Originally posted by Boogie:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Dubious Thomas - good one!IngoB argues very well - but what he argues makes God small, cruel and mean.
quote:Just an attack of the DT's.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Cumulative rant or specific incident?
quote:Oh we all do that sometimes. Especially if we post here.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I dunno about all this praise. He really seems like an asshole sometimes.
quote:Litotes.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Oh we all do that sometimes. Especially if we post here.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I dunno about all this praise. He really seems like an asshole sometimes.
quote:You don't say?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Litotes.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Oh we all do that sometimes. Especially if we post here.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I dunno about all this praise. He really seems like an asshole sometimes.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Dubious Thomas - good one!quote:I never said it did. I was getting at Gesundheit.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Litotes is a standard word of English grammar and requires no translation.
quote:I don't find him entertaining at all.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
If you don't like his posts or don't agree with his brand of Catholicism, at least give him high marks for entertainment value.
quote:Oy, leave me out o it !
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Just an attack of the DT's.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Cumulative rant or specific incident?
quote:Six year old girls are typically sweet and innocent, and manly men rejoice in their presence and feel protective about them. Clearly, that's not a particularly appropriate analogy. May I hence suggest that my manly Catholicism is rather reducing you to a used-up old slut, whose frustration about her ruined and wasted life have turned her all nasty and poisonous?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I praise IngoB for his wonderful religious machismo, in the face of which I feel like a six-year-old girl! IngoB drips with spiritual testosterone! His manly Catholicism is a true inspiration. Mad Mel Gibson could take lessons from IngoB!
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Praise him! In his great humility, of course, he will refuse such accolades. But let's not bow to his modesty. Let's praise him!
quote:Sorry, I know that this is a bit much for your attention span. The executive summary: by all means, do carry on. If you are looking to mix things up a bit, try using gotai-tochi to express yourself.
Summa Theologiae IIa IIae q161 a3
Now humility, as stated above (1, ad 5; 2, ad 3), properly regards the reverence whereby man is subject to God. Wherefore every man, in respect of that which is his own, ought to subject himself to every neighbor, in respect of that which the latter has of God's: but humility does not require a man to subject what he has of God's to that which may seem to be God's in another. For those who have a share of God's gifts know that they have them, according to 1 Corinthians 2:12: "That we may know the things that are given us from God." Wherefore without prejudice to humility they may set the gifts they have received from God above those that others appear to have received from Him; thus the Apostle says (Ephesians 3:5): "(The mystery of Christ) was not known to the sons of men as it is now revealed to His holy apostles." On like manner. humility does not require a man to subject that which he has of his own to that which his neighbor has of man's: otherwise each one would have to esteem himself a greater sinner than anyone else: whereas the Apostle says without prejudice to humility (Galatians 2:15): "We by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles, sinners." Nevertheless a man may esteem his neighbor to have some good which he lacks himself, or himself to have some evil which another has not: by reason of which, he may subject himself to him with humility.
quote:Is this a polite way of saying "I fart in your general direction"?
Stand upright and bow slightly in gassho from the waist.
quote:No, God is small, cruel and mean.
Originally posted by Boogie:
IngoB argues very well - but what he argues makes God small, cruel and mean.
quote:You think so?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No, God is small, cruel and mean.
quote:You know. It wasn't until I became a shippie that I realised there was very little difference between conservative evangelicals and conservative RC's. The latter just dress up prettier.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IngoB understands this and is spreading the message like a good evangelical.
quote:Couldn't be put better!
Originally posted by orfeo:
probably the most literate hellcall I've been required to read since I started hosting.
quote:I've been thinking the same all the way through the Purgatory thread on universalism.
Originally posted by Evensong:
You know. It wasn't until I became a shippie that I realised there was very little difference between conservative evangelicals and conservative RC's. The latter just dress up prettier.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:True, but very few Catholics I know, especially cradle Catholics who are entirely comfortable within their Catholic skin feel as he does. He's much more akin to Mel Gibson and the SSPX!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
IngoB just accurately describes the faith to which you converted.
quote:That is one form of litotes. Your thinking is too narrow. There are others.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So where's the double negative mousethief?
quote:Oh please. The Summa is a bit much for anybody's attention span. Aquinas was right when he said it was all straw. Pity the Church didn't listen.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sorry, I know that this is a bit much for your attention span.
quote:Germans don't do passive-aggressive. Doing it right requires a bit of empathy.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think I've seen Bingo do passive-aggressive. Could be most amusing.
quote:oi!
Originally posted by mousethief:
Germans don't do passive-aggressive. Doing it right requires a bit of empathy.
quote:that's f*cking racist, condescending (oh yes, the discourse of the Anglo-Saxon Master Race as the only one capable of sophisticated humour is never far beneath the surface, is it?), and, besides, quite untrue. Shame on you. I had always taken you for one of the more reasonable deckhands. But I suppose Hell brings out the very worst in anyone... or is it just as with alcohol: it is under "the influence" that people show their true colours?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Germans don't do passive-aggressive. Doing it right requires a bit of empathy.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:And what does the RCC care about the opinions of cradle Catholics in the West? I've long said Christians need a major realignment. I know many Roman Catholics wish the RCC was more like the Church of England or The Episcopal Church. Rather than just leave, they pretend the RCC was once something it never was and got hijacked by traditionalists like IngoB. Seems like you've joined to help them perpetuate the myth. IngoB joined with the understanding that the RCC is what she says she is and believes what she says she believes.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:True, but very few Catholics I know, especially cradle Catholics who are entirely comfortable within their Catholic skin feel as he does. He's much more akin to Mel Gibson and the SSPX!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
IngoB just accurately describes the faith to which you converted.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:OOPs . Lucky no-one mentioned the war .
Originally posted by Boogie:
oi!
We are slating IngoB here, not Germans.
quote:Since when were Germans a race?
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
that's f*cking racist,
quote:Not sure what virtue racism takes. What a pity such a great man should be so ill-bred, as Talleyrand would have it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Germans don't do passive-aggressive. Doing it right requires a bit of empathy.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think I've seen Bingo do passive-aggressive. Could be most amusing.
quote:Wash your mouth out - no more use of that word allowed until the middle of the Easter Vigil.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Hallelujah!
quote:is, in a stark sort of way, comforting, compared with the warm fluffy evangelical Anglicanism of my own background. (There will be comfort in your grief - there isn't. God has A Plan for your life - he hasn't.)
Originally posted by IngoB:
FWIW, my faith is for the most part calculated and workman-like, with all the personal passion of brushing one's teeth regularly. I also have not "encountered Jesus", though I have had some mystic experiences (which I found more scary than comforting, frankly). I consider Christian life mostly a hard slog, and the only thing the Christian community tends to inspire me to is rage-quitting. Yet I have a kind of faith, and it is a pretty resilient one. By Protestant standards, I'm probably nowhere near to "being saved" with that kind of faith, but I couldn't care less about that. By Catholic standards, my soul is also in danger. But for "practical" reasons, that can be fixed with available sacramental tools by priestly mechanics. I like that aspect of the traditional ways. There's room for gushing kitsch sentimentality, as well as for me, because it is in the end about moving your will in a particular direction. I can do that, in my way. Other people have their ways. Good for them, good for me.
quote:Pity you distort what Aquinas actually said, more like. He had a mystical experience - possibly a glimpse of the Beatific Vision - whilst saying Mass: it was compared with that that he described his writings as "like straw". Compared with a glimpse of the Heavenly Banquet, the excellences of the collective work of all humankind will seem like so much straw. He is also said to have had another vision in which Christ said to him, "You have written well of me, Thomas." Why trust one tradition and not the other?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh please. The Summa is a bit much for anybody's attention span. Aquinas was right when he said it was all straw. Pity the Church didn't listen.
quote:If that's how good you are at seeing through things, you need to send your x-ray goggles back to the manufacturer.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's pretty transparent where your sniping at IngoB is coming from: same place as DT's - frustration at being (in your case, repeatedly) outargued by him.
quote:Actually when I get "trounced" in an argument by IngoB, as you call it, I tend to walk away and not respond. Usually because it's a hopeless task, as he is arguing from deep within a set of premises we do not share.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'll take a look at my perceptions and what's colouring them if you do, mousethief.
