
Originally posted by Byron:
and wouldn't bow to king mob
quote:Yes, that was the great novelty. It's kind of a legal aether, really.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I liked the "incitement is speech plus some special magical ingredient that turns speech into incitement, but which is not itself speech" thing. That somebody could say that with a straight face, let alone maintain it over several pages, was a wonder to behold.
quote:Prediction isn't your strong point either. One begins to wonder if you have any strong points. No, I won't call IngoB to Hell, although once he's here I don't mind saying what is wrong with his attitude and the way he treats people as things to play with rather than as people.
Originally posted by Byron:
You'll probably call IngbB back here in short order, and again demand he respect people's feelings. Or else.
quote:Actually no, you didn't. I would however be interested to see you reengage in the Purg Hate Crime thread, and pony up all that evidence of prosecutors fabricating hate crime enhancements, about which you spoke so very confidently. (Snarky comments about you being a hotshot lawyer sure to follow ... or not.)
Originally posted by saysay:
Actually, if I was acting the way you were acting IRL, I'd expect Kelly to look me in the eye and say exactly that. She's one of the few women willing and able to use any means necessary to point out to me just how much of an ass I'm being (I don't always understand subtle hints).
If you would like to pretend that IRL we all live according to the etiquette rules you apparently live by, feel free to continue to do so. But you know nothing about most of our RL situations.
Oh, fuck, he just got me to engage.
quote:Oh hell's frickin' bells, turn of phrase already. No, I don't claim thread starters are Perry White.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You're just a wealth of misinformation. You RAN a thread? Seriously? You really don't understand how this place works, do you? You don't "run" a thread either in the sense of controlling it, or creating it like a newspaper column or an advert.
quote:As opposed to ... what, exactly?
Terminology? You really, really, really don't get it. It's not the terminology orfeo (among others) was objecting to. It's the mindset that the terminology betrays.
quote:I find it bizarre you think I need to bow to anything. I find it even more bizarre that you think arguments from authority aren't fallacies.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You also wouldn't bow to several members of Congress, their professional researchers, your own New York Times article or every legal textbook printed in this galaxy.
quote:Strong and black, I hope.
I'm sure you pride yourself on being an "independent thinker". There are times, however, when that's just a euphemism for "person who got the wrong end of the stick and will hold onto it regardless of the merits, until his fingers bleed".
NB Only engaging because I have a cup of coffee to finish.
quote:When the argument is about what words mean, and the authorities are the people with the authority to define those words in the relevant contexts, it's not a fallacy. It's SOP.
Originally posted by Byron:
I find it bizarre you think I need to bow to anything. I find it even more bizarre that you think arguments from authority aren't fallacies.
quote:No, I don't love that kind of unreasoned fury over minutiae, weirded me out.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I don't want to rehash the whole thread, but asI recall, many folk were agreeing with the opinion, but had problems with the phrasing. That is not " wholesale dismissal." You just kept shoving those comments across that "dismissal" line. That's the kind of shit that drives people to a froth. Which you admit you love, so why are you complaining?
quote:Oh, what "way" is that, he started with the insults off the bat, I challenged his opinion. All your friends have you barge into their business, do they?
I do concede that, had I seen you going after a friend of mine in real life the way you went at orf, ...
quote:Right before you challenged me to grass before breakfast ... sorry, wrong movie. Your fantasy's all film noir, you sashaying your stuff through the jazz club's pall as the femme fatale, oozing danger and moxy.
... I probably would have tossed a drink in your face before I called you a sick fuck. A message board does help redirect those kind of impulses.
quote:Well it has been fun watching you blast the liberal offenderati while starting with... oh an article in a liberal magazine about being offended by a tenured professor being fired.
Originally posted by saysay:
FWIW I'm also getting sick of the 'but they do it too/ they started it' arguments. IRL IME liberals do this far more than conservatives - often with some condescending blather about how you just need to be educated or schooled in something and then you'll see it the same way they do when the person they're talking to knows more than they do about the subject.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:And yet...
Originally posted by Byron:
I find it bizarre you think I need to bow to anything. I find it even more bizarre that you think arguments from authority aren't fallacies.
quote:Italics added.
You missed the whole damn point if you think I was on some "independent thinker" kick. What pissed me off was to see so many clearly intelligent people not only dismiss a mainstream position out-of-hand, but to be so damn cocksure about it as to sling insults in place of argument.
quote:Bzzzt.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Actually no, you didn't. I would however be interested to see you reengage in the Purg Hate Crime thread, and pony up all that evidence of prosecutors fabricating hate crime enhancements, about which you spoke so very confidently. (Snarky comments about you being a hotshot lawyer sure to follow ... or not.)
Originally posted by saysay:
Actually, if I was acting the way you were acting IRL, I'd expect Kelly to look me in the eye and say exactly that. She's one of the few women willing and able to use any means necessary to point out to me just how much of an ass I'm being (I don't always understand subtle hints).
If you would like to pretend that IRL we all live according to the etiquette rules you apparently live by, feel free to continue to do so. But you know nothing about most of our RL situations.
Oh, fuck, he just got me to engage.
quote:Tried that one first time around. Posted up an apology for not quitting sooner. As I'd yet to be inducted into the ways of the damned, felt bad for dragging it out with orfeo.
Originally posted by Patdys:
Byron,
May I suggest you take a brief break from posting on this thread. It would allow some of the heat to dissipate.
quote:Indeed, but the "feel" of a board - I apologize for the vagueness, but I can't think of a better word - cannot be fully encompassed by the header and guidelines. It takes a while to get the feel of a board, at least for me. Charitably, I suspect some people really do have different expectations and are put off by unexpected challenge. Less charitably, I suspect that in some cases Chesterbelloc might be right about would-be opponents changing tack when they're losing.
Originally posted by RuthW:
People expecting merely an exchange of viewpoints in Purgatory would do well to read the board's header and guidelines.
quote:Sweet mercy, I know this place is grade school, but "I know you are, but what am I"? Jeez.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I wish my sis would post. She'd attest to the liquid tossing. Has happened maybe twice in my life, but if anyone could get me there, dude...
And again, I was pointing out, people weren't "frothing over minutae" -- at least some people-- they were specifying what they agreed with and what they didn't. The person who was frothing was the person who wouldn't accept anything less than total agreement.
As for that weird Jean Harlowe thing you just wrote-- that would be YOUR daydream, not mine.
quote:That's gotta be the Big Gulp of caffeine you got going on there. Hope the restroom's close at hand.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:And yet...
Originally posted by Byron:
I find it bizarre you think I need to bow to anything. I find it even more bizarre that you think arguments from authority aren't fallacies.
quote:Italics added.
You missed the whole damn point if you think I was on some "independent thinker" kick. What pissed me off was to see so many clearly intelligent people not only dismiss a mainstream position out-of-hand, but to be so damn cocksure about it as to sling insults in place of argument.
Rejecting authority and precedent (the foundations of the common law system) and a list of people who know shit that don't agree with you - the entire point of which was to show you the sheer quantity of people who don't share your view, and yet claiming that your position is 'mainstream'.
But hey, you reject arguments of authority, right? Even while being in the 'mainstream'. Separate from the authorities.
Hmm.
I think we just found another candidate for the list of words that you use without much regard for their dictionary definition. The ability of the different parts of your brain to contribute to a single post while living in different universes is fascinating. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it.
Yes, okay, you successfully copied and pasted words out of a Supreme Court decision. Good Boy. What a pity, though, that you completely resist any attempt to explain to you that no-one else interprets those words in the way that you do, in your 'mainstream' of one.
quote:Hell snark aside for a second, I sincerely respect your courage in taking that stand and suffering the consequences.
Originally posted by saysay:
Bzzzt.
Wrong side. I've been to prison for a principle I believe deeply in and I've known way too many people charged with ridiculous shit that wouldn't get an unofficial reprimand if it was done by a rich white bitch because the school to prison pipeline is working exactly the way some people want it to.
But thanks for playing.
quote:Whether speech could be figurative wasn't the point in dispute, and either you know damn well it wasn't the point in dispute or you are a colossal idiot.
Originally posted by Byron:
No one except, oh, a member of the court that wrote the controlling precedent, and every court that ruled speech could be figurative, including that lil' flag burning case.
quote:Family gathering. Have you read nothing I have written?
Originally posted by Byron:
If it was a church fundraiser, my bad.
quote:...
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Well no, actually, you got pissed 'cause I took on a bossman and wouldn't bow to king mob, but that's such a common occurrence round here I needed a more specific tag.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can't believe that even you believe that this is what the people on that thread were schooling you about. Somebody who took that away from that thread would have difficulty forming sentences, and you've formed far too many for me to believe it.
Then again, given what you said on that thread, perhaps this method of estimating your intelligence is severely flawed.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Oh Good Lord. Please tell me I didn't actually read this. Mousethief hates people who take on bossmen and won't bow to The Mob. Hey Mouseman, how's the absolute and crippling self-loathing coming along?
quote:Ah, Hell as internet resort for noble savages. The quote from Stanley Kubrick gets it in a nutshell: "Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage. He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests are involved — that about sums it up. I'm interested in the brutal and violent nature of man because it's a true picture of him. And any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably doomed to failure."
Originally posted by RooK:
I submit for consideration that exchanges on the internet, especially modally-free-ish ones like Hell, merely remove filtering elements. Some people can use this freedom for expressing un-genuine ideas - trolling, and the like. But this is something that is usually perceivable, especially over multiple posts. Magnificently, this freedom allows people to get down to the gritty business of saying what they actually think. Even if they're unpopular ideas. Even if a person is not a towering brute with kung-fu skills. Even if they've never felt able to admit these ideas to their nearest and dearest. Long live the internet. You call it a dogpile. Usually, I merely see a large number of people having an opportunity to be honest. You call it gratuitous name-calling. I mostly see people finding creative ways to more-accurately express their opinions and feelings about somebody's posts.
quote:Man always dreams of his own freedom, only grudgingly of that of others. If your colleagues and superiors at that grad school no longer lived the "weak tea and milquetoast inauthenticity", then who says you wouldn't end up tied to a stake, being spat on and whipped by the occasional passerby? Civilisation, which you find so restraining, restrains others at least as much as yourself, and in many ways for your benefit. Furthermore, "grad school" is just a name for something that elevates skills and talents which once were at best of marginal importance to something that possibly can provide some people with a livelihood. Civilisation is the great enabler and equaliser, making it possible for people to find a good life in thousands of ways. In a hunter and gatherer society, the available careers are mentioned in the name.
Originally posted by Ariston:
Every once in a while, though, something slips out. I gained a reputation as the department radical in grad school despite my best attempts to keep it all contained. Here in Hell, I don't have to live the lie. Passions run high, and things get heated, yes, but that's not out of cruelty—it's because we no longer have to live the weak tea and milquetoast inauthenticity we put on for the strangers and acquaintances we have to make forced and formal small talk with.
quote:Absolute bullshit. What will happen is that about 35 of the posts will be taken up by people posting idiotic Youtube and gif links in the full knowledge that this will disrupt a hellcall that they don't agree with.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Space on the hell call becomes valuable in the minds of people.
quote:Is that a 'Mornington Crescent' gambit? (I've just been a spectator at a 'match' elsewhere!
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Watching Ingo is like watching a cage match; Maxwell's Demon versus Gödel's diagonal.
) - well, whatever, I ain't their boss. I drift in and out as I please. The interesting thing to me is that Hell is self-limiting and organic. Conversations arise and die out on their own. They do not seem to me to need imposed constraints on space and time.quote:It would certainly change the atmosphere. We would have bazillion threads, all interations of "Calling IngoB to Hell LXXVI"
Originally posted by IngoB:
So how about it? Just give hell threads a one page lease of life, closing them at 49 posts (or as soon thereafter as a host swings by). I think that would change the atmosphere of Hell for the better, and make it more like the carnival that you appear to want.
quote:If people did that, then they could be just called to Hell themselves by those upset with it. I never said anything about deleting posts, so the rest is just your imagination.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Absolute bullshit. What will happen is that about 35 of the posts will be taken up by people posting idiotic Youtube and gif links in the full knowledge that this will disrupt a hellcall that they don't agree with.
quote:That one really hurt, did it? Sort of accidental, really, but I will take it. Anyway, if I had only 49 posts to grate mr cheesy, I would not waste one of them for a funny dig at a random hell host, whose masturbatory foaming is completely irrelevant to the original thread.