I see you getting steamed up and tantrummy when being trounced in an argument with IngoB too often not to suspect your motives when lashing out at him here. Maybe that's just my bad. Maybe there's something in that. Why don't we both have a think about that?
quote:Indeed. And that's the whole problem, isn't it? That, plus maybe the occasional arrogance/sneering mentioned by Jemina.
Originally posted by mousethief:
[ he is arguing from deep within a set of premises we do not share.
quote:Were you here when Gordon Cheng was here? Just curious.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
But really, he does not deserve this round in hell. Admit it, he's got entertainment value. Without types like him, The Ship would be a lot more bland and boring.
quote:Actually the opposite is true. The Church used to be like IngoB sees it. Hence the need for ultra traditionalists like the SSPX to form their own jurisdictions. I was going to write go into schism, but that's a bit complex where the SSPX is concerned. Or the even more extreme Sedevacantists. It was liberals and modernisers who hijacked it, starting at Vatican II. I couldn't have joined before then.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Rather than just leave, they pretend the RCC was once something it never was and got hijacked by traditionalists like IngoB.
quote:thanks. I see.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Still alive and well and blogging.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:So IngoB is wrong? The RCC no longer believes the stuff he thinks it does? Point him to the official teaching of the RCC that contradicts his opinion and I'm sure he will reconsider his opinion. Do you mean liberals and modernized acting in the spirit of Vatican 2 pretending Vatican 2 did what it didn't do?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Actually the opposite is true. The Church used to be like IngoB sees it. Hence the need for ultra traditionalists like the SSPX to form their own jurisdictions. I was going to write go into schism, but that's a bit complex where the SSPX is concerned. Or the even more extreme Sedevacantists. It was liberals and modernisers who hijacked it, starting at Vatican II. I couldn't have joined before then.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Rather than just leave, they pretend the RCC was once something it never was and got hijacked by traditionalists like IngoB.
quote:I had to look it up.
Litotes is a standard word of English grammar and requires no translation.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:Lyda*Rose, you and Orfeo clearly have terrible judgment about what counts as "brilliant"! The OP is one of the most idiotic things I've ever wasted time composing! ... I'm "crap" at feigned modesty, too!
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
But I also agree with orfeo that the OP was brilliant.
quote:An especial favorite was his annual "Lent is stupid and evil and non-Biblical and wrong-headed and anybody who observes it is an un-Christian heretical three-headed Peruvian chipmunk" thread. (I'm paraphrasing.) A bit of trolling -- erm, wind-up merchandising -- as regular as clockwork. And of course people who actually like observing Lent, or find it of spiritual benefit even if they don't actually "like" it, responded gratifyingly, so he kept his little hard-on for 40 days (at least).
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
yes, I've googled him in the meantime. Yummie! What a nice addition to our onboard entertainment!!!
quote:I'm on SoF to discuss, not spread, the faith. And if the assembled Marcionite church judges my God to be small, cruel and mean, why should I care?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No, God is small, cruel and mean. IngoB understands this and is spreading the message like a good evangelical.
quote:You are wrong about the quotation. It is interesting and fitting in more than one way. And I don't care how many people read it - I always aim to please myself in writing, not the crowd. But the "slut" bit indeed tried too much: riffing on the accusation of machismo, pointing out that Dubious T is actually a nasty piece of work, and being insulting - all at the same time. Also, I shouldn't use such language, it's not me.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And in return all we get is literal quoting and calling your opponent a slut. Ingo, I'm disappointed.
quote:Well, it's a caricature, but it will do. Can you really not see what love requires me to do if I believe something about God like you claim that I do? Can you really not see what your universalist preaching would look like from this perspective? If you actually believed in heaven and hell, mortal sin, all that stuff, what would you have to do if you wanted to be your brother's keeper?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
IngoB preaches a stern, loveless God, ready to fry the majority of humanity, to whom the rules of the Church are of paramount importance, and who would be willing to write us of for eternity when we fail to keep those rules. ... I see IngoB's Catholicism as pharasaical rigid adherance to the dead letter of the law, and completely devoid of the love God requires of us.
quote:As a straight read through, perhaps, as a compendium to be consulted on a case by case basis it is great.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh please. The Summa is a bit much for anybody's attention span.
quote:Not exactly. It's more that I employ my love of coming out on top intellectually to push myself to learn the faith via all those endless apologetic engagements.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Frequently, there is a need among such people to reassure themselves constantly about the sense which the step they took makes. For IngoB, this reassurance is sought in endless, painstakingly perfected postings on The Ship. I don't think he wants to proselytise. He probably just does it for reassurance.
quote:I have no problems with sentimentality. Really, I do not. I have problems with people imposing their sentimentality on the truth. And I tend to become sneering and dismissive in discussions when I get frustrated or do not feel respected. I guess that happens a lot...
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I'm sure Ingo would be thoroughly dismissive of such sentimentality on my part, though. And that's the thing - he can be so sneering and dismissive of those who disagree. I paint a mental lip curl on the avatar so often when I read what he writes.
quote:"With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time." - Humanae Vitae
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
[Oh, and the dead horse thing. Maximise your chances of salvation through Catholicism > A Catholic understanding of marriage is primarily for child-bearing > maximise my chances of salvation through almost continuous child-rearing with all the attendant consequences. No thanks.]
quote:Yeah. Let's just say that that is what happened.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
A real shame he disembarked.
quote:Figures.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I had vowed to myself (thankfully, not to God, since I'm "crap" at keeping vows!) that my only contribution to this thread would be the OP.
quote:I know you think so. Has it occurred to you that you might be a bit ... unusual in that department, and that not everybody can be as good at slogging through Aquinas as you are? And thus to deride somebody for not doing well what you can do well is a little on the unfair side, and a lot on the stupid side?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:As a straight read through, perhaps, as a compendium to be consulted on a case by case basis it is great.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh please. The Summa is a bit much for anybody's attention span.
quote:No, for fuck's sake, look at what I wrote. I acknowledge that Ingo finds Aquinas "great," and say nothing bad about him on that score. Nothing. Go look. Seriously, go back and read it. Here, for crying out loud, I'll give you a fucking LINK, since you missed it the first time.
Originally posted by Ariston:
But seriously, you're blaming Ingo for liking someone who is quite likable?
quote:HIMSELF, for Chrissake.
Originally posted by Ariston:
... whatever we're saying he's being…
quote:Ok when you put it that way, perhaps I've been a bit unfair, and you are doing your best to save us from the fires of hell. This reminds me of Augustine's view that it's better to torture people into accepting Christ than to see them burn for eternity. Agape can work in strange ways. Having been brought close to a nervous breakdown at the age of 15 by being told I was going to hell by the Elders of an Evangelical Church, my visceral repulsion to such ideas is admittedly unblanaced, which has negatively coloured my lifelong relationship with Christianity. I apologise if I've been offensive to you.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, it's a caricature, but it will do. Can you really not see what love requires me to do if I believe something about God like you claim that I do? Can you really not see what your universalist preaching would look like from this perspective? If you actually believed in heaven and hell, mortal sin, all that stuff, what would you have to do if you wanted to be your brother's keeper?
quote:Since I was the only one who was making a fuss about Aquinas, it seemed natural to me that your coming to Aquinas' defense had to do with me. And since I was the only one calling out IngoB regarding Aquinas, it seemed natural to me that your defending IngoB for liking Aquinas had to do with me.