Originally posted by orfeo:
A system that would ACTUALLY make people value their posts is a system that limits an individual's posts - so that they can't just 'steal' space from others by posting Judy Garland links.
quote:Nope.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You've basically proposed this before.
quote:I know that it is really, really difficult to actually read words through the fog of prejudice and preconceptions. But I said "let the hell hosts lock any thread once it passes 49 posts". At most that is one rule then, and it is not a rule that directly affects what Shipmates can do in Hell, nor is it at all difficult to patrol. All that would be needed is hell hosts, who have to read this stuff anyway, click a button once they see a thread spill into page 2. They can do that now, if they want to, but would probably feel obliged to explain why. The effects that I think this would have are emergent, not imposed.
Originally posted by Leaf:
I was thinking of this analogy before your proposal for moar rulz, but it fit in perfectly: You are the guy running back to his office to make posters of rules for the break room. The more, the better! Paper it from wall to wall with Times New Roman, centre-justified, 24-point font instructions on different coloured sheets. That's what the place needs.
quote:Define 'really care'.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I doubt that even the people making the noises really care.
quote:Having hit on a gay stereotype is nothing much to be proud of. The best I can say is that it is a departure from your usual approach.
Originally posted by IngoB:
That one really hurt, did it?
quote:The three stages of Hell call decay:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Define 'really care'.
quote:The intellectual challenge, and the broadness of opinion. Questions are being asked that I would never have thought of asking. Answers are being provided that I would never have thought of giving. A lot of it is wrong in one way or the other, in my opinion. True. But that does not diminish the appeal. The point is rather that I literally could not make this stuff up, myself. I do not have the creative capacity to think all these things, I do not have the mental range for it. It's a bit like being a European biologist on the first expedition through the Amazonian rain forest. And it still is, after a decade. Admittedly the time between new stuff becomes slowly longer and longer. But it has not stopped yet...
Originally posted by Boogie:
What do you care about Ship-wise IngoB?
quote:(Sigh) and I was holding out hope that you were actually trying to be silly and bantery. Which, admittedly, is like watching the Iron Giant try to do the time step, because what little times you have had practice having fun with us, you ran shrieking away from the experience like the Wicked Witch away from a bucket of water. ( to continue your theme.) But I was giving you the benefit of the doubt
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That one really hurt, did it? Sort of accidental, really, but I will take it.
Originally posted by orfeo:
A system that would ACTUALLY make people value their posts is a system that limits an individual's posts - so that they can't just 'steal' space from others by posting Judy Garland links.
quote:Doesn't make it better. Might make it worse.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Ingo's posts are completely rational acts. Devoid of feeling. I suspect he is capable of feeling. Just choosing not to here.
quote:That's because you are forgetting Phase 4. The original complaint is resolved and the thread carries on, with the most deliciously black humour.
Originally posted by IngoB: (abbreviated by me)
The three stages of Hell call decay:
1. An recent original grievance.
2. People chime in.
3. Sides are taken.
If anything interesting happens in a Hell thread (that is rarely the case), then it is almost invariably in phase 1.
quote:None of us do, it takes the collective conciousness of the ship to create the challenge, that would not happen without conflicting views.
The point is rather that I literally could not make this stuff up, myself. I do not have the creative capacity to think all these things, I do not have the mental range for it.
quote:Why wouldn't I indulge in nastiness? I have never claimed that I was above it all by virtue of superior saintliness. To stick to my boxing analogy, I would prefer if we staid in the boxing ring with its rounds and rules. But if you drag me out in the street and try to kick me in the balls and poke out my eyes, I'm not going to insist on boxing rules for myself. I might well try to crush your windpipe or shatter your knee. If you don't like that, fine, let's go back inside and put on some boxing gloves.
Originally posted by RuthW:
That's another thing. If you object so much to nastiness, why do you indulge in it, Ingo? Posting the Judy Garland link in the first place was bad enough, but doubling down on it was just despicable.
quote:Same here. That description of the Ship as the rain forest, for example, made me catch my breath. It's beautiful.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Oh, I've seen a few posts where the feelings have gleamed like sun through the clouds. And not just negative ones. Just a few, but enough for me to feel the personal IngoB was there.
quote:( To Ariston) yeah, because Mousethief has always been so quiveringly sycophantic to the bossmen/gals.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Oh Good Lord. Please tell me I didn't actually read this. Mousethief hates people who take on bossmen and won't bow to The Mob. Hey Mouseman, how's the absolute and crippling self-loathing coming along?
I am pretty sure I got fired from my last (and final) programming job because I stood up to the boss. I was on a weight-reduction diet at the time (lost over 120 pounds total) and therefore pissing a lot. (As you will no doubt know, when hydrocarbons metabolize they form carbon dioxide and water, the one you breathe out and the other you piss.)
Apparently somebody ratted me to the boss, who called me into his office and told me that he had been told I was going to the bathroom too much! I told him that if bladder capacity was an important criterion for the job (I had been there for 8 years by then), he should have told me BEFORE he hired me. And that I pee when I have to pee and it's really not anybody's business how often that is.
Next mistake I made in coding, they fired me. Thin-skinned cowards.
quote:I can easily picture calling you or Ariston a sick fuck without being angry, as I grew up in a culture where a certain amount of trash talk in order to establish boundaries was acceptable.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I can picture calling you a sick fuck eight or nine times in one conversation, Ariston, I just doubt I would be angry when I did it.
quote:This is not a good post hoc rationalization. It is painfully transparent to start with.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Rather because I really do not like the way gayness seems to be turned into a holy cow here, which may not be mocked, or else... That sort of reaction makes me want to insist on not having done anything particularly wrong.
quote:For some people this is quite true. But for others it is definitely IngoB's style or tone that gets up their noses.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What makes some people - I'm talking mainly about those who drag him to Hell and those who just jump all over him when someone else does - pissed off is that IngoB can refute them because he has thought through his beliefs/positions/argument much better than they have and/or can argue for them better. For such people, he leaves them with no plausible rational defense of their arguments.
quote:Ah, the infinitely replicating Mandelbrot hell call.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If people did that, then they could be just called to Hell themselves by those upset with it.
quote:The mask slips.
Originally posted by IngoB:
That one really hurt, did it? Sort of accidental, really, but I will take it.
quote:In fairness FG drove me and many others to distraction for reasons that wouldn't be fair to go into this far after the event. And I don't think Josephine does the "intellectual battle" thing - not saying that she doesn't have clear arguments and so on, but that I never felt she was digging in and defending a particular position.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
However, many posters responded extremely positively to the intellectual battles with Josephine and Fr. Gregory, even when they themselves were the 'losers'.
quote:In the words of The Dude, that's just, like, your opinion man. You've mistaken the bits you find interesting with what is objectively interesting for everyone. You find the stage 1 bit interesting. Maybe the stage 2 and 3 bits are interesting or important for reasons that are irrelevant to you, but important to others. Maybe the stage 3 is important for some for its light-heartedness following what's gone on earlier. Maybe the stage 2 is important because some people just need to vent. Whatever. Everyone is not the same as you.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:The three stages of Hell call decay:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Define 'really care'.
1. An recent original grievance is flagged and discussed.
2. People chime in who don't particularly care about 1, but just don't like one or more of the people involved.
3. The Hell call disperses into discussing various topics and/or people with 1 providing at most a kind of rallying point so that sides can be taken.
In stage 2 and 3, discussion tend to become largely stereotypical, and their outcome predictable. Most posts are really like finger-exercises or small talk, people are largely on auto-pilot and mostly are just passing time. And yes, they can be "enraged" or "sad" or whatever while doing it. But so in a largely predictable manner. That's what I mean by not really caring. Executive control has left the building, habit has taken over.
If anything interesting happens in a Hell thread (that is rarely the case), then it is almost invariably in phase 1. Once the original content has been chewed out, you can copy-and-paste much the rest of the thread together from earlier iterations.
quote:I had similar problems with FG, as did numerous other Orthodoxen. I remember someone commenting on this specifically when FG came under attack and the Orthodox who had been crossing swords with him gave him encouragement and in essence came to his defence. Because we're a family. I can beat up my little brother, YOU cannot.
Originally posted by mdijon:
In fairness FG drove me and many others to distraction for reasons that wouldn't be fair to go into this far after the event.
quote:I was going to say he forgot phase 4 - where the original complaint is resolved/forgotten and everything begins to get rather silly.
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:That's because you are forgetting Phase 4. The original complaint is resolved and the thread carries on, with the most deliciously black humour.
Originally posted by IngoB: (abbreviated by me)
The three stages of Hell call decay:
1. An recent original grievance.
2. People chime in.
3. Sides are taken.
If anything interesting happens in a Hell thread (that is rarely the case), then it is almost invariably in phase 1.
)
quote:If so, they can complain in stage 1. "I hate you and so-and-so just shows why I hate you" type of posts attack persons, not their actions. They are intrinsically unhelpful and reflect badly on the character of the person making them. The only thing that ever comes out of such posts is deepening of division, increasing of animosity and habitual assholery.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ever stop to consider that the people of stage 2 don't like the people they are complaining about because of the behaviour which caused stage 1?
quote:It wouldn't be particularly hard to find excuses for my behaviour here. Traditional Christianity certainly allows sainthood for those hammering the heretics and pagans. People so like the image of the shepherd carrying the lost sheep on his shoulders back to its herd. They tend to forget why one would carry a lamb like that, with a firm grip on the legs. Because its the best way to keep the little fucker from escaping again... But I for the most part don't seek that kind of excuse, as easy as it would be. I'm not a particularly good Christian, and one sign that I'm turning into a better Christian might well be that I give up SoF.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He has stated more than once that he is not here to win people over to Christianity. I thought all Christians were called to do so, but maybe he has special dispensation for being such a vociferous apologist.
quote:I wasn't rationalising anything. I was sharing how I feel about something. Fat lot of good that does...
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is not a good post hoc rationalization. It is painfully transparent to start with.
quote:There is that. There is also the fact that I have not complained about being called a German (because I am that) or about being teased with prejudices about German attributes (like say being in love with rules). I find that sort of thing mostly amusing, and acceptable even where I am not amused. I have complained however about being associated with the Nazis and their racist ideology, because I really have absolutely nothing to do with them - in fact my family and I personally have a history of fighting them, and I might well end up in their concentration camps for shaming Arian blood with an Asian wife and mixed child if they were to come to power. So, is poking fun at gays for being camp more like poking fun at Germans for being orderly, or more like telling a German that he must be a Nazi by birth?
Originally posted by mdijon:
Would it become acceptable to start being mildly racist to demonstrate that people are overly sensitive about the holy cow of race relations? Or mildly misogynistic because the feminists have gone too far? Or some good old antisemitism to make sure that the Jews don't feel they are above the law?
quote:It sure as fuck does! If I want to know what people have been saying about something, I can just go and read it in the backlog. There is no value whatsoever in the endless rehashing of crap. I participate in this out of a sense of duty and pride, and yes, neither is a pure or Christian motive. The only excuse I have for this bullshit here is that it is largely posted in response to bullshit.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Your response to this hell call was always a given, more predictable than the most predictable thing ever. Just because something is predictable to some, doesn't make it not valuable.
quote:I don't think it's terrible. I think it's funny. When you have the hammer habit of systematization - designing and enforcing rules - everything looks like a nail.
Originally posted by IngoB:
... we can now have another round of discussing how terrible it is for me to want to impose rules on people.
quote:Rubbish. Did you see the "to some" in my post? What you're saying, Reductio ad Absurdum, is that there is no point ever discussing anything ever, because somewhere, once upon a time, some other people had the same conversation. After all, as the Teacher says, there's nothing new under the sun.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:It sure as fuck does! If I want to know what people have been saying about something, I can just go and read it in the backlog. There is no value whatsoever in the endless rehashing of crap. I participate in this out of a sense of duty and pride, and yes, neither is a pure or Christian motive. The only excuse I have for this bullshit here is that it is largely posted in response to bullshit.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Your response to this hell call was always a given, more predictable than the most predictable thing ever. Just because something is predictable to some, doesn't make it not valuable.
quote:You might, in a rare moment of self-reflection, want to consider that this also applies to those who make you the subject of a Hell call.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The only excuse I have for this bullshit here is that it is largely posted in response to bullshit.
quote:I agree. That's why I put 'losers' in quotes. Chesterbelloc referred to people being pissed off because they had been 'beaten' by IngoB's superior debating tactics, but I would question that unless someone has been convinced by those debating tactics they would, in fact, regard themselves as having been beaten at all. At most, I'd say they're merely irritated that someone who expresses his views better than they can theirs, still doesn't manage to convince them of his view of the truth!
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:In fairness FG drove me and many others to distraction for reasons that wouldn't be fair to go into this far after the event. And I don't think Josephine does the "intellectual battle" thing - not saying that she doesn't have clear arguments and so on, but that I never felt she was digging in and defending a particular position.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
However, many posters responded extremely positively to the intellectual battles with Josephine and Fr. Gregory, even when they themselves were the 'losers'.