Originally posted by Ariston:
1. So you're the only/primary person I was talking to, MT? Interesting. I didn't know that, but okay, thanks for enlightening me. I'll keep that in mind.
quote:Okay, fine. Although IngoB has been here long enough to know that a lot of people here aren't like him in a lot of different ways.
Okay, fine. I will say that if you hang around a bunch of Thomists, if everybody you know finds Thomas easy, if you've gotten used to him, it may be that you expect Thomas is easy—after all, nobody you know finds him hard!
quote:Are there youtube videos of this? Are they work-safe?
Or one-handed catfish noodlers.
quote:Well, it is not that straightforward. The RCC is much less monolithic in what it "believes" than that. Believe it or not, there is ongoing debate. IngoB's approach to RC theology is what is called "Neoscholasticism" (hence his penchant for Aquinas). That in itself is a broad field, but it was the dominant way of "doing" theology from the mid 1800's on to the 1960's (roughly speaking). It has left its mark on "mainstream" theology. Vatican II and the (dreadfully slow and sluggish) dialogue with the Eastern Churches -among other things- are slowly offering grounds for alternative approaches.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
[So IngoB is wrong? The RCC no longer believes the stuff he thinks it does? Point him to the official teaching of the RCC that contradicts his opinion and I'm sure he will reconsider his opinion. Do you mean liberals and modernized acting in the spirit of Vatican 2 pretending Vatican 2 did what it didn't do?
quote:Keep it up and you'll have Evensong defending you.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Help! Help! I'm being dogpiled! See the violence inherent in the system!
quote:Everybody now take a sip of the beverage of your choice.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:Keep it up and you'll have Evensong defending you.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Help! Help! I'm being dogpiled! See the violence inherent in the system!
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:Everybody now take a sip of the beverage of your choice.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:Keep it up and you'll have Evensong defending you.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Help! Help! I'm being dogpiled! See the violence inherent in the system!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:It were a joke.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:You think so?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No, God is small, cruel and mean.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Ingo B translates as a convert who has learnt the letter of his new faith, but not the substance of it.
quote:I have been privileged to know some amazing people who managed to never do such.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It's kind of like resigning yourself to the idea that someone with a 14 inch cock is going to mention zipper chafe once in a while.
quote:Being drunk, on alcohol or anger, lowers the inhibitions, it does not bring about any forced honesty.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
But I suppose Hell brings out the very worst in anyone... or is it just as with alcohol: it is under "the influence" that people show their true colours?
quote:That you ask why you should care, indicates your missing the point of much of Jesus' teaching.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm on SoF to discuss, not spread, the faith. And if the assembled Marcionite church judges my God to be small, cruel and mean, why should I care?
quote:Well you're in great company with some of my favourite Catholic writers such as Thomas Merton, Carlo Carretto and David Steindl-Rast. It should be obvious to anyone that I'm much more into the mysticism of these people than to the Scholasticism of Aquinas. I don't make any claim of mystical experience myself, except a lifelong sense of God's presence, but mone is a religion of the heart much more than the head. IngoB's approach isn't the only valid form of Catholicism.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
I also suppose I've spent too much time in India and sitting on top of monastery roofs in Ladakh staring at the Himalayas to be considered a "real" RC by the likes of IngoB (he hinted at that at some point). Oh well (*shrugs*)
quote:Catholicism didn't exist in St.Paul's time. There was only JC and his teachings. Not quite the same thing, I suspect.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
St. Paul would probably have a hard time convincing Bingo he is a "real" Catholic.
quote:It should be obvious to anyone that I'm much more into the mysticism of these people than to the Scholasticism of Aquinas. I don't make any claim of mystical experience myself, except a lifelong sense of God's presence, but mone is a religion of the heart much more than the head. IngoB's approach isn't the only valid form of Catholicism. [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Much innuendo. Very lost. So Doge.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:Everybody now take a sip of the beverage of your choice.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:Keep it up and you'll have Evensong defending you.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Help! Help! I'm being dogpiled! See the violence inherent in the system!
One more square and I've got BINGO.
quote:If I actually expected people to be as good (*) at slogging through Aquinas as I am, I would not be posting carefully selected and trimmed quotes. I would simply give a reference, or just say "check the ST on that."
Originally posted by mousethief:
Has it occurred to you that you might be a bit ... unusual in that department, and that not everybody can be as good at slogging through Aquinas as you are? And thus to deride somebody for not doing well what you can do well is a little on the unfair side, and a lot on the stupid side?
quote:I respond in Hell to the OP calling me to Hell. And because I diss my detractor there by saying that he has too short an attention span to understand the quotation, this reveals my general opinion about people reading Aquinas?
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm blaming Ingo for sniping at others who don't find Aquinas easygoing. For posting a big chunk of Aquinas and then sneering at Dubious Thomas for not being able to read it due to his short attention span. I said Aquinas is heavy going for anybody, and IngoB countered that he's "great," standing ("doubling down" as the kids say) on his insult that if you can't get through a chunk of Aquinas, it's because you have an inferior attention span.
quote:Yeah. But this is not heaven, and I'm aware of that.
Originally posted by Ariston:
I will say that if you hang around a bunch of Thomists, if everybody you know finds Thomas easy, if you've gotten used to him, it may be that you expect Thomas is easy—after all, nobody you know finds him hard!
quote:Reference, or he did not say that.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This reminds me of Augustine's view that it's better to torture people into accepting Christ than to see them burn for eternity.
quote:Thanks, but that's not necessary. Just keep the second-guessing of motivations a little kinder. As much as I think universalists are a serious danger to people's salvation, I think they are typically misguided by good intentions.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I apologise if I've been offensive to you.
quote:I wonder how many years I have to be RC before people manage to believe that I'm actually like that, rather than just going through a phase? And I always find amazing the confidence with which people extract the true substance of the faith from underneath so much distracting doctrine and scripture. I also actually rarely sing my own praises, at least not concerning religion. Like here, who was actually talking as if was some kind of serious Thomist theologian, who hangs daily with his philosopher homies in the ivory tower? Me? Certainly not. Ariston seemed to suggest that, who knows why...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is actually what I think of IngoB
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Ingo B translates as a convert who has learnt the letter of his new faith, but not the substance of it.quote:I have been privileged to know some amazing people who managed to never do such.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It's kind of like resigning yourself to the idea that someone with a 14 inch cock is going to mention zipper chafe once in a while.
quote:WWJD? Presumably one should deal with other Christians strongly convinced of their false understanding of the Christian faith as Jesus dealt with Jews strongly convinced of their false understanding of the Jewish faith. And we all know how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees, Sadduccees, etc. Discuss with them, sure, curse them too, but mostly focus on other people who actually listen...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That you ask why you should care, indicates your missing the point of much of Jesus' teaching.
quote:I find these claims of spiritual sophistication by proxy strange. Also, I find that people who are supposedly heart-dominated tend to have lots and lots to say on matters of the head. Amazing, that.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't make any claim of mystical experience myself, except a lifelong sense of God's presence, but mone is a religion of the heart much more than the head.
quote:One of the pleasures of being an adult convert is that you get to pick your baptismal name yourself, and can use it to signify something about your faith. The baptismal name I chose is "Paul", as in the former Saul of Tarsus...
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
St. Paul would probably have a hard time convincing Bingo he is a "real" Catholic.
quote:If one is as sure as Jesus was that one is right. But he was God, and none of us have that kind of surety. Ergo a dash of humility, a bit of "but I could be wrong," is called for.
Originally posted by IngoB:
WWJD? Presumably one should deal with other Christians strongly convinced of their false understanding of the Christian faith as Jesus dealt with Jews strongly convinced of their false understanding of the Jewish faith.
quote:See how many layers my wisecrack had? And I didn't even know Bingo's baptismal name!
Originally posted by jacobsen:
quote:Catholicism didn't exist in St.Paul's time. There was only JC and his teachings. Not quite the same thing, I suspect.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
St. Paul would probably have a hard time convincing Bingo he is a "real" Catholic.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:Here you can read some of Augustines letters. He eventually came to approve of the torture of heretics, which he hadn't earlier, reasoning that saving their souls justified such "extreme" measures.
originally posted by IngoB:
or he did not say that.
quote:Sigh. If only my crack were as wise as yours. Or had as many layers.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
See how many layers my wisecrack had?
quote:Preach to the converted?
Originally posted by IngoB:
but mostly focus on other people who actually listen...
quote:Thanks for that. Interesting.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Here you can read some of Augustines letters. He eventually came to approve of the torture of heretics, which he hadn't earlier, reasoning that saving their souls justified such "extreme" measures.
quote:To the convertibles. (No, not cars.)
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Preach to the converted?
quote:Not sure if it makes any difference or not—the post leaves out the context for the development of Augustine's anti-Donatist thought—but it wasn't merely/simply torture Augustine was advocating, but the use of state power in general against heretical sects. Now, I'd have to go back and reread the letters to see if he meant it in general, or only against the Donatists/Circumcelians in particular, but the Donatists were not your average "difference of opinion, agree to disagree" sort of heretics. Thanks to a set of sociopolitical and historical circumstances stemming back to the Diocletion persecution, they were a uniquely anti-Roman Punic sect that believed that the One True Church was a part of the church in Roman Africa (usually the Punic-speaking part), and, especially for members of the Circumcelian sect, had no issues killing and raiding Catholics, even after an Imperial proclamation condemning them. So I'm not sure if Augustine's development here should be read simply as "you can torture heretics" so much as "if the secular and spiritual power are allied, and there's a sect causing trouble, violence, and unrest for both the secular and sacred powers, then you can use the state power to put down heretical sects that disturb the peace."
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Thanks for that. Interesting.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Here you can read some of Augustines letters. He eventually came to approve of the torture of heretics, which he hadn't earlier, reasoning that saving their souls justified such "extreme" measures.
quote:Or for Buddhist ears: pouring tea.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:To the convertibles. (No, not cars.)
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Preach to the converted?
quote:Once more: Interesting. Thanks.
Originally posted by Ariston:
So I'm not sure if Augustine's development here should be read simply as "you can torture heretics" so much as "if the secular and spiritual power are allied, and there's a sect causing trouble, violence, and unrest for both the secular and sacred powers, then you can use the state power to put down heretical sects that disturb the peace."
quote:A bit of balance on your part would be nice.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I find that people who are supposedly heart-dominated tend to have lots and lots to say on matters of the head. Amazing, that.
quote:That's a good analogy for the way you (don't) listen IngoB.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Or for Buddhist ears: pouring tea.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:To the convertibles. (No, not cars.)
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Preach to the converted?
quote:Tell you what, if I am ever interested in your opinion about my personal life of faith, I will send you a PM. Deal?
Originally posted by Boogie:
A bit of balance on your part would be nice.
quote:Not exactly. Rather, people here generate this endless stream of apparent problems for the faith, and I like solving my way through them. Of course in doing so I on one hand learn a lot of new stuff about the faith (problem solving just is the best way of learning IMHO) and on the other hand every time I manage to solve yet another problem (to my satisfaction) it boost my confidence in the faith. So in that specific sense I am indeed convincing myself. But it is not really a quest for the affirmation of a weak faith. I consider SoF to be basically faith-destroying, an acid bath of negativity, sentimentality, unreason, worldliness and doubt. It's a good place to be if you want to battle-test a strong faith. It's also a good place for killing weak faith. To somewhat correct this bleak picture: SoF is much better than say typical atheist forums, in that there is quite a bit of fairness and patience to be had here, and actual interaction occurs quite frequently. You can battle-test your faith elsewhere, but it usually boils down to a pure shouting match with a chorus of people who do not engage with you at all anymore once triggered into action. Not so here. People rarely convince each other of anything, but they do talk, they do put in some effort.
Originally posted by Boogie:
If you couldn't care less what we think or feel about all this, why do you bother telling us your opinions? (at great length?). I think, like someone else said, that you are trying to convince yourself.
quote:I'm not here to have my tea cup filled. I'm here to keep my full tea cup from spilling or spoiling as all sorts of people try to tip it over, shake the table on which it is standing, try to pour other liquid into it, try to spit in it, etc.
Originally posted by Boogie:
That's a good analogy for the way you (don't) listen IngoB.
quote:Fair enough.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Not exactly. Rather, people here generate this endless stream of apparent problems for the faith, and I like solving my way through them. Of course in doing so I on one hand learn a lot of new stuff about the faith (problem solving just is the best way of learning IMHO) and on the other hand every time I manage to solve yet another problem (to my satisfaction) it boost my confidence in the faith. So in that specific sense I am indeed convincing myself. But it is not really a quest for the affirmation of a weak faith. I consider SoF to be basically faith-destroying, an acid bath of negativity, sentimentality, unreason, worldliness and doubt. It's a good place to be if you want to battle-test a strong faith. It's also a good place for killing weak faith. To somewhat correct this bleak picture: SoF is much better than say typical atheist forums, in that there is quite a bit of fairness and patience to be had here, and actual interaction occurs quite frequently.
Originally posted by Boogie:
If you couldn't care less what we think or feel about all this, why do you bother telling us your opinions? (at great length?). I think, like someone else said, that you are trying to convince yourself.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:See how many layers my wisecrack had? And I didn't even know Bingo's baptismal name!
Originally posted by jacobsen:
quote:Catholicism didn't exist in St.Paul's time. There was only JC and his teachings. Not quite the same thing, I suspect.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
St. Paul would probably have a hard time convincing Bingo he is a "real" Catholic.
And as we all know Saint Paul, institutionally and religiously was THE original Protest-ant!
quote:
I consider SoF to be basically faith-destroying, an acid bath of negativity, sentimentality, unreason, worldliness and doubt.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Wow. If that bore any resemblance to how I saw the Ship I would have left it a long time ago - maybe never joined in the first place. If we can differ so much over something that is immediate and accessible, IB, maybe I shouldn't be surprised when we come to such different conclusions over matters of faith.
quote:That's a bit unfair to pick one sentence from a lengthy paragraph: IngoB admits that this paints a grim picture but does go on to say what the Ship provides. FWIW I agree with him to a great extent and while he may be damning with faint praise, I wouldn't expect a whole lot more.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
IngoB:quote:
I consider SoF to be basically faith-destroying, an acid bath of negativity, sentimentality, unreason, worldliness and doubt.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Using Buddhist example, I see your cup as full of Sīla pāramī and Adhiṭṭhāna pāramī , leaving no room for Mettā pāramī or Dāna pāramī. In other words; incompleteness.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Or for Buddhist ears: pouring tea.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:To the convertibles. (No, not cars.)