Also I think very few people ever regard themselves as losers in a debate, even when it is obvious to most of the world that they are.
quote:Why do you care?
Originally posted by Yorick:
Where is Josephine? Where is Fr Gregory?
quote:For the record, when I have twitted IngoB about his love of rules, it's because he's a Thomist not because he's German. I never made the German connection as I don't primarily think of rule-bound-ness as a German quality.
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is also the fact that I have not complained about being called a German (because I am that) or about being teased with prejudices about German attributes (like say being in love with rules).
quote:And yet Ingo keeps rehashing his crap. Endlessly.
There is no value whatsoever in the endless rehashing of crap.
quote:I suppose in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church it's verboten to do evil that good may result, but okay to do evil that evil may result.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The only excuse I have for this bullshit here is that it is largely posted in response to bullshit.
quote:I don't know where Fr. Gregory is, but I've had to limit my on-board time because I had rather a lot to do IRL. I've written a children's picture book, found a publisher, and have been extraordinarily busy with marketing efforts. (If you have a small publisher, as I do, the marketing is your job.) It's been a blast, but it's taken far more time than I could possibly have imagined a year ago.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Where is Josephine? Where is Fr Gregory?
quote:Except it does allow shipmates to identify with you. Because I know that feeling well. When you've been stuck in the middle of enough wars with people arguing the equivalent of 'you just called me ma'am and that's ageist and horrible and you're a bad person who thinks I'm old' and 'you failed to call me ma'am and how could you be so disrespectful' it's hard to know which side of the line you're on sometimes.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I wasn't rationalising anything. I was sharing how I feel about something. Fat lot of good that does...
quote:The assumption in your question is its answer.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Why do you care?
Originally posted by Yorick:
Where is Josephine? Where is Fr Gregory?
quote:I don't know. To me it read as the same kind of mild teasing that other shipmates get away with and sometimes enjoy.
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, Judy Garland did not really hurt. It was worth bringing up again because it is a perfect illustration of the kind of pathetic nastiness that you slip into your posts at every opportunity. And I don't just mean your Hell posts. It is exactly the kind of little dig that, cumulatively, gets you called to Hell in the first place.
Your general contempt for people leaks through your posts on a regular basis. I save my contempt for Hell and for the likes of you.
quote:I was hoping beyond hope you really cared and it wasn't just a bit of nasty rhetoric. Hope is a betrayer. It has a knife specially designed to slip between lumbar ribs.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:The assumption in your question is its answer.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Why do you care?
Originally posted by Yorick:
Where is Josephine? Where is Fr Gregory?
quote:Just exactly this. If you're in a bitter fight with somebody, slipping in a bit of innocent horseplay is impossible. It presupposes things that are not there. Horseplay rests on a foundation of chumminess. It cannot exist without it.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It read as horseplay to me, too, but perhaps one point is that you have to have set a foundation of friendliness for horseplay to read like horseplay.
quote:You may be right. I may just be confusing it with
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Nope.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You've basically proposed this before.
quote:Maybe. My main problem with him is that he doesn't really deliver. What he promises (also in this thread) is that a discussion is like a boxing match, no punches pulled, argument against argument. But what happens if someone makes a point against the logical framework he has constructed, is that he distracts. He uses all kind of techniques in order not to answer my point. His verbosity is one of those; I mentioned a couple of other techniques he uses in my earlier post. This is what is irritating: a debate with him is like a boxing match with someone who's constantly running away. That's fucking annoying. And that's not what he promised.
QLib: LeRoc, I think you give both too much and too little credit to IngoB.
quote:Yup, you said your sis was with you when you flipped out and assaulted someone. I guess, as a lesser of evils, I'm glad to hear it was a member of your family, and you weren't idiotic enough to risk her safety by provoking a stranger.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Family gathering. Have you read nothing I have written?
quote:OK, consider (whatever provoked that outburst) withdrawn.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Whether speech could be figurative wasn't the point in dispute, and either you know damn well it wasn't the point in dispute or you are a colossal idiot.
You know perfectly well the shit you were called was your assertion that certain things WEREN'T speech. That's the claim you rode into the thread making. You kept insisting that things weren't speech, they were some other kind of magical thing.
And now you're trying to turn into some claim that EVERYBODY ELSE suggested certain things weren't speech.
Either you're lying or you have split personality disorder. Your choice.
quote:My attempts to tell you that that wasn't my position withered under the realisation that penetrating the fantasies in your head isn't worth the time involved. I have an overseas trip in April and I didn't think we'd be done by then.
Originally posted by Byron:
You know, the one where, with matchless irony, you argued that insults should be criminalized.
quote:The rocket science of it all...
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In most of the 'debates' I have had with him, I think I have a valid point against his reasoning, and I'd really like to hear his answer to it. But even if I try for pages and pages, he keeps answering to what he thinks I have said, instead of addressing the point I'm trying to make. Even if I tried to reformulate a point a dozen of times, he still doesn't understand it. I don't think he can put all of the blame of this on me. If he thinks he can refute my point, why not answer it manno a manno, instead of continuing to use distraction techniques?
quote:Europe this time. Quite close to Ingo. I'm thinking of visiting him with a gift or two from the CD shop, assuming I can find one in this day and age. Obviously Judy Garland is first choice (he's such a fan!), but at a pinch I suppose Lady Gaga or Kylie Minogue will do.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you visit Seattle again you absolutely MUST meet with Josephine and me. We can call all the locals together and have a nice shipmeet.
quote:Aside from the usual comments about limits of the software etc. Really? You would rather have a Ship of mousethiefs? Talk about driving out demons by Beelzebub...
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If the space in Hell is such a valuable resource, why not limit posts to have a limited length? That would make things a lot less tedious. Readers wouldn't have to wade through endless bullshit by those who think endless diarrhea of the pen is a winning debate tactic and discussions could continue to their natural end.
quote:The goal: not "winning" by convincing, but "winning" by attrition.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Whereas all you get is just ever more frustration, and so eventually you will give up.
quote:I would prefer a nice bottle of Shiraz, personally, though my nine year old likes Lady Gaga...
Originally posted by orfeo:
Europe this time. Quite close to Ingo. I'm thinking of visiting him with a gift or two from the CD shop, assuming I can find one in this day and age. Obviously Judy Garland is first choice (he's such a fan!), but at a pinch I suppose Lady Gaga or Kylie Minogue will do.
quote:The goal: keep enjoying typing that next post, even a decade later.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The goal: not "winning" by convincing, but "winning" by attrition.
quote:Get your kid the CD where Lady Gaga sings with Tony Bennett. Really good.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would prefer a nice bottle of Shiraz, personally, though my nine year old likes Lady Gaga...
quote:I don't think we a disagreeing. It just didn't come across to me like an intellectual battle set up to have a loser and a winner with her. It did with FG.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I have to disagree with regard to Josephine. I found her explanations of her beliefs concerning Orhtodoxy very clear and theologically coherent, as well as being quite technically detailed. She was no slouch, intellectually.
quote:Are 1 in 5 Germans victims of hate crimes with the majority being physical attacks? Or marginalized by society?
Originally posted by IngoB:
So, is poking fun at gays for being camp more like poking fun at Germans for being orderly, or more like telling a German that he must be a Nazi by birth?
quote:He also serves to make Bingo look like Alan Alda.
Originally posted by saysay:
And Byron serves to dash all hope.
quote:Coming at that from a different angle:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Believing in what one knows to be an outright contradiction is a grave and dangerous evil, if not simply insane. It means for example that one can rape, murder and pillage one's neighbours and claim that this just is loving them. Yes, most people won't start with believing in that kind of contradiction, but once you allow this for anything, what precisely is going to stop them from ending there? Certainly nothing you can say, this is setting up a showdown of force. Believing in outright contradictions is hence a most dangerous failure mode of faith, and while I am not God I will fight it to the limits of my powers.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Who died and made you God??? How dare you "insist" that anyone stop believing anything???
quote:The new rick-roll.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Europe this time. Quite close to Ingo. I'm thinking of visiting him with a gift or two from the CD shop, assuming I can find one in this day and age. Obviously Judy Garland is first choice (he's such a fan!), but at a pinch I suppose Lady Gaga or Kylie Minogue will do.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you visit Seattle again you absolutely MUST meet with Josephine and me. We can call all the locals together and have a nice shipmeet.
quote:See that's where the bullshit hits the road. You are the only person in your world who can determine the 'truth' of any matter under discussion, you are the only measure of who has won a debate, you are the only person who is sophisticated enough to argue a position properly, it is you who are more intelligent that the rest of us and so on.
Originally posted by IngoB:
You know what you have just described there? Me spending page upon page arguing with you, trying beyond hope to finally make you see some light. But nope, you just won't get it, no matter what approach I try. Perhaps because you are too stupid, perhaps because you are blinded by your preconceptions, perhaps because you simply cannot imagine that you are wrong about something, who knows...
quote:And this is another pile of stinking bullshit. You win by any means available, including: a) not listening b) volume of posts c) changing the parameters of the discussion d) rubbishing opponents etc and so on.
However, yes, I'm well aware of the symmetry of it all. Of course you would think that it is me who is evasive and/or dense. That's just how these things naturally go in our minds. Hence I consciously measure my satisfaction by whether I can convince myself that I have a good argument, and that I have either beaten you with it, or at least properly defended my position.
quote:When I was here years ago, there was a refrain: get a blog. If you don't need to engage with others and the only measure of success is yourself as a self-admitted biased audience, stop pretending that you are here to engage with others.
Obviously, I am a bit of a biased audience for myself. But I'm also quite appreciative of myself and the warm glow of self-satisfaction means that I can just keep on doing this endlessly, because I actually enjoy it, for the most part. Whereas all you get is just ever more frustration, and so eventually you will give up.
quote:Interesting to know that it was a refrain. Because I've had cause to convey the same idea to a Shipmate or two at times. I think Ingo has been one of them, though I wouldn't bet my life on it.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
When I was here years ago, there was a refrain: get a blog.
quote:This is quite literally the first time I've ever heard this.
Originally posted by Patdys:
The new rick-roll.
quote:I think a lot more could be said concerning this, but not here and now. I have not intention to supply the dead horses for a cavalry charge against me, and increasing the contrast between orfeo's treatment of me and mine of him, again, seems like a good idea.
Originally posted by mdijon:
Are 1 in 5 Germans victims of hate crimes with the majority being physical attacks? Or marginalized by society?Maybe you will say that's nothing to do with it and its a principal. But the background does of course have some bearing on the severity of the slight. In any case I don't see orfeo making comments about Germans or Nazis here. For what it is worth I don't think poking fun at Germans for being orderly is on either, particularly in the throws of an annoyed argument, but the comparison isn't very apt.
quote:Yes, it makes sense, and I do appreciate the effort you are making there. It is one of the unfortunate features of Hell calls that your kind of response gets lost under all the poisonous screaming. Maybe it shouldn't, from my side, but psychologically it is quite difficult to have a nice chat with that in the background.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
If you're thinking in terms of a strict, logical argument: I don't know the formal rules of that, but I don't think "insisting" is likely to be in the rules. Don't you have to *prove* your point? Hope this makes some sense; I've got a bad cold.
quote:Dude, you lost that particular exchange. Badly. It happens. Deal.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
like thinking that you have some kind of divine insight into the mind of a popular comedian.
quote:Fuck off, I don't accept you or IngoB's self-appointed status as guardians of the truth.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Dude, you lost that particular exchange. Badly. It happens. Deal.
quote:There are people here whom I consider my intellectual equals, like Eliab. There are people here whom I consider as having greater wisdom than me, like Barnabas62. There are many people here whom I consider to have more knowledge concerning specific matters, like Doublethink or Alan Cresswell or Nigel M or ... There are people here whom I consider to have equal or better rhetorical skill, like RooK or RuthW (in rather different ways). There are many people here whom I consider as being are more active in practical charity, like Mudfrog or Martin60. There are people whom I consider to be nicer than me like Boogie. More honest, comet. More principled in their lives, Pyx_e and Adeodatus. More cheerful, Susan Doris. Etc. And there are many, many people whom I think are under-appreciated, like anteater. (And I have consciously left out my "typical supporters" in the above.) In fact, I have a large mental map of my peers here, and I navigate it every time I deal with them.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You are the only person in your world who can determine the 'truth' of any matter under discussion, you are the only measure of who has won a debate, you are the only person who is sophisticated enough to argue a position properly, it is you who are more intelligent that the rest of us and so on. Only a prick thinks like that.
quote:Sounds about right... Except that it leaves out things like e) actually thinking things through, f) doing background reading, g) analysing posts of others carefully, etc. But you wouldn't know about such things, so it is not surprising that you cannot detect them. And here's the thing. It is not really about "winning" in the sense of people actually conceding defeat. They rarely do. Nor is it about most people agreeing with what I'm saying. Once in a moonshine. The thing you do not seem to get is that I actually enjoy a), b), c), d), e), f), g) ... x), y), z). As such. I like contentious debate for the contentious debating. The outcome of "winning" is a largely theoretical motivator, an abstract goal that organises the fun. But if I was into actually winning debates, I would have left long ago. Sure, enjoying contentious debate makes me a bit of an asshole and is hardly particularly Christian. But hey, I really have never pretended to be Mr Nice Guy or much of a Christian.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You win by any means available, including: a) not listening b) volume of posts c) changing the parameters of the discussion d) rubbishing opponents etc and so on.
quote:Seriously, you are just being stupid about that. And the evidence for that is all over our exchanges. Heck, you keep quoting the things that make you look like an utter moron, as if they were some great support for your case. So I tell you what, I'll just let you have the floor. As long as you promise to continue with the verbatim quoting of what I actually said... right on. Knock yourself out.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You somehow don't appreciate how poor you are at actually engaging with issues because it appears your massive ego is built on winning debates, even if the point your are arguing is weak - like thinking that you have some kind of divine insight into the mind of a popular comedian.
quote:And you could get a brain, but it's also not going to happen. So we all have to live with how things are, don't we?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
When I was here years ago, there was a refrain: get a blog.
quote:You're doing it again.
IngoB: You know what you have just described there? Me spending page upon page arguing with you, trying beyond hope to finally make you see some light. But nope, you just won't get it, no matter what approach I try. Perhaps because you are too stupid, perhaps because you are blinded by your preconceptions, perhaps because you simply cannot imagine that you are wrong about something, who knows...
quote:The satisfaction of a boxer who has succesfully run away from all blows. Somehow I don't think that this is what you're going for on the Ship.
IngoB: Hence I consciously measure my satisfaction by whether I can convince myself that I have a good argument, and that I have either beaten you with it, or at least properly defended my position. Obviously, I am a bit of a biased audience for myself.
quote:Interestingly, in the last three 'debates' I've had with you, you're the one who has given up. You can look them up in Oblivion, you seem to have the patience to search there. You gave up because you couldn't run away from my arguments anymore.
IngoB: I can just keep on doing this endlessly, because I actually enjoy it, for the most part. Whereas all you get is just ever more frustration, and so eventually you will give up.
quote:I've edited the above for comprehension.
Originally posted by IngoB:
There are people here whom I consider my intellectual equals, blah, blah, blah, blah.
quote:Yeah, I've done it again there.
You, however, yabber, yabber, yabber
quote:Recommend deletion: author not in a position to make this statement
Now, I've offered you several times to get out of this amicably. Take that offer, for there is nothing better you will get out of me. I can promise you that.
quote:Delete: incomprehensible to anyone outside of IngoB's head.
Sounds about right... Except that it leaves out things like e) actually thinking things through, f) doing background reading, g) analysing posts of others carefully, etc. But you wouldn't know about such things, so it is not surprising that you cannot detect them. And here's the thing. It is not really about "winning" in the sense of people actually conceding defeat. They rarely do. Nor is it about most people agreeing with what I'm saying. Once in a moonshine. The thing you do not seem to get is that I actually enjoy a), b), c), d), e), f), g) ... x), y), z). As such. I like contentious debate for the contentious debating. The outcome of "winning" is a largely theoretical motivator, an abstract goal that organises the fun. But if I was into actually winning debates, I would have left long ago. Sure, enjoying contentious debate makes me a bit of an asshole and is hardly particularly Christian. But hey, I really have never pretended to be Mr Nice Guy or much of a Christian.
quote:I've edited for comprehension
Seriously, blather, blather, I'm better than you are, blather, blather
quote:Na, he's right, you are delusional about pretty much everything.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm no macho, LeRoc. It's not working, because you got it wrong. Again.
quote:Whatever your mental map says, it doesn't stop you from shitting all over these people when you choose. So whether you internally appreciate them or not, it's pretty meaningless when you treat them like crap. That's all we see.
Originally posted by IngoB:
There are people here whom I consider my intellectual equals, like Eliab. There are people here whom I consider as having greater wisdom than me, like Barnabas62. There are many people here whom I consider to have more knowledge concerning specific matters, like Doublethink or Alan Cresswell or Nigel M or ... There are people here whom I consider to have equal or better rhetorical skill, like RooK or RuthW (in rather different ways). There are many people here whom I consider as being are more active in practical charity, like Mudfrog or Martin60. There are people whom I consider to be nicer than me like Boogie. More honest, comet. More principled in their lives, Pyx_e and Adeodatus. More cheerful, Susan Doris. Etc. And there are many, many people whom I think are under-appreciated, like anteater. (And I have consciously left out my "typical supporters" in the above.) In fact, I have a large mental map of my peers here, and I navigate it every time I deal with them.
quote:Probably more a Styx conversation, and I'm speaking purely for myself here not any Hosts or Admins, but interesting idea. I've no idea whether the software is up to it.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'd like there to be a Blog section on the Ship which allows comments.
The old St Pixels had one, it was the best thing about it.
The blogs would stimulate great conversations and allowed a more creative side of people to come forward - without the lack of comment a lot of blogs suffer from.
My blog has a huge audience but almost no comments. I really enjoyed the 'chat-cum-discussion' which the blogs often generated. It was nothing like Facebook as the subjects were usually serious and very interesting, yet personal to the contributors.
I miss it and have found nothing which replaces it.
quote:Oh, we'll probably meet again one day. There will be some discussion where I can't help chipping in again, hoping that this time you will answer the argument I'm making. Maybe this thread (and earlier threads we had about this) will even help in that you'll at least consider trying to answer an argument instead of evading. But my hopes aren't very high.
IngoB: LeRoc, I'm going nowhere, and you can try your luck another time. And if you really think that I'm evading and running away from you, well, catch me if you can.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've edited the above for comprehension.
Yes, mr cheesy, I have absolutely no doubt that your comprehension is exactly as demonstrated by your edits. quote:Rather, I worked out the balance of probabilities of Mr Fry's answer being dishonest.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't believe that you worked out some balance of probabilities about Fry's ideas: because you wouldn't have called it dishonest in the first place.
quote:I'm pretty hard to "destroy", mr cheesy. But you know, that's not what Boogie was talking about. It's that comprehension thing again... some have it, you don't.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course, the reason that IngoB posts here rather than on a blog like that is because he'd be destroyed in a second.
quote:I'm sure that's all you see. Maybe it's all most people see. I know that it is not all some of the mentioned people see, because they have said so in the past. But in the end I'm not really here to win friends. It's nice if that happens, though just being friendly on the internet is not how that could happen for me. I'm not a big believer in purely virtual relationships. But I'm just not discussing things here for that purpose. If that pisses people off mightily, then the question is whether they are justified in being pissed off by it. I don't think that they are. The moment I think that they are, I will leave.
Originally posted by mr DocTor:
Whatever your mental map says, it doesn't stop you from shitting all over these people when you choose. So whether you internally appreciate them or not, it's pretty meaningless when you treat them like crap. That's all we see.
quote:Bullshit. You called it dishonest and then set about constructing some scaffolding to make it sound more acceptable.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Rather, I worked out the balance of probabilities of Mr Fry's answer being dishonest.
quote:I bet you've never even tried blogging elsewhere, because you get your kicks from spouting shit here. You are a wimp.
I'm pretty hard to "destroy", mr cheesy. But you know, that's not what Boogie was talking about. It's that comprehension thing again... some have it, you don't.
quote:Again, it is all about you, tosspot.
I'm sure that's all you see. Maybe it's all most people see. I know that it is not all some of the mentioned people see, because they have said so in the past. But in the end I'm not really here to win friends. It's nice if that happens, though just being friendly on the internet is not how that could happen for me. I'm not a big believer in purely virtual relationships. But I'm just not discussing things here for that purpose. If that pisses people off mightily, then the question is whether they are justified in being pissed off by it. I don't think that they are. The moment I think that they are, I will leave.
quote:If I was the attention whore you apparently believe that I am, do you know where I would be right now? In heaven.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, it is all about you, tosspot. Funnily enough: it isn't.
quote:Thanks, don't mention it. It's what I do.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Even if the original offence wasn't up to much, you managed to show yourself to be an absolutely colossal bell-end. So, credit where it's due.
quote:Fuck off. You know nothing about me, you worthless piece of crap.
Originally posted by IngoB:
You are easy, mr cheesy. I can bounce you up and down, twiddle you around... You had one move, and that was to drag me here, where there is never a lack of middle to heavyweights itching to take offence at something. Well done, you did it. Now your smartest tactic would be to shut your face and stand by the sidelines, hoping that your "friends" will do what you cannot possibly do.
quote:Nope, not at all. You've not only failed to give any reasoning as to why readers would have a reason to believe that you didn't just totally change the meaning of words in that thread, there have been i) other witnesses as to the pattern of behaviour you exhibit and ii) copious extended posts from yourself which go a long way to proving that you are in fact a prick.
Just about the last thing you want to do is to draw attention to the flimsy bullshit over which you called me here. I mean, people will outrage at the drop of a hat, but you may have noted a comprehensive lack of discussion of why you called me a self-righteous prick. People would much rather discuss my general self-righteous prickishness. Why do you think that is? Because your case is so fucking hopeless, there is just no mileage in it at all.
quote:No. Fuck off you bully.
So, well... shoo, shoo.
quote:Correction. I didn't. Past tense.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fuck off. You know nothing about me, you worthless piece of crap.
quote:Now look, that is depressing. You managed to forget about me? I do like to leave deep impressions, like say a footprint in your butt.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Furthermore, I know almost nothing about regular posters here, given that a large number were not posting in 2006 and I've mostly forgotten what I knew about those who remain from that era.
quote:You know that reading comprehension I keep talking about? It is really, really important. Trust me.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The idea that I am preaching to the usual suspects is utterly ridiculous.
quote:Hi, DocTor.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
there have been i) other witnesses as to the pattern of behaviour you exhibit and ii) copious extended posts from yourself which go a long way to proving that you are in fact a prick.
quote:Fine. Just tell me when you are done running into my fist.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No. Fuck off you bully.
quote:You still don't, other than I have been able to see through your little game and think you are a bellend.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Correction. I didn't. Past tense.
quote:Nope, nothing. I probably thought you were a bellend then too.
Now look, that is depressing. You managed to forget about me? I do like to leave deep impressions, like say a footprint in your butt.
quote:You said they were my "friends". You want to read your own posts.
quote:You know that reading comprehension I keep talking about? It is really, really important. Trust me.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The idea that I am preaching to the usual suspects is utterly ridiculous.
quote:Yet again you paint yourself as a superior being, when in fact you've just painted yourself as a total prick.
Fine. Just tell me when you are done running into my fist.
quote:Being able to identify single words is but a first step on the road to mastering reading. Still, well done. Here's a little gold star. Look, you can pull it off like this and stick it onto your monitor. There you go.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You said they were my "friends". You want to read your own posts.
quote:I have to admit that it really is a daily struggle to resist my superiority complex. But you are not helping, I can tell you that.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yet again you paint yourself as a superior being, when in fact you've just painted yourself as a total prick.
quote:Take it from me, you're not trying hard enough.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I have to admit that it really is a daily struggle to resist my superiority complex. But you are not helping, I can tell you that.
quote:It's a question of absolute superiority or relative superiority, and this is really quite a small, shallow pool.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Take it from me, you're not trying hard enough.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I have to admit that it really is a daily struggle to resist my superiority complex. But you are not helping, I can tell you that.
quote:OK, I accept that.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Take it from me, you're not trying hard enough.
quote:I would say duty, pride and peer pressure in roughly equal measure. Honour, you might even say. Or call it a typical male ego trip if you wish... But one should be fair then and acknowledge as well that this community is vicious to non-shows and rarely shows any respect for early leavers.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I am having a hard time reconciling your objections to Hell as a free-for-all, IngoB, given your performance on this and other similar threads. Why do you participate in something you disapprove of? The analogy of being dragged into the street for a fight makes no sense; no one compels you to post here. A more apt analogy would be that someone stepped out into the street and started yelling "Tosser" at you - you could have ignored it and stayed right where you were at the time.
quote:You supported a law that criminalizes (some) insults. If you've changed your mind, and now want it repealed, I'll of course take note.
Originally posted by orfeo:
My attempts to tell you that that wasn't my position withered under the realisation that penetrating the fantasies in your head isn't worth the time involved. I have an overseas trip in April and I didn't think we'd be done by then.
quote:You, by contrast, have dashed no hope of mine that you'd back up your claims over in the Hate Crime thread.