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Preach to the converted?
quote:Same goes for me. My CPE supervisor despaired of me. She noted I learnt best through argument.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Not exactly. Rather, people here generate this endless stream of apparent problems for the faith, and I like solving my way through them. Of course in doing so I on one hand learn a lot of new stuff about the faith (problem solving just is the best way of learning IMHO) and on the other hand every time I manage to solve yet another problem (to my satisfaction) it boost my confidence in the faith. So in that specific sense I am indeed convincing myself.
quote:Only if you fear questioning and doubt. Which I suppose a weak faith does.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But it is not really a quest for the affirmation of a weak faith. I consider SoF to be basically faith-destroying, an acid bath of negativity, sentimentality, unreason, worldliness and doubt.
quote:And herein you explain the strength of Anglicanism. (Thanks be to God, and Simon)
Originally posted by IngoB:
To somewhat correct this bleak picture: SoF is much better than say typical atheist forums, in that there is quite a bit of fairness and patience to be had here, and actual interaction occurs quite frequently. You can battle-test your faith elsewhere, but it usually boils down to a pure shouting match with a chorus of people who do not engage with you at all anymore once triggered into action. Not so here. People rarely convince each other of anything, but they do talk, they do put in some effort.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:Atheism or Orthodox? PAH!
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I'm not sure that the Ship is that much of an acid bath. But I read years ago, people often end up atheist or part of the Orthodox Church if they join the Ship, which is more or less what IngoB is saying
quote:You'll find it is fewer answers, not 'less'. This is due to 'answers' being a countable noun.
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
[...] I have less answers than ever [...]
quote:Well, you can kind of see his point: he posts well reasoned thoughts and people (I still always wonder just how many) routinely accuse him of hate.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:Who has accused him of hate?
Originally posted by moron:
quote:Well, you can kind of see his point: he posts well reasoned thoughts and people (I still always wonder just how many) routinely accuse him of hate.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:You're showing your modern colors there moron. Reason can be of the devil.
Originally posted by moron:
Well, you can kind of see his point: he posts well reasoned thoughts and people (I still always wonder just how many) routinely accuse him of hate.
quote:
An evil person can do ten thousand times more harm than a beast, because we can use our reason to devise many diverse evils - Thomas Aquinas
quote:You see, this is why I hardly ever venture into Hell, if you don't have your wits about you, you run the risk of apprehension by the grammar police let alone the many other perils....and oh the shame as I have taught countable/ uncountable nouns on so many occasions.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
[...] I have less answers than ever [...]
You'll find it is fewer answers, not 'less'. This is due to 'answers' being a countable noun.
You're hellcome.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Yeah - so it's really better to be kind and give the addict money so they can feed the addiction?
Originally posted by Boogie:
Your sig says it all MrsBeaky.
"It is better to be kind than right."
quote:Mua? I was merely pointing out to moron reason is not the end all and be all of truth.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I thought we Anglicans rejected fundamentalism because we didn't want to leave our brains at the door? A traditionalist Catholic engages your brain with reason and you call him mean.
quote:Sure you can. It is very possible to be both clever and kind.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Perhaps but we have no shortage of people claiming to be in search of one. They'll condemn fundamentalists for being ignorant and then condemn intellectuals like IngoB for lacking a heart. You can't have it both ways.
quote:I completely agree!
Originally posted by Curiosity killed:
But kindness, as depicted by Sassoon, can be patronising, dismissive, an easy response and not meeting people's needs at all. And the examples I gave were all kindness that is in the long term unkindness. So challenging the flip answer.
quote:For sure, my approach here has diddley-squat to do with "evangelisation", at least with the sort of "evangelisation" that looks a lot like a recruitment drive supported by an advertisement campaign. I could make some noises about how it is a kind of evangelisation to clarify the faith to others, even if they are more driven away than attracted by that. However, mostly I think of this place as a bit of "guilty pleasure" or "me time" or what have you. I think the spiritual damage I do to others here is fairly limited, given that this is pretty much a place of spiritual mayhem anyhow and people jump into it with gusto and without being pushed.
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
But I do have a question/ observation! The Pope and the RC Church are committed to the ongoing task of "evanglisation" which I assume you subscribe to as well? If yes, do you not see any place for a little more kindness to accompany your debating style? You know the whole "If I....but have not love" thing!You never know it might even bear some significant fruit....
quote:And if I was here to win hearts and minds, I probably would worry about that a lot.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
More simply put, it is not just what you say, but how you say it.
quote:For Anglicans, pride comes after the fall.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've been strengthened in my Anglicanism. I couldn't be prouder.
quote:Desperta Ferres! Desperta!
Originally posted by Caissa:
Rational faith sounds like an oxymoron.
quote:True enough. Here. I would note though that I try to keep some reasonable balance between what I dish out and what I take. And on the occasions where I have apologised (aside from "breaking the 10Cs") this has been in an effort to restore that balance. Given that I do not apologise very often, you can take a guess how I see the general level of kindness around here...
Originally posted by Evensong:
But Bingo isn't interested in being kind. He's interested in ideas.
quote:I don't know if you noticed, but I for one decided a while ago there was very rarely anything in it for me at all.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Why would anyone want to play along with me then? I have no idea. You tell me what's in it for you...
quote:I knew there was a reason I like it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I consider SoF to be basically faith-destroying, an acid bath of negativity, sentimentality, unreason, worldliness and doubt.
quote:Thanks for the clarification.
Originally posted by IngoB I don't deal with others in other circumstances as I do here. Obviously, I'm not an entirely different person elsewhere. However, I have then different goals and so I am being me with other outcomes. FWIW, I have in fact contributed significantly to the evangelisation efforts, practically and personally, in a previous parish. And no, it was not through some kind of heresy fighting crusade...
quote:I hadn't noticed. And now that you mention it... well, uhh... thanks for sharing, I guess.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't know if you noticed, but I for one decided a while ago there was very rarely anything in it for me at all.
quote:Sort of. Problem is that even I get bored with my repetitions eventually. So the questions is whether there's enough novelty in the long term. Time will tell.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The Ship provides you with a steady supply of new people who have to learn that lesson for themselves, though.
quote:When it comes easily and naturally and when it's just part of the air you breathe. When you stop spouting doctrinal rebuttals with chapter and verse and start living Catholicism. You don't have to figure out what the doctrinal position is and then ensure you react appropriately. Just live your faith, if you screw up, so be it, we all screw up - it's part of being human.
I wonder how many years I have to be RC before people manage to believe that I'm actually like that, rather than just going through a phase?
quote:That's exactly the problem. Ingo is, frankly, an embarrassment. I actually agree with him on a number of points but the way he presents the arguments is a great way to actually lose his hearers' sympathy. Reading his posts can feel like being trodden on by a Cyberman, marching relentlessly up and down without any compassion or care about how the other person is feeling, no interest in even trying to see their point of view, it's just opposition that must be quashed and an argument that must be rebutted. Pope Francis holds fairly orthodox Catholic views on most things but the difference in the way he and Ingo express themselves is a world apart.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
IngoB has totally convinced me that I don't want to convert to Roman Catholicism, which isn't a bad thing.
quote:That's what message boards are generally considered to be for. Sharing.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I hadn't noticed. And now that you mention it... well, uhh... thanks for sharing, I guess.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't know if you noticed, but I for one decided a while ago there was very rarely anything in it for me at all.