Originally posted by saysay:
And Byron serves to dash all hope.
quote:Given your antics at family hootenannies, an unfortunate turn of phrase.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
He also serves to make Bingo look like Alan Alda.
Sorry, Bingo, that was the most benevolent male image I could come up with on the fly.
quote:See, wasn't that easy. Now if only you'd done the same when I'd offered one (well, several) over in your Paris thread!
Originally posted by orfeo:
Apology accepted.
quote:Can certainly agree with this, given that, when I bowed out of the aforementioned Paris thread with a good-faith apology, it was greeted with a string of abuse.
Originally posted by IngoB:
[...] But one should be fair then and acknowledge as well that this community is vicious to non-shows and rarely shows any respect for early leavers.
quote:That fits. I took Hell for a boxing ring (well, MMA cage, at least), but boxing doesn't kick participants when they declare their ass hors de combat. Cyber brawl (or catfight) it is, then.
Also, there is not really a contradiction between stating that fights between gentleman should be carried out in a boxing ring - and dispatching a ruffian with a solid kick in the nuts, and feeling good about it. I can prefer the former and wish it to be universal, and yet still do the latter when accosted. Yes, it is a bit naughty to enjoy the latter too much. And it becomes outright immoral if one provokes somebody to play the ruffian just to have an excuse for that groin kick. But whatever people may think, I rarely do that, at least consciously - and I certainly didn't do it in this case.
quote:Civilization also gives freedom. It gives power, the chance to work with others towards a common goal. I don't buy your argument that one form of silencing or another—the hemlock cup, the auto-da-fé, the Cross—is the price exacted by civilization. The removal of bonds, the liberation of humanity, the freedom from all forms of bodily, mental, and spiritual oppression—must we return to a mythical state of nature to find this, or would that not be a good aim for civilization to seek?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Man always dreams of his own freedom, only grudgingly of that of others. If your colleagues and superiors at that grad school no longer lived the "weak tea and milquetoast inauthenticity", then who says you wouldn't end up tied to a stake, being spat on and whipped by the occasional passerby? Civilisation, which you find so restraining, restrains others at least as much as yourself, and in many ways for your benefit.
quote:Contain not manage. Certainly not manage as in resolve. (Resolution is an optional extra depending on participants.)
Originally posted by Byron:
The riff about Hell existing to manage conflict is a crock. It's singularly effective at escalating and entrenching conflict.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:You really want to do this? Really?
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:See, wasn't that easy. Now if only you'd done the same when I'd offered one (well, several) over in your Paris thread!
Originally posted by orfeo:
Apology accepted.
quote:Let me make this very clear. I didn’t like you before this thread. This thread has earned you a spot on my shipmates-to-never-engage list (actually, I had to create the list in order to put you on it). I will not answer you. Not because I don’t have an answer, but because you are an obnoxious piece of shit who is likely to cause the kind of emotional upset I don’t need in my life right now. I thought you had a stupid and irritating argument style before, and I agree with what Doc Tor said earlier in the thread:
Originally posted by Byron:
You, by contrast, have dashed no hope of mine that you'd back up your claims over in the Hate Crime thread.
quote:In this thread, you presumed to tell Kelly, Doc Tor, mousethief, and me (and all the other denizens) about our lived experiences when grade school kids know people are allowed to interpret their own experiences. Remember?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:As I'm very fond of saying, acting like an utter arse (in your case, continually reframing the argument to suit you, reinterpreting the dictionary - again, to suit you - and pretending to be a hot-shot lawyer who knows jack about how the law actually works), is far, far worse than calling someone a bad name.
Originally posted by Byron:
I doubt it. I avoid insults, misrepresentation, and own my mistakes. Most I've never pulled so much as a warning.
quote:
You talk about being real. OK, so in RL, you lock someone's gaze, and say, coolly, "You're a sick fuck, you exploit people's deaths," or words to that effect?
No. You don't run your mouth like that. You do it here, where you're a boss, where the rules back your play.
So no, Kelly, talking to me like that, you're not being real. You're faking it more than a bill of sale for the Brooklyn Bridge. And hey, that's your prerogative. What's bizarre is that you'd trashtalk me like that, and then expect, for a second, me to give the slightest weight to your opinion of me.
For realz.
quote:You told mousethief how he actually felt, implied he was too stupid to interpret his own experience, and insisted he accept your superior interpretation.
The disconnect between your rage at me, and anything I've actually done, is something to behold. I do declare, sir, I find it a positive curiosity (now that schtick is folksy; post ya quoted, not so much).
quote:You told me that you are the only person who is allowed to define the rules of engagement:
Well no, actually, you got pissed 'cause I took on a bossman and wouldn't bow to king mob, but that's such a common occurrence round here I needed a more specific tag.
quote:And told orfeo what he really thought:
Actually no, you didn't
quote:Now, listen up: people have a right to a certain amount of autonomy. This includes physical autonomy (the right to not have people touch them much less hit them if they don’t want them too). This also includes mental and emotional autonomy (the right to determine how they think and feel for themselves). Others may have a right to comment on that (you’re coming across as angry; I don’t think you’re communicating your thoughts clearly). But the fact that you seem to think that you have some right to determine for others how they think and feel makes you a loathsome toad worthy of all the contempt that anyone can ever heap on your head. In real life, I’ve been literally beaten because people like you think it’s acceptable to use others in their stupid formal games like that, because those kinds of misrepresentations and lies have consequences. And they aren't always just emotional consequences for your victims.
You know, the one where, with matchless irony, you argued that insults should be criminalized.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
orfeo: I see your delivery of "fucks to give" arrived and was promptly spent.
quote:Good point in the last sentence. And thanks for the explanation; I get it.
Originally posted by IngoB on why he participates when called to Hell:
I would say duty, pride and peer pressure in roughly equal measure. Honour, you might even say. Or call it a typical male ego trip if you wish... But one should be fair then and acknowledge as well that this community is vicious to non-shows and rarely shows any respect for early leavers.
quote:I did. As Chesterbelloc pointed out in his first post on this thread, you clearly bested in him the argument, and his posting was aggressive enough to make me wonder if the hosts would have to step in. I think these comments from him were distinctly unhelpful:
Originally posted by IngoB back on page 1 of this thread:
So, just out of curiosity - did anyone see anything wrong with mr cheesy's contributions to that thread?
quote:
Excuse me for believing this is a totally unhelpful interjection into the conversation.
quote:
Now you appear to be reading the mind of Boogie as well as that of Stephen Fry.
quote:
So you are not actually interested in the truth, are you?
quote:
Who cares what you think Stephen Fry would do? Ridiculous.
quote:
Utter drivel.
quote:<sucks teeth>. As Ingo's compatriot remarked - gegen Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens*
Originally posted by RuthW:
IngoB, I don't know if you're feeling public-spirited at the moment, but you'd be doing the denizens a huge favor if you'd draw an argumentative bead on Byron.
quote:You need medication for that.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I have to admit that it really is a daily struggle to resist my superiority complex. But you are not helping, I can tell you that.
quote:Sure, but do the Gods have IngoB's tenacity?
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:<sucks teeth>. As Ingo's compatriot remarked - gegen Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens*
Originally posted by RuthW:
IngoB, I don't know if you're feeling public-spirited at the moment, but you'd be doing the denizens a huge favor if you'd draw an argumentative bead on Byron.
*against stupidity even the Gods struggle in vain
quote:[sneaking in something non-hellish]
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'd like there to be a Blog section on the Ship which allows comments.
The old St Pixels had one, it was the best thing about it.
The blogs would stimulate great conversations and allowed a more creative side of people to come forward - without the lack of comment a lot of blogs suffer from.
My blog has a huge audience but almost no comments. I really enjoyed the 'chat-cum-discussion' which the blogs often generated. It was nothing like Facebook as the subjects were usually serious and very interesting, yet personal to the contributors.
I miss it and have found nothing which replaces it.
quote:One could just as easily list reams of comments from IngoB that are distinctly unhelpful. What does this prove?
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think these comments from him were distinctly unhelpful:
quote:I was joking last time I said I'd missed it, but no - it's true: I did miss this place.
Originally posted by RooK:
I love Hell.
quote:That, much like the rest of us, IngoB is human and not necessarily interested in being overly helpful to someone who is misreading his argument?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:One could just as easily list reams of comments from IngoB that are distinctly unhelpful. What does this prove?
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think these comments from him were distinctly unhelpful:
quote:In other words, if you choose up sides in somebody else's argument, you can find quotes from what you consider the "losing" side that prove they are "distinctly unhelpful" while the exact same sort of thing from the "winning" side proves they're just human like the rest of us.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:That, much like the rest of us, IngoB is human and not necessarily interested in being overly helpful to someone who is misreading his argument?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:One could just as easily list reams of comments from IngoB that are distinctly unhelpful. What does this prove?
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think these comments from him were distinctly unhelpful:
quote:OK, do so.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:One could just as easily list reams of comments from IngoB that are distinctly unhelpful.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think these comments from him were distinctly unhelpful:
quote:Saysay is currently my hero in the Byron situation. I would LOOOVE to see Bingo hand him his ass, but I'm sure he doesn't attack on command.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Sure, but do the Gods have IngoB's tenacity?
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:<sucks teeth>. As Ingo's compatriot remarked - gegen Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens*
Originally posted by RuthW:
IngoB, I don't know if you're feeling public-spirited at the moment, but you'd be doing the denizens a huge favor if you'd draw an argumentative bead on Byron.
*against stupidity even the Gods struggle in vain
quote:This isn't consistent with an apparent disregard for what people think. My impression is that it isn't healthy and is unlikely to bring out the best in anyone.
Originally posted by IngoB on why he participates when called to Hell:
I would say duty, pride and peer pressure in roughly equal measure. Honour, you might even say. Or call it a typical male ego trip if you wish... But one should be fair then and acknowledge as well that this community is vicious to non-shows and rarely shows any respect for early leavers.
quote:I said I wondered if they would have to step in -- not the same thing.
Originally posted by mousethief:
These are direct quotes. In what way is this exchange NOT equating "distinctly unhelpful" with "aggressive and barely escaping being commandment violations"?
I see you said earlier that you wondered why the hosts didn't step in.
quote:That's exactly what I meant when I said this:
But I was quite clearly responding to the words "distinctly unhelpful" (as the quote from me shows). Either you have to argue that by "distinctly unhelpful" you meant "close to commandment violations" the first time,
quote:
As Chesterbelloc pointed out in his first post on this thread, you clearly bested in him the argument, and his posting was aggressive enough to make me wonder if the hosts would have to step in. I think these comments from him were distinctly unhelpful...
quote:Isn't this pretty much IngoB's argument against Hell as we know it in the first place?
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:This isn't consistent with an apparent disregard for what people think. My impression is that it isn't healthy and is unlikely to bring out the best in anyone.
Originally posted by IngoB on why he participates when called to Hell:
I would say duty, pride and peer pressure in roughly equal measure. Honour, you might even say. Or call it a typical male ego trip if you wish... But one should be fair then and acknowledge as well that this community is vicious to non-shows and rarely shows any respect for early leavers.
quote:8 pages in, we finally get a YouTube video worth watching.
Originally posted by mdijon:
It reminds me of this.
quote:I'm sure you mean 'couldn't give two shits'?
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Change "This community" to "a few loudmouths" and I would totally agree with the above quote. I think the bulk of us could give two shits who bows out of a hell call or drops an issue when others keep it going.
quote:You'll have to find a mod who lives anywhere near this 'pond' to care about it.
Originally posted by passer:
MODS! MODS! Boogie is trying to start a pond-war!
quote:How many shits to give?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
How many are required on various continents?
quote:I think we should prize IngoB's shit. Like the hearts of saints pickled in some churches which will beat or bleed when you pray hard enough. St IngoB, the Patron Saint of Shit's shit will steam for us. Like incense.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:How many shits to give?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
How many are required on various continents?
Plenty, I would have thought ...
quote:Oy! Brits murdered language before the Yanks started shooting its corpse.
Originally posted by passer:
MODS! MODS! Boogie is trying to start a pond-war!
quote:St. IgnoB of Shit gets a feast day.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Veneration of the Turd
quote:*licks lips*
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
( calmly makes a Manhatten on the rocks, adds cherry, and tosses it in Boogie's face. Smiles cooly, takes a puff from a cigarette holder, and begins humming "Put the Blame on Mame" while James Cagney stealthily approaches with a grapefruit half. )
quote:Way to misrepresent the conversation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You really want to do this? Really?
Okay then.
What you ACTUALLY did with your apology was, after I'd said "I don't want to talk about this any more", start sending me private messages indicating how surprised you were that I had had enough.
I hadn't talked about this before because it was private messages, but we're talking about it now.
Was I gracious about it? No, not very. I wasn't HELLISH about it because one isn't allowed to be Hellish in private messages. But you did not choose your moment at all well.
1. You followed me into private message land straight after I'd blown my top and said I'd had enough. You gave me no opportunity to cool down. So basically what ended up happening was that the conversation I'd said I didn't want to continue, continued, because I was still in the mode of expressing my frustrations with what you'd said. I did it a little more politely, but honestly it was difficult not to just shout "WHY ARE YOU DRAGGING ME BACK INTO THIS CONVERSATION?"
2. The general tone of "OMG I didn't know" did not help my mood any because in my head I was basically thinking "you should have known, it was obvious to everyone else". And that also leaked into my PM response to you.
You talk about real life a lot. In real life, if someone storms off, do you immediately pursue them to apologise? Or do you actually let them storm off as desired?
quote:Continuing the argument, in any way, shape, or form? No. It's an unreserved apology. It's sole purpose is to say, "My bad."
Just wanted to add a personal apology for going at it in your thread.
Reading the effect it had, I sincerely regret not stopping much earlier, or raising it to begin with. I argue hard, I know, but don't want anyone to feel like that as a result. I should've seen what I was doing, and I apologize unreservedly.
Please PM me if I ever come close in future, and I'm outa there, no questions asked. Once again, so sorry for wasting your time. Appreciate all the time you volunteer, and don't ever want to squander or burden it.
quote:So which of us is continuing the argument, here?
No one should have to PM you to make you consider whether the possible reason that a whole lot of people are lining up on the opposite side of the argument is because they have a point
And no one should have to PM you to say that the reason you're not changing anyone else's mind is because we can all easily see where you are wrong.
First and foremost, you picked a phantom battle. You chose definitions that no one else uses (especially not me, the person you chose to criticise in the first place) and you defended them in the face of direct demonstration that people off-Ship don't use them the way you claim. You invoked Supreme Court authority and ignored that other commentators invoking the same authorities don't come to the same conclusion. Not ONCE did you provide evidence that your interpretation was shared. Not ONCE did you provide a source that said freedom of speech is absolute.
Why do you need a PM to grasp that this would piss people off?
quote:Without getting into yet another war over definitions, OK, fine, strictly speaking, 18C is technically a tort, one that just happens to resemble a crime in every respect. Canada pulled the same stunt with Section 13.
And look what's happened since. You first popped up in that thread on January 8. It is now February 17. In the interim, you've continued the line of conversation in the original thread, then started two other threads in Purg that were basically designed to continue the same conversation so that you can reassure yourself that other people are on your side and it's that meany orfeo who is wrong.
Now, you're gonna tell me those other threads weren't about me. Well let me tell you sunshine, it was BLOODY hard not to conclude they were all about me. In the first one you simply would not shut up about an Australian law - of which you demonstrated a serious lack of understanding - from the moment I arrived. And the second one about point scoring most definitely seemed triggered by me as well.
And you're still just being a horrendous amateur lawyer. I've told you already that the Racial Discrimination Act does not criminalise anything. Do you listen AT ALL? This is just an incontrovertible fact.
quote:The first thread came after an apology was met with more insults. As others wanted to carry it on, I took it out of your thread. It got moved to Purg. The second thread was simply an attempt to find out what alternative method of discussion people wanted.
And yes, I support a law that says some kinds of insults, of a very specific kind with a wealth of exceptions (which you repeatedly misunderstood) designed to protect honest debate, are more of a problem than others. If it's okay for the law to distinguish between different kinds of violence and label some as "hate crimes", it beggars belief that it's apparently too subtle for you to distinguish between different kinds of insults and say that some are more of a problem than others because they are "hate insults". Even though the principle is identical.
It's precisely because it clearly IS too subtle for you that I gave up - explicitly, again - and on that second thread, because I decided it wasn't worth spending 5 hours of my life trying to explain it to you, knowing full well that you would hold onto your own interpretations no matter what.
Just drop it. I know I'm REALLY bad at dropping things, and it's one of the foibles that Shipmates point out to me, but Dear God I look like a picture of serenity compared to a guy who starts 2 new threads.
And now I'm feeling grumpy because I look really poor next to Ariston.
quote:On the rocks? ON THE ROCKS?!?!?!
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
( calmly makes a Manhatten on the rocks, adds cherry, and tosses it in Boogie's face. Smiles cooly, takes a puff from a cigarette holder, and begins humming "Put the Blame on Mame" while James Cagney stealthily approaches with a grapefruit half. )
quote:My victims?
Originally posted by saysay:
[..] Now, listen up: people have a right to a certain amount of autonomy. This includes physical autonomy (the right to not have people touch them much less hit them if they don’t want them too). This also includes mental and emotional autonomy (the right to determine how they think and feel for themselves). Others may have a right to comment on that (you’re coming across as angry; I don’t think you’re communicating your thoughts clearly). But the fact that you seem to think that you have some right to determine for others how they think and feel makes you a loathsome toad worthy of all the contempt that anyone can ever heap on your head. In real life, I’ve been literally beaten because people like you think it’s acceptable to use others in their stupid formal games like that, because those kinds of misrepresentations and lies have consequences. And they aren't always just emotional consequences for your victims.
quote:I've posted up the apology right above. Hopefully, having read it, you'll reconsider. If not, not.
And Orfeo, I can't tell you how appalling I find it that he followed you into private message land. I know you and I have the occasional clash, but you don't deserve that. Since I know he's not going to apologize, I will. I'm sorry you had to go through that.
quote:I hope you used cheap bourbon.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
( calmly makes a Manhatten on the rocks, adds cherry, and tosses it in Boogie's face. Smiles cooly, takes a puff from a cigarette holder, and begins humming "Put the Blame on Mame" while James Cagney stealthily approaches with a grapefruit half. )
quote:Dear misinterpreting fuckface,
Originally posted by Byron:
If I'm replying to a bunch of people throwing insults, it's reasonable for me to assume that they've consented to a response in kind, that they're prepared for it, and that doing so won't hurt their feelings.
quote:Harumph!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:I hope you used cheap bourbon.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
( calmly makes a Manhatten on the rocks, adds cherry, and tosses it in Boogie's face. Smiles cooly, takes a puff from a cigarette holder, and begins humming "Put the Blame on Mame" while James Cagney stealthily approaches with a grapefruit half. )
quote:That doesn't even rise to the level of misrepresenting "my argument".
Originally posted by Ariston:
I don't buy your argument that one form of silencing or another—the hemlock cup, the auto-da-fé, the Cross—is the price exacted by civilization.
quote:Modernity considers freedom of choice as the mark of true freedom. Consequently it can imagine only one truly justifiable constraint on freedom, namely where the choices of one person are at odds with those of another. Hence "consent" becomes such a magic word, since it simply means alignment of choice.
Originally posted by Ariston:
The removal of bonds, the liberation of humanity, the freedom from all forms of bodily, mental, and spiritual oppression—must we return to a mythical state of nature to find this, or would that not be a good aim for civilization to seek?
quote:I take it with this introduction we are now in the mode of "we are birds of a feather, and here is how I am overcoming our shared affliction." But while I appreciate the effort that went into typing all this up, I'm afraid it doesn't speak to me at all.
Originally posted by Ariston:
Partly, I realize the only reason it's not my name at the top of this Hellcall is because I'm just quieter, get bored too easily, and have a tendency to delete half of what I write. I'm at least as much of an emotionless, prideful asshole as anyone else here; I just hide it better.
quote:I did not take part in the threads that people have issues over with Byron. I was not interested then, I am not interested now. This is also not my thread. It is a thread about me. Short may it die.
Originally posted by RuthW:
IngoB, I don't know if you're feeling public-spirited at the moment, but you'd be doing the denizens a huge favor if you'd draw an argumentative bead on Byron. Plus it's your thread -- don't let him usurp it!
quote:Eijah Craig or Wild Turkey Rare Breed.
Originally posted by Firenze:
What a good idea. Bourbon I mean, not cheap bourbon. Maker's Mark, here I come.
quote:I saw it, but it's gone a fair way beyond a lack of grace.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Dear Byron,
You missed the timing point, which was the critical one, completely. You wanted to know why your apology wasn't accepted. THAT WAS WHY.
Looks like you also missed the part where I acknowledged my own lack of grace.
quote:Your prerogative, I just wanted to make clear I hadn't tried to continue the thread by PM.
I scrolled past the rest. Apparently I've read it before. Also, I've gone back into the not caring mode again because let's face it, it's possible to predict the next 2 or 3 steps in this conversation without breaking a sweat.
quote:In the sense of two parties in an adversarial proceeding, sure. In the sense of the weight of the state bearing down on an individual, not so much.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh God, I couldn't help notice another bit. A tort that looks exactly like a crime.
You know just enough about the law to make a complete fool of yourself every time you talk about it.
ALL torts look exactly like crimes.
quote:What "stance"? This thread began with a monosyllable -- ah, those sophisticated hellish insults! -- and went downhill from there. I asked how people wanted IngoB's posting style to change. Constructive discussion did not follow, 'cause that's not the purpose, and never was (an inference, I admit).
Originally posted by RooK:
Dear misinterpreting fuckface,
Nobody is even remotely upset by your insults. They're amusingly clumsy, but we understand that such skills take a while to cultivate.
What many people are feeling - justifiably - frustrated with, is your liberal alterations of what you claim other people are saying. This is further self-scuttled by the conjecture you present for their reasoning or assertions about what feelings they did, or should, have.
You have yet to actually engage with anybody, even once, with an even marginally accurate conceptualization of their stance. THAT is why you are reviled. Asshole.
quote:You know, those things that people post? They have meaning. Sometimes.
Originally posted by Byron:
What "stance"?
quote:...had fuck-all to do with you.
This thread...
quote:You have totally failed to grasp the distinction between substance and procedure. If you stab me in the arm, the question whether you have committed the crime of assault, to be determined according to the criminal standard of proof, and the weight of the state would be against you. I could also sue you for damages for assault, to be determined on the civil standard.
Originally posted by Byron:
In the sense of two parties in an adversarial proceeding, sure. In the sense of the weight of the state bearing down on an individual, not so much.
quote:If Barfly Jim takes Ye Olde Whisky Store to court (though I'm not sure what cause of action we're even talking here), and the court says that Barfly Jim is in the right, and orders him some kind of compensation, and the Ye Olde Whisky Store doesn't comply, then you have contempt of court proceedings for disobeying the court.
Originally posted by Byron:
There's a world of difference between Barfly Jim pursuing Ye Olde Whisky Store for giving him the wrong brand of bourbon, and the full might of the state censoring the expression of an opinion, with threat of contempt proceedings if it's disobeyed.
quote:You did warn us.
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:You know, those things that people post? They have meaning. Sometimes.
Originally posted by Byron:
What "stance"?
quote:...had fuck-all to do with you.
This thread...
Then you started mis-representing their stances, like you seem to invariably do.
Then they started pointing out that this is a pattern with you, and would you please fuck off and die?
And here we are. Watching shit come out of an asshole.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
.... Mousethief Cooler!
(A la Mornington Crescent, but for Hell threads that need to fucking die already)
quote:I could be persuaded to write a Toparion and a Kontakion, as long as it's in the 1st tone.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:St. IgnoB of Shit gets a feast day.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Veneration of the Turd
quote:I'm hearing this in the voice of James Earl Jones...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Neither the proposed Veneration of the Turd, nor the faux transatlantic posturing is sufficient to disturb my hostly slumbers... yet.
quote:Why? Byron is effortlessly carrying off Numpty of (this or any other) Year. There's the occasional smell of frying grass as Ingo casts another Olympian thunderbolt. Ariston is working the sackcloth, saysay is holding some sort of street party, and Kelly is flinging cocktails. What's not to like?
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Mummy make the thread stop.
quote:I momentarily considered it, but Stupid is carbon-neutral and infinitely renewable.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Mummy make the thread stop.
quote:Geez. Don't you have any, you know, priest-stuff to do?
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Star Wars redux
quote:Excellent!
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Star Wars redux
quote:Top kek!
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Star Wars redux
quote:Magnificent!!!!
Originally posted by orfeo:
There are links, and then there are links.
quote:Wild Turkey Rare Breed, which is what I actually mentioned, is pretty good. Better than (regular) Maker's Mark, IMHO.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Cool, huh? It almost makes me forgive him for advocating the consumption of that paint thinner carrying the label "Wild Turkey."
quote:You don't say!
Originally posted by Firenze:
For nations unblessed with single malts I suppose you have to make the best of what you've got.
quote:Imitation sincerest form of flattery. I expect some of them are really quite nice.