quote:Yes. But IngoB sems to admit that he’s in the game for “battle-hardening” his theology. He does not want to “share” or be your friend, so get over it. The problem is that he wants a fight/an argument, but nobody else on the Ship seems to express an interest in taking him on. Why that is so, apart from a possible dislike of being sneered at, I do not know. The Ship would benefit from more theological argument. I know I personally don’t get engaged enough, mainly because I dip in and out of the board between other things to do/procrastinating because I really should start grading exams/ other rather unglorious reasons, and seldom have the time/the interest to craft a lengthy, carefully elaborated argument, and partially because my “approach” (I don’t really want to call it “theology”) is not something that is based on thomist ratio. But there is surely someone on the Ship who would enjoy a joust? I for one would love to read an equally “testosterone-laden” response from an Orthodox shipmate.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Reading his posts can feel like being trodden on by a Cyberman, marching relentlessly up and down without any compassion or care about how the other person is feeling, no interest in even trying to see their point of view, it's just opposition that must be quashed and an argument that must be rebutted.
quote:Indeed. But I don’t think he believes that. Don’t be fooled by appearances, he is a lot more solid than most people believe. Francis is not what the masses construct him to be. And I fear that wil come to haunt him soon. I think the fluffy image is dangerous, for many RCs go for fluffiness, too. It is religious populism. (as an aside, JPII attracted the masses because of that, too). This is not a big love-in he’s about. He is about a very radical message about the Gospel: Francis is the true fundamentalist. Read his views on the Social Gospel. Read what he said in Lampedusa.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Pope Francis, bless his heart, is sadly mistaken if he believes converts can be won simply by being nice about what Roman Catholics believe.
quote:All right, let’s take that one to make another point. Because part of the problem is related to the crew. I think that Shipmates are too homogeneous /monocultural, and they react with spite and hell-calls once someone posts outside those unwritten rules/ the institutionalised discourse. I know, I had my brush with the plank .
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Many in the West despise Roman Catholic teachings on human sexuality.
quote:No, he most explicitly is not. He has stated multiple times that he is not here to win souls, only to beat people up logically. I take him at his word. You should, too.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
IngoB is doing Roman Catholic evangelism the way it has to be done.
quote:The moment a faith starts to be perceived as "rational", it stops being the bridge between Man and God / the pathway to God within.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
By showing how traditional Roman Catholicism is rational, IngoB appeals to that sort of person.
quote:Ah, good, you have seen the light. Glory to Jesus!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
IngoB isn't trying to evangelize.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:For Anglicans, pride comes after the fall.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've been strengthened in my Anglicanism. I couldn't be prouder.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by "mutual fellowship", but unless that means something like "unconditional acceptance of every aspect of my life" to you, then I don't really see how this would be impossible for me. My best friend while studying was a cultural Sufi turned sort of ... well, vague. Of the people I hang out with now, socially, only two are religious at all, as far as I know. And they are Protestant. The only person I've ever met whom I found religiously inspiring to the point of wanting to emulate them was a Zen Buddhist monk. It is true that I don't have any non-Catholic support group for my spiritual life. But then I don't have any Catholic support group either. In a strange sort of way, SoF is my support group, really. I don't know what that says about me, probably all sort of bad things. But as far as religion goes, I've never been on any sort of "normal" trajectory anyhow. Heck, I probably wouldn't even know traditional Catholicism if I didn't like to sleep in late on Sundays. I seem to do OK though, best I can tell.
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
It makes me sad though as I have to conclude that for you there would no possibility of mutual fellowship with someone like me.
quote:That is a reasonable criticism. But part of what I appreciate about Catholicism is an ... elegance that people around here mostly ignore, trample on or sneer at. How many people here have actually bothered reading and appreciating what I quoted from Aquinas about humility above? It was such a fine point in response to such a common attack... And the other parts of Catholicism that I really appreciate are personal. And I really am a rather private person. In case of doubt, I think my personal stuff is none of your business. Doubly so if "you" happens to be "the web", even if practically speaking this will only ever be seen by a tiny fraction of the web.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Faith is a living thing, Catholicism can be a beautiful, enriching love affair with life and with God. None of that has ever come through in any of Ingo's posts that I've seen.
quote:Thanks for the mostly kind evaluation otherwise, but this is not really true. There are quite a number of people here who regularly take me on, and certainly a few that I cannot "beat" even in my own evaluation concerning various topics. (That's not to say that I think that they are right. But I cannot demonstrate that they are wrong at a level that I find satisfying.)
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
The problem is that he wants a fight/an argument, but nobody else on the Ship seems to express an interest in taking him on.
quote:So you're saying that to be kind is to be right?
Originally posted by Boogie:
Your sig says it all MrsBeaky.
"It is better to be kind than right."
quote:My intention wasn't to pick one sentence out of context, and so distort what IB was saying. If that's what I ended up doing I apologise. Rather, I was commenting on the power of perception. If I (metaphorically) stood on my head and squinted I might see the Ship in the way that IB describes it; from what I know of it and him I think I can see what he is getting at. But even in my most pissed off moment with the Ship, and I've had plenty of those over the years, I would never begin to describe it as he does. Now, if our perceptions and descriptions of something as finite and immediate as the Ship differ so widely, how much more will our attempts to describe the infinite and intangible?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:That's a bit unfair to pick one sentence from a lengthy paragraph: IngoB admits that this paints a grim picture but does go on to say what the Ship provides. FWIW I agree with him to a great extent and while he may be damning with faint praise, I wouldn't expect a whole lot more.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
IngoB:quote:
I consider SoF to be basically faith-destroying, an acid bath of negativity, sentimentality, unreason, worldliness and doubt.
quote:We just don't expect elegance from a pugilist who has sworn that all he cares about is winning. It's like asking Rocky Balboa for a tour of lower Manhattan's art galleries. You'd never think to do it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But part of what I appreciate about Catholicism is an ... elegance that people around here mostly ignore, trample on or sneer at. How many people here have actually bothered reading and appreciating what I quoted from Aquinas about humility above?
quote:And that's aNOTHer reason not to ask him for a tour of Manhattan art galleries.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Rocky is from Philly.
quote:Suddenly, the rationale for that half-arsed failure of a Duel board that IngoB tried to create is becoming apparent.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
quote:Yes. But IngoB sems to admit that he’s in the game for “battle-hardening” his theology. He does not want to “share” or be your friend, so get over it. The problem is that he wants a fight/an argument, but nobody else on the Ship seems to express an interest in taking him on. Why that is so, apart from a possible dislike of being sneered at, I do not know. The Ship would benefit from more theological argument.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Reading his posts can feel like being trodden on by a Cyberman, marching relentlessly up and down without any compassion or care about how the other person is feeling, no interest in even trying to see their point of view, it's just opposition that must be quashed and an argument that must be rebutted.
quote:Wow, you had to dig deep there for an angle. But I will let St Erin the Evil-Eyed rest in peace.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Suddenly, the rationale for that half-arsed failure of a Duel board that IngoB tried to create is becoming apparent. It was, however, a half-arsed failure. Precisely because the majority of Shipmates don't actually come here for a metaphorical/theological version of 2 knights putting on their jousting gear in order to become 'battle-hardened'.
quote:Thanks for this, IngoB and for the further explanation which follows this quote. I think I can now see where you are coming from.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
It makes me sad though as I have to conclude that for you there would no possibility of mutual fellowship with someone like me.
I'm not sure what you mean by "mutual fellowship", but unless that means something like "unconditional acceptance of every aspect of my life" to you, then I don't really see how this would be impossible for me.
quote:Not bad things. But certainly not healthy. You're the guy who studies the fechtbucher*, talks about how effective various blocks and blows are, practices alone with his zweihander*...
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is true that I don't have any non-Catholic support group for my spiritual life. But then I don't have any Catholic support group either. In a strange sort of way, SoF is my support group, really. I don't know what that says about me, probably all sort of bad things.
quote:That would be "Fechtbücher" and "Zweihänder", with an Umlaut and capitalised.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You're the guy who studies the fechtbucher*, talks about how effective various blocks and blows are, practices alone with his zweihander*...
quote:Let's move from the metaphors to reality. Where precisely do you see that "standing shoulder to shoulder" in everyday Christian practice today, and how is this "battle line" concretely "fighting" together, and whom or what are they actually "attacking"? Since you appear so certain that I'm missing out on something, you should be able to specify what.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But never stands shoulder to shoulder in a line with his comrades, facing the common foe. Things are different in battle, and for all the training you do, you don't seem to know how that goes.
quote:Do you believe then that Aquinas has withdrawn from this "spiritual battlefield" (which you need to explicate further) and is incommunicado with his "brothers in arms"?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No one stands alone against the Enemy. That might not bother you on these boards, but it should bother in Real Life. When the chips are down, Aquinas won't actually be able to pick you up and wipe away the tears - only fellow Christians will do that. Try not to piss them all off.
quote:I've got idea how your response actually relates to what I posted. I didn't have to 'dig deep', I was reminded of the Duel board, which you attempted to set up within the period of my memory, by your own description of how you view the Ship together with Desert Daughter's commentary. No clicking on ancient threads required.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Wow, you had to dig deep there for an angle. But I will let St Erin the Evil-Eyed rest in peace.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Suddenly, the rationale for that half-arsed failure of a Duel board that IngoB tried to create is becoming apparent. It was, however, a half-arsed failure. Precisely because the majority of Shipmates don't actually come here for a metaphorical/theological version of 2 knights putting on their jousting gear in order to become 'battle-hardened'.
If you are feeling depressed about the dysfunctional states of Hell, maybe you should start a therapy session in Styx?
quote:Quite rightly!
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:For Anglicans, pride comes after the fall.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've been strengthened in my Anglicanism. I couldn't be prouder.
I'll be using that one - thanks!
quote:Well, he doesn't write much these days....
Originally posted by IngoB:
Do you believe then that Aquinas has withdrawn from this "spiritual battlefield" ... and is incommunicado with his "brothers in arms"?
quote:Fellowship.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Since you appear so certain that I'm missing out on something, you should be able to specify what.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And that's aNOTHer reason not to ask him for a tour of Manhattan art galleries.
quote:You big meanie: asking people to explain what they blithely assert.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let's move from the metaphors to reality. Where precisely do you see that "standing shoulder to shoulder" in everyday Christian practice today, and how is this "battle line" concretely "fighting" together, and whom or what are they actually "attacking"? Since you appear so certain that I'm missing out on something, you should be able to specify what.
quote:Nice try, but I'm not letting you off the hook that easy. You made a lot of hay out of the military analogy, now bring it home to the barn by telling us just what Christians must do these days to have such military-analogous "fellowship" with each other.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fellowship.
quote:I happen to believe that Aquinas is alive in Christ, is doing his part in shaping this world, spiritually, and can be communicated with in prayer. As are all the saints.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Sorry to break it to you, but Aquinas is dead. You might find it easier hanging around a bunch of theology books, but that's not what Christian living is about. At all. Ever. Hanging about with real people is what puts your doxy into praxis.
quote:Well, don't let ME stop you.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You've got moron on your side IngoB. Best of British luck with that...
I'm glad your intention isn't to proselytize. My temptation to chuck the whole Christianity thing in the bin always seems to be strongest after reading your contributions.
quote:I'm fairly sure that wouldn't be the direction of your influence.
Originally posted by moron:
quote:Well, don't let ME stop you.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You've got moron on your side IngoB. Best of British luck with that...
I'm glad your intention isn't to proselytize. My temptation to chuck the whole Christianity thing in the bin always seems to be strongest after reading your contributions.
quote:I'm sure Google is your friend.
And on a tangent: what's Martyn Joseph up to these days?
quote:I'm not on any kind of hook (seriously, do you think people owe you answers? Dude...), but as I'm passing.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Nice try, but I'm not letting you off the hook that easy. You made a lot of hay out of the military analogy, now bring it home to the barn by telling us just what Christians must do these days to have such military-analogous "fellowship" with each other.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fellowship.
quote:I happen to believe that Aquinas is alive in Christ, is doing his part in shaping this world, spiritually, and can be communicated with in prayer. As are all the saints.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Sorry to break it to you, but Aquinas is dead. You might find it easier hanging around a bunch of theology books, but that's not what Christian living is about. At all. Ever. Hanging about with real people is what puts your doxy into praxis.
And just out of curiosity, do you think that I'm some kind of hermit, or something?
quote:If people assert some stuff about me, which is rather vague and open to all sorts of interpretations but clearly intended to be a critique or even an insult, then I do think that they have a duty to at least explain what they are trying to say. Obviously, your typical random asshole might shirk this duty, but since you are definitely engaging in charitable Christian correction here I'm sure that you can find the time to explain your words.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm not on any kind of hook (seriously, do you think people owe you answers? Dude...), but as I'm passing.
quote:But no priest I have ever known, and I've know quite a few and a couple fairly closely, has ever suggested that I am failing my brothers in arms in the battle line where I ought to be fighting shoulder to shoulder with them against the common enemy. You have. So this Christian fellowship that you are proposing seems rather interesting, and I would like to hear more about it. From you.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm absolutely certain you understand what I mean by fellowship (and yes, I think you prefer to interact with dead ideas than you do with messy, complicated, contradictory, living people). If you genuinely don't, ask your priest.
quote:True, but if all anyone ever sees of you is posts that give the distinct impression that you regard your faith primarily as an intellectual exercise and these boards an arena where you can refine your debating technique, you can't really be surprised if people respond to you accordingly.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And the other parts of Catholicism that I really appreciate are personal. And I really am a rather private person. In case of doubt, I think my personal stuff is none of your business.
quote:I tend to be rather surprised when they do. It is quite rare.
Originally posted by Ariel:
True, but if all anyone ever sees of you is posts that give the distinct impression that you regard your faith primarily as an intellectual exercise and these boards an arena where you can refine your debating technique, you can't really be surprised if people respond to you accordingly.
quote:It's OK, I think I've made my point sufficiently.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Since you come over as a bit of a dick, I've no particular emotional investment in taking this any further. Other shipmates, sure. You, no.
quote:Sure you can. Because one can be an intellectual and NOT an asshole. There are some. Dafyd is one, for example, as is Lamb Chopped.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Perhaps but we have no shortage of people claiming to be in search of one. They'll condemn fundamentalists for being ignorant and then condemn intellectuals like IngoB for lacking a heart. You can't have it both ways.
quote:O! O! the irony.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I consider SoF to be basically faith-destroying, an acid bath of negativity,
quote:Yeah, we have our moments, but I always respect your knowledge and wisdom.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Why, thank you, Mousethief! Quite the nicest compliment I've had in a long, long time.
quote:You are surprised that people think "you regard your faith primarily as an intellectual exercise and these boards an arena where you can refine your debating technique"? Really? And such a response to you is "rare"? Really?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I tend to be rather surprised when they do. It is quite rare.
Originally posted by Ariel:
True, but if all anyone ever sees of you is posts that give the distinct impression that you regard your faith primarily as an intellectual exercise and these boards an arena where you can refine your debating technique, you can't really be surprised if people respond to you accordingly.
Are you sure you're not on a different board to the one I'm reading?quote:Another, IMSVHO, is your good lady wife, Josephine. It might make a pleasant Heaven thread to see how many other names we could add.