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:You don't say!
Originally posted by Firenze:
For nations unblessed with single malts I suppose you have to make the best of what you've got.
Jengie
quote:Amen!
Originally posted by saysay:
Was IngoB just playful?
On the Ship??
Pyx_e, you're a miracle worker.
quote:Website links that immediately say things like "Hi! Are you from Australia? We can deliver there!" creep me out. It's the equivalent of a shop assistant who charges towards you as soon as you walk through the door. Just back off a little, man.
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:You don't say!
Originally posted by Firenze:
For nations unblessed with single malts I suppose you have to make the best of what you've got.
Jengie
quote:I don't know about nations, but I'm rarely unblessed by single malts (plural)...
Originally posted by Firenze:
For nations unblessed with single malts I suppose you have to make the best of what you've got.
quote:Frank Herbert had an interesting thesis, about how people trapped in a shitty place will come up with something to help them cope. Distillation of decayed plants to produce a neuro depressant, with a bit of acclimation and Stockholm Syndrome and advertising, can do the trick.
Originally posted by Firenze:
For nations unblessed with single malts I suppose you have to make the best of what you've got.
quote:Now, Kelly, there's nothing wrong with the Kickin' Chicken - assuming there's no decent whiskey to be found. IngoB is correct that Rare Breed is a different animal, however.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Cool, huh? It almost makes me forgive him for advocating the consumption of that paint thinner carrying the label "Wild Turkey."
quote:A good vodka is up there with any single malt.
Originally posted by Firenze:
For nations unblessed with single malts I suppose you have to make the best of what you've got.
quote:Oh give me a break. The stuff tastes like formaldehyde.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:A good vodka is up there with any single malt.
Originally posted by Firenze:
For nations unblessed with single malts I suppose you have to make the best of what you've got.
quote:I've heard it said that American Single Malt whisky is so called because there's literally a single grain of malt in it.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Imitation sincerest form of flattery. I expect some of them are really quite nice.
quote:Then you ain't drunk proper vodka.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Oh give me a break. The stuff tastes like formaldehyde.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:A good vodka is up there with any single malt.
Originally posted by Firenze:
For nations unblessed with single malts I suppose you have to make the best of what you've got.
quote:I can believe that. That stuff is bilgewater.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Probably the point to mention the rumour that went around about Anheuser Busch recalling a batch of Bud. Rumour had it that someone had slipped some malt and hops into the mash and A-B were terrified that their customers would find out what beer is meant to taste like.
quote:Nitro widget or bottle?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
*Save Guinness. First sip was (introductory) Nectar of the Gods.
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
To Bingo an jbohn-- I CORRECTED MYSELF, OK ?? GEEZ!!
Careful, you two, I got a vodka stinger in my hand and it's just itching to land somewhere.
quote:Tap. And yes, there are better stouts, but you never forget your first.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:Nitro widget or bottle?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
*Save Guinness. First sip was (introductory) Nectar of the Gods.
To be frank, Guinness is smooth, and not as nuanced as some local cottage brewed varieties in most places. When I was in Ireland, Murphy's was a better choice than G when available, though local stuff without fancy names was nicely fine.
quote:But it started with this:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Is there a bar in Heaven you all wandered out of at closing time?
quote:And Budweiser is definitely a suitable topic for Hell. (To make it even worse, in Arizona John McCain's wife owns the Anheuser Busch distributorship.)
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Probably the point to mention the rumour that went around about Anheuser Busch recalling a batch of Bud. Rumour had it that someone had slipped some malt and hops into the mash and A-B were terrified that their customers would find out what beer is meant to taste like.
I dunno, it still looks a bit too much like people happily discussing their favourite drinks.
quote:Of course there is -
Originally posted by orfeo:
Is there a bar in Heaven you all wandered out of at closing time?
quote:Whoever thought of putting Guinness in a glass bottle needs to be drug out into the street and introduced to a rusty farming implement. Certainly not 'brilliant'!
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:Nitro widget or bottle?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
*Save Guinness. First sip was (introductory) Nectar of the Gods.
quote:In my case it was Stroh's Dark (in the pre-Miller days): "Ah--so this is what the shouting's about." But Guiness--draught, on the right side of the pond back in the day--is similar, in part because it's only 3.8% alcohol so it won't make you puke if you chug most of a pint. I can get better stout in any bar in Portland now, but I would make a point of sipping it, as I did not do when drinking Guinness in London and Dublin in 1977.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Good imaginary God, people.
All alcohol tastes shite until you develop a taste,* so this is better than that is all preference anyway.
Except for rum, which is better than all the rubbish elsewise mentioned.
*Save Guinness. First sip was (introductory) Nectar of the Gods.
quote:There'd be no choice here. If you want one it comes from the Little Book Store in a bottle or can.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:Whoever thought of putting Guinness in a glass bottle needs to be drug out into the street and introduced to a rusty farming implement. Certainly not 'brilliant'!
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:Nitro widget or bottle?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
*Save Guinness. First sip was (introductory) Nectar of the Gods.
quote:I worship you and praise you for your glory.
Originally posted by RooK:
Did someone say CANOE?
quote:The road to Hell is paved ...
Originally posted by Yorick:
In that post of IngoB's that you link to, leRoc, he says at the end that his intention is to be helpful. Do you doubt that?
quote:I have found IngoB’s contributions to range from insensitive to deeply personally hurtful, and his attitude to be from scornful to contemptuous of my own ideas and thoughts. He has repeatedly belittled and intellectually castigated my contributions on these boards, and pulled his hand when I have gone to shake it. And yet I am bound to say that no other person in my entire life has been more instrumental to me than IngoB in the way that I have come to learn some respect (and even to admire) the rationality of religious apologetics and belief.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes, I believe Ingo believes he's being helpful. I also believe he wilfully and deliberately ignores the people he's helping when they tell him to fuck off and stop helping them, because, you know, Ingo knows best for everyone.
quote:I think on that thread and in these posts (it's actually a series of posts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) you can find some of my best writing in the last months, perhaps in the last year.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Isn't IngoB just weird? I mean, there is an experimental board on the Ship — one that he proposed — where people can try out if they can find some kind of meaningful conversation when they've lost their faith, IngoB barges in and he just goes on and on about pearls and aliens and ice cream ... Make it stop!!
quote:And I'm surprised you put additional effort into giving such a full answer here. As I've hinted on this thread I'm not one to give you uncritical support and I understand why you rub people up the wrong way - but I do think this goes too far. Count me out of cries to "make it stop".
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, in total I think I have spent about 2-3 hours writing these six posts. Obviously I'm engaging selectively, but I was trying to give good answers.
quote:As mentioned, I think this "drivel" is good and original writing, and on that thread some people have been appreciative of it. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. But why precisely are you so negative about me having a good conversation with other people than yourself?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Just because someone asks you a question on a board, it isn't an invitation to spout whole fields of drivel.
quote:I haven't been reading its evaluation thread. Skim reading suggests that Mark Wuntoo didn't like the way that thread went. ChastMastr questions whether it fits with the board, true, but in fact in the post just prior explains that he didn't engage much with the board because he didn't think such threads would fit. So in a way that's more neutral, at least if you would appreciate if ChastMastr would engage more (as I would). Luigi seems to actually propose that sort of thread as a way of broadening the appeal of the board. Finally, Schroedinger's cat - one of the hosts - tells us that he has monitored that thread, evaluated it and consciously allowed it to carry on because it is allowing all sides to express themselves. And in the end, that's where I stand. If the hosts tell me on the thread or off it that I'm messing up their board, then I will withdraw.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think that on the Ship, we should always take the feel of a board into account. Admittedly, Faithfree is an experimental board and the feel of it hasn't settled yet, but at least two people have complained on its evaluation thread that the Defending God thread doesn't combine with the feel of that board. Don't you think you should be taking that into account?
quote:Except I'm sure that I have not done so. If I have said that your theology holds no water, then because of what you write here. I couldn't care less whether you are a the most highly cited theology professor in the world or a completely clueless newbie. I deal with what you write here, not with who you are in real life. You are your words here, to me.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not afraid of IngoB pointing out that I'm a theological lightweight.
quote:You keep saying that, presumably in the hope that repeated assertion establishes truth. I do not always argue everybody in a thread to the finish they desire, that's correct. That way lies madness. If I stopped responding to you, then it basically is for one of three reasons: 1. I was lacking time (I do have a very taxing job, and a family). 2. I thought you were sufficiently dealt with, no matter what you thought about that. 3. I was getting too bored with the conversation / thread.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I can never get him to answer something I've said, because he's going off on another ramble that is vaguely related to my post but doesn't address it. He's using cheap debating tricks to avoid counter-arguments.
quote:Can you point to some thread where I have actually and explicitly declared myself the winner of the debate? Yes, here, on this thread, I have stated that I think that I had the better of the exchange with mr cheesy. But that is because this a hell call of mr cheesy about this exchange. So it is a natural topic to discuss. But generally I let other people judge for themselves how my debates went...
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Yes, the fact that after this he declares himself the winner of the debate and everyone swoons over how clever he is bugs me, but that's because this behaviour is irritating and a disrespect for the one who's discussing with him.
quote:I didn't say that you had, Tortuf did. I was answering to his suggestion that I was afraid to be proven an intellectual pygmy by you.
IngoB: Except I'm sure that I have not done so.
quote:Earlier on this thread, you said you could go on forever. You often chide people who leave discussions with you. (No, I'm not going to wade through your posts to find examples.)
IngoB: I do not always argue everybody in a thread to the finish they desire, that's correct. That way lies madness. If I stopped responding to you, then it basically is for one of three reasons: 1. I was lacking time (I do have a very taxing job, and a family). 2. I thought you were sufficiently dealt with, no matter what you thought about that. 3. I was getting too bored with the conversation / thread.
quote:On this thread, you have said that one of the kicks you get from the Ship is being right.
IngoB: Can you point to some thread where I have actually and explicitly declared myself the winner of the debate?
quote:There are always lots of answers. The only person I can change is me. The rest is not up to me and entangling myself in changing someone else does not change them so much as it harms me.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There are more than two answers to that last question of why, Tortuf. Nor does the answer need to be singular.
quote:WTF?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I didn't say that you had, Tortuf did. I was answering to his suggestion that I was afraid to be proven an intellectual pygmy by you.
IngoB: Except I'm sure that I have not done so.
quote:Why would you believe that when he has said multiple times that is not his intent?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes, I believe Ingo believes he's being helpful.
quote:This.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You said that I shouldn't be afraid to let IngoB clash with my ideas, but my main gripe with him is: he doesn't. I can never get him to answer something I've said, because he's going off on another ramble that is vaguely related to my post but doesn't address it. He's using cheap debating tricks to avoid counter-arguments. Yes, the fact that after this he declares himself the winner of the debate and everyone swoons over how clever he is bugs me, but that's because this behaviour is irritating and a disrespect for the one who's discussing with him.
quote:Of course you do, dear. Whatever helps you sleep.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:As mentioned, I think this "drivel" is good and original writing,
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Just because someone asks you a question on a board, it isn't an invitation to spout whole fields of drivel.
quote:To be honest, that is kinda how I read your post as well. You framed your POV and the epilogue then turns the mirror to the reader, seeming to suggest it is the reader's problem.
Originally posted by Tortuf:
quote:WTF?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I didn't say that you had, Tortuf did. I was answering to his suggestion that I was afraid to be proven an intellectual pygmy by you.
IngoB: Except I'm sure that I have not done so.
quote:Thank you, this is indeed how I read Tortuf's post.
lilBuddha: To be honest, that is kinda how I read your post as well. You framed your POV and the epilogue then turns the mirror to the reader, seeming to suggest it is the reader's problem.
quote:You make it sound as if Hell threads were so many tamagotchi.
Originally posted by Twilight:
The rest of Hell has fallen off terribly while you devote yourselves to this thread and for that you should all be very sorry.
quote:I cry foul on this post. I've read the later discussion between LeRoc, IngoB and others on this and I could quote a ton of stuff but here's the essence of it:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Isn't IngoB just weird? I mean, there is an experimental board on the Ship — one that he proposed — where people can try out if they can find some kind of meaningful conversation when they've lost their faith, IngoB barges in and he just goes on and on about pearls and aliens and ice cream ... Make it stop!!
He doesn't have a clue what that board is about. People make a valid arguments that God isn't alien because He made us in His image, but he ignores that and just goes on and on and on ... In any other forum (including Catholic forums) people would have concluded long ago what kind of weirdo he is. But here on the Ship, people go on and saying that he's so intelligent and he's such a good debater and he's so valuable for the Ship ...
It's even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. He can just state that he has 'won' a discussion, and people will nod and believe it is so.
He's pathetic. He's a freak. And you're just falling for it.
quote:You should have caught it earlier. It was shorter.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Well I haven't read the thread at all because, seriously you guys, eleven pages?
quote:Er, I was just kidding (the smiley was a hint) and indicating that I miss all the usual suspects and their bad relatives and random rants. etc.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:If you are adequately incensed about any other thing currently thread worthy then go post to it. And if you can't be arsed, why should anyone else be?
Originally posted by Twilight:
The rest of Hell has fallen off terribly while you devote yourselves to this thread and for that you should all be very sorry.
quote:I think a lot of this has to do with confusion about what the Faithfree board really is. And that's a good thing. Eighth Day is an experimental board, and such things are bound to happen. I think Faithfree is being a really great experiment (the best so far in my opinion). I congratulate the people who are working on it, and I hope it will stay in some form.
the famous rachel: I did indeed PM him, asking him to engage with this discussion. I suspect he might have kept out of it otherwise.
quote:I'm sorry, but that's not enough to quell my doubts. The issue isn't that IngoB posted controversial views there, the issue is that he posted controversial faith views on a board where the specific area of interest is non-faith (I'm simplifying things here), and whether we should have a lengthy discussion with him (discussions with IngoB are always lengthy) on these views on that board.
RuthW: Everyone is free to post their views on the Faithfree board, controversial or otherwise. Faithfree has a specific area of interest and a particular ethos, but it is not a private board for faithfree shipmates.
quote:LeRoc, is there any place where we should do that? Perhaps a few weeks and half a dozen pages are really quite enough?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Indeed, some of his posts there are about points on which I've battled him for weeks last year (in which he used his usual debating tricks). ... Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Faithfree is the place where IngoB and me should battle about the fine points of theodicy for 20 pages.
quote:Once again, just a few pages earlier on this same thread you said that you could go on forever on these topics. You even challenged me to do so. So, which is it?
IngoB: LeRoc, is there any place where we should do that? Perhaps a few weeks and half a dozen pages are really quite enough?
quote:Er ...? This is a non-sequitur. It is not that I don't want to engage him about theodicy, the reason is that I don't think I should on that particular board. This creates an assymetry. He gets room to put his views on that board, but it isn't really the place to debate it with him there.
Kelly Alves: Here's a nutty idea, next time IngoB posts a five paragraph essay that you don't want to engage with, scroll back and quote a post you do want to engage with, and skip the debate over theodicy altogether.
quote:So, what are you saying? Is it alright if I attack IngoB about his views on theodicy on the Faithfree board, and we have a (possibly lengthy) discussion between two Christians with different views on that topic there? If this is so, then I have indeed misunderstood the intent of that board.
Kelly Alves: If you don't think you should, then don't. Ruth and the Hosts have made it clear he is breaking no rules, so next comes how you want to handle it.
quote:Love the typo! It does indeed!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
This creates an assymetry.
quote:Haha, the Portuguese word is assimetria with two s'es and one m, hence my error.
mousethief: Love the typo! It does indeed!
quote:So, you just choosing not to engage a discussion you think is tangential is not an option.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:So, what are you saying? Is it alright if I attack IngoB about his views on theodicy on the Faithfree board, and we have a (possibly lengthy) discussion between two Christians with different views on that topic there? If this is so, then I have indeed misunderstood the intent of that board.
Kelly Alves: If you don't think you should, then don't. Ruth and the Hosts have made it clear he is breaking no rules, so next comes how you want to handle it.
What about PSA? Is it ok if I have a lengthy discussion with Ad Orientem on the Faithfree board about PSA?
Because I think Purgatory is the place where I should do these things, not Faithfree.
quote:You missed it, then. Somewhere in the last couple of pages Pyx_e performed a miracle and got IngoB to engage playfully on the Ship.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Well I haven't read the thread at all because, seriously you guys, eleven pages?
quote:Well, you'll have to admit it is a bit unsatisfactory. If IngoB gets to make six posts about a faith topic on a non-faith board and I disagree with him, yes I could just let it go. But I think you can also understand that I might want to attack him on it. Hence my question: can I attack him on it there? Can two Christians have a discussion about it there?
Kelly Alves: So, you just choosing not to engage a discussion you think is tangential is not an option.
quote:(Is it ok if I still answer here? I'll take it to the Styx if you prefer.)
Kelly Alves: My point, if there are six or seven other people on the thread who are willing to work with you, why get an ulcer over the one guy who won't?
quote:I note you didn't wait for an answer.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:(Is it ok if I still answer here? I'll take it to the Styx if you prefer.)\
Kelly Alves: My point, if there are six or seven other people on the thread who are willing to work with you, why get an ulcer over the one guy who won't?
quote:When a tangent develops that doesn't seem to belong on a particular board, I've seen people start a thread on the appropriate board by copying and pasting the relevant posts. Would that be an option?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Here however, IngoB gets to make six(!) posts about his views on theodicy (etc. I'm just using theodicy as an example here) on a board that I don't think is intended for discussions between Christians about theodicy. That is my problem: he gets to make these posts on a board that isn't really suited to answer them.
quote:I understand a bit where you're coming from and I definitely don't want to dis the Faithfree hosts but I'm sorry, if two Admins already have engaged me about this here in Hell, it's a bit awkward to start chiding me for having this discussion here now.
Kelly Alves: I note you didn't wait for an answer.
quote:I've considered that, but that isn't really satisfactory either. If IngoB gets to make six posts I don't agree with and various people say how insightful he is on a board where I don't feel I can answer him, writing a line inviting him to Purgatory doesn't really cut it.
saysay: When a tangent develops that doesn't seem to belong on a particular board, I've seen people start a thread on the appropriate board by copying and pasting the relevant posts. Would that be an option?
quote:I've considered that, but it isn't really my style. I think Ship policies say we should try to discover the feel of each board, not try things out and see if we get a warning from the Hosts.
Lamb Chopped: Maybe you should try it and see whether an issue develops or not.
quote:That's just semantics. When I say 'attacking', I mean engaging with IngoB's topics in a Purgatorial way. I think I explained this a couple of posts before this one.
Lamb Chopped: By the way, it's mildly concerning that you keep repeating the word "attack" when you mean (I hope you mean) "engage in debate with." Here would be the place to do your attacking.
quote:Chiding. I was telling you what my boundaries were. I wasn't chiding you for adding to a discussion already in progress. If I was chiding you for anything it was for pretending you cared what my boundaries might be and then running past without finding out what they were.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I understand a bit where you're coming from and I definitely don't want to dis the Faithfree hosts but I'm sorry, if two Admins already have engaged me about this here in Hell, it's a bit awkward to start chiding me for having this discussion here now.
Kelly Alves: I note you didn't wait for an answer.
quote:"I note you didn't wait for an answer" sounds like chiding to me. You should see the face my mother made the times she told me this when I was younger.
Kelly Alves: Chiding. I was telling you what my boundaries were. I wasn't chiding you for adding to a discussion already in progress. If I was chiding you for anything it was for pretending you cared what my boundaries might be and then running past without finding out what they were.
quote:I said I won't discuss board policy issues here. What the HellHosts decided about this discussion is their call.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:"I note you didn't wait for an answer" sounds like chiding to me. You should see the face my mother made the times she told me this when I was younger.
Kelly Alves: Chiding. I was telling you what my boundaries were. I wasn't chiding you for adding to a discussion already in progress. If I was chiding you for anything it was for pretending you cared what my boundaries might be and then running past without finding out what they were.
When I was asking about taking it to the Styx, it wasn't in an attempt to be careful about your personal boundaries. It's not that I don't care about them, I just wasn't addressing them here. I was asking about it to check with Ship policies. This topic has moved from being Hellish to becoming more Styctic, partly because of two Admins posting on it (in their Shipmate capacity, but still). I was just keeping my finger on the pulse if it is still ok to post here.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:Careful, you might get distracted.
Kelly Alves: I will however, discuss your skittery little ass till the cows come home!
quote:I've been a teacher too, and I can out-look you. I was normally working with children with ADHD, behavioural problems etc. One game we did between colleagues when entering a noisy classroom, was how fast on getting we could get them completely silent without saying a word to them, on looks alone. My record is under 1.5 minute.
Kelly Alves: Picture any look that you want, dude, I am a teacher, and I have a full repertoire of "looks." I tell you one thing, if we were sitting at a dinner table and said "Are you done with the salt thank you!" and snatched it out of my hand without waiting for an answer, you would get a pretty scorching look.
quote:The FUCK you can. Buddy, it's ON!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've been a teacher too, and I can out-look you.
)quote:But there is another aspect to this: I was answering a question you asked me.
Kelly Alves: And(IMVHO) to start a post with (say) "Is it OK to talk about the Oscars here?" only to launch into a full paragraph about the Oscars, is easily as annoying as anything Bingo has ever done.
quote:No thank you, I'll pass on that one.
Kelly Alves: So maybe we annoying folk can just embrace him as a brother in arms.
quote:So, are you really saying that you're mostly angered that he was allowed to post?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If IngoB gets to make six posts I don't agree with -
quote:No, it's that he was allowed to post in a place where I didn't feel I could engage him.
RooK: So, are you really saying that you're mostly angered that he was allowed to post?
quote:You seem to suggest that I found a sneaky way of evading your rhetorical counterattack on theodicy by hiding behind your idealistic scruples about cutting loose on the "Faithfree" board. Well, I'm afraid that I can't lay claim to that piece of tactical genius, as much as I would like to. I was contributing to a thread about Mr Fry's usage of theodicy, and got asked what I thought about theodicy myself. So I answered that, and the follow-on questions as well. That's all. You haven't even posted on that thread... and I certainly wasn't thinking of you in my posts there in any way, shape or form.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If IngoB gets to make six posts I don't agree with and various people say how insightful he is on a board where I don't feel I can answer him, writing a line inviting him to Purgatory doesn't really cut it.
quote:Dude, you are high. This is the post I posted DIRECTLY BEFORE your "whispered aside":
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Suppose that we are in a place where I don't feel it's really appropriate to talk about the Oscars. (During the Golden Bear awards in Berlin for example.) You ask me a question about the Oscars. I answer you (beause that's the polite thing to do), but I also whisper as an aside to you: "Is it really ok to talk about the Oscars here?"
That's what happened on the previous page.
quote:How could I have made it any clearer that I was not comfortable having this discussion???!!
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If you are asking about the Faithfree board policy, go ask about it on the designated thread on the Faithfree board. It doesn't feel respectful for me to do anything other than point out that a Host and a designated Admin stated above that Bingo wasn't breaking any rules.
My point, if there are six or seven other people on the thread who are willing to work with you, why get an ulcer over the one guy who won't? I don't care how big the post is, scroll past it and focus on the people who are worth focusing on. That fits any of the boards.
quote:
RooK: So, are you really saying that you're mostly angered that he was allowed to post?
quote:It sounds to me like you are going to have to find some other way to cope with that. Other people were engaging with him there and seemed to be doing fine with it. I didn't particularly feel like engaging IngoB on that thread either. So guess what I did?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
No, it's that he was allowed to post in a place where I didn't feel I could engage him.
quote:Oh! Thank you.
Originally posted by IngoB:
at least if you would appreciate if ChastMastr would engage more (as I would)
quote:Which we will discuss backstage.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I said I won't discuss board policy issues here. What the HellHosts decided about this discussion is their call.
quote:... but I know how to hold you tight...
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Well, I may not be all that bright...
quote:I wish I were. You said you preferred not to discuss Faithfree board policy, and then in the same post asked me a question to which my answer has to do with Faithfree board policy. But on a Monday morning many things look different, and I can see that I could have been a more sensitive there. I apologise.
Kelly Alves: Dude, you are high. This is the post I posted DIRECTLY BEFORE your "whispered aside":
quote:I grant that you may have been posting in good faith there. A little embarrasment ("Are we supposed to be discussing theodicy on this board?") would have been nice, but maybe that's too much to expect. Still, I think the boundaries on that board aren't exactly clear. Which is ok, because it's an experimental board.
IngoB: You seem to suggest that I found a sneaky way of evading your rhetorical counterattack on theodicy by hiding behind your idealistic scruples about cutting loose on the "Faithfree" board. Well, I'm afraid that I can't lay claim to that piece of tactical genius, as much as I would like to.
quote:Are we there yet?
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What the HellHosts decided about this discussion is their call.
quote:...because people don't suffer their sentences?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Long suffering...hmmmm. You are assuming the premise that they invited to their situation rather than sentenced.
quote:You don't.
Originally posted by Yorick:
even if I stand alone as a single person in a Ship full of others who always find his contributions entirely unhelpful