Because one can be an intellectual and NOT an asshole. There are some. Dafyd is one, for example, as is Lamb Chopped.
quote:ISTM, poor Pagan that I am, that question is the crux of your dilemma right there. The witch who trained me showed me the obvious thing that when you have such soul-wracking questions, the best thing to do is ask the spirit in question directly and see what response you get. Not so much WWJD, but WWYD, J? His answer might surprise you. He did genuinely seem to enjoy hanging with whores and tax collectors. He seems to enjoy people. He seems to delight in all of us. In particular, he delights in you. Though I suspect all Scholasticism new and old makes him LOL in a "what will they come up with next?" kind of way.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you actually believed in heaven and hell, mortal sin, all that stuff, what would you have to do if you wanted to be your brother's keeper?
quote:Thankyou Mertseger.
Not so much WWJD, but WWYD, J?
quote:Damn right! That's why it actually says "We don't have member ratings because we hate them" somewhere or other.
Originally posted by Ariston:
Please don't. We generally don't like to play games of "let's rank members!" or "look at who's my buddy!" here. It didn't end well in middle school, it doesn't end well here.
quote:Comments like this are why you rate in my Top Ten.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Damn right! That's why it actually says "We don't have member ratings because we hate them" somewhere or other.
Originally posted by Ariston:
Please don't. We generally don't like to play games of "let's rank members!" or "look at who's my buddy!" here. It didn't end well in middle school, it doesn't end well here.
quote:Augh! I was thinking of starting a thread on those two assholes. Religion brings out the worst in humanity, or something.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Are these two IngoB wearing a Kamilavka, or is it the other way around? No point having any sort of discussion with either.
quote:I found that link remarkably funny. Not for the views expressed, which are odious whomever they come from, but for the squeaking about how unacceptable those views are when aimed towards the RCC. It's a classic of the "they can dish it out, but they can't take it" genre.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Are these two IngoB wearing a Kamilavka, or is it the other way around?
quote:Oddly the first thought I got while reading the link was (is such hope a sin?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I found that link remarkably funny. Not for the views expressed, which are odious whomever they come from, but for the squeaking about how unacceptable those views are when aimed towards the RCC. It's a classic of the "they can dish it out, but they can't take it" genre.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Are these two IngoB wearing a Kamilavka, or is it the other way around?
That's got nothing to do with IngoB, of course. I can't picture him doing any such squeaking in response to a challenge like that. In fact I have a suspicion that he'd enjoy tackling such a gloves-off approach more than the usual "why can't we all just get along" stuff he gets here on a regular basis.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
) wanting to see all of those people brawling, like Saddam wanted W to do.quote:I do have a well organised memory. It keeps track of things I consider relevant, and it forgets the rest. If you are waiting for the moment where all this turns into hugs and kisses and how are the kids, then you will wait in vain I'm afraid. I just don't want to take it there.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But being able to remember many details that people have shared isn't the same as caring (and showing you care) about those details. Some people simply have excellent memories!
quote:I'll admit that your craving for intellectual affirmation and your high emotional investment into doctrine and denomination is tempting. And occasionally I give in to temptation and poke you a bit. But frankly, I would feel a lot worse about that if the resulting grudge-bearing wasn't quite so obvious and overblown. In German I would say "du spielst die beleidigte Leberwurst" (literally: "you are acting the part of the insulted liver sausage"), but I can't find a juicy English equivalent ("you are a sorehead" is too direct).
Originally posted by Zach82:
I have little doubt that he actually believes this narrative, but I think he's pretty actively malicious far more often than he admits, and more than this thread would imply.
quote:No, I'm surprised on the rare occasion when they respond accordingly, rather than taking this as some kind of personal insult.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
You are surprised that people think "you regard your faith primarily as an intellectual exercise and these boards an arena where you can refine your debating technique"? Really? And such a response to you is "rare"? Really?
quote:Did your witch also teach you how to change topics in mid argument, covering up the old bait and switch in emotional appeal? Because that's what you just did there... The question "WWYD, J?" is explicitly answered by the (Son of) Man Himself concerning the soul-wracking question of heaven and hell, in the scriptures I believe in. How Jesus interacted with whores and tax collectors is a different topic again. One where incidentally you seem to have done quite a bit of selective reading, missing out on Jesus saying things like "Go and sin no more," or "Collect no more than is appointed to you."
Originally posted by Mertseger:
The witch who trained me showed me the obvious thing that when you have such soul-wracking questions, the best thing to do is ask the spirit in question directly and see what response you get. Not so much WWJD, but WWYD, J? His answer might surprise you. He did genuinely seem to enjoy hanging with whores and tax collectors. He seems to enjoy people. He seems to delight in all of us. In particular, he delights in you.
quote:Well, indeed, and my sincere thanks to those who have written in support.
Originally posted by Mertseger:
I know that this dog-pile is wearing on you, but, having no stakes in this game, I have to say I see a fuck-ton of love in this thread directed towards you compared to similar past incidents with others.
quote:Well, no. I have a keen sense of decorum and occasion. If say the EcuPat joined SoF, and started to propose false doctrine here, then I would have a go at him exactly as with any other Shipmate. But if I were to write to the EcuPat, then I would pay my full respect to his position and if I considered it appropriate to use this occasion to put into question Orthodox doctrine (in itself highly unlikely!), then I would phrase this as politely and accommodatingly as I could. Likewise, if I was invited to a closed workshop among theologians and bishops to look at differences and commonalities of RC and Orthodox teachings, then I would speak candidly and clearly to this professional assembly. However, if then an official statement for the press was prepared, I would seek to smooth the edges and even to gloss over some of the confrontations that occurred. If you stand up in public, and in particular if you assume the mantle of authority, then serious responsibility attaches to your words. This cannot be taken lightly. I'm not a religious "professional", but I am a professional in my field, and I know how to spot the time and the season for clear words and diplomacy, respectively. Furthermore, these sorts of full frontal attacks in public rarely mean the person / institution being attacked anyhow. If it was my professional duty to deal with the Orthodox from the RC side, I would now look closely at whom these bishops are really talking to on the Orthodox side, what fault lines in the Orthodox communion this reveals and how one could work this internal conflict towards RC goals.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's got nothing to do with IngoB, of course. I can't picture him doing any such squeaking in response to a challenge like that. In fact I have a suspicion that he'd enjoy tackling such a gloves-off approach more than the usual "why can't we all just get along" stuff he gets here on a regular basis.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Have fun.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Does anyone have a link to it?
quote:Well, no one ever said IngoB wasn't informative.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm using Duolingo to revive my high school German. I'm now rather gutted that "Du spielst die beleidigte Leberwurst" hasn't appeared in the lessons yet.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Have fun.
quote:There is no shortage of sig material.
The spiritual shallowness, which you inspire in your simple-minded followers, is unbelievable.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:My German isn't much good, but that's NSFW isn't it?
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm using Duolingo to revive my high school German. I'm now rather gutted that "Du spielst die beleidigte Leberwurst" hasn't appeared in the lessons yet.
quote:Sigh. No, she taught me to respect the intelligence of others by presenting bread crumbs, and allowing bright people (like you!) to reach conclusions on their own since doing so is spiritually more effective. Here's another: what did Jesus do immediately before (and after!) saying those two things? No one here is arguing that Jesus did not teach or transmit doctrine. I'm certainly not arguing that you do not know your understand the doctrine of your faith. What then could I possibly be suggesting?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Did your witch also teach you how to change topics in mid argument, covering up the old bait and switch in emotional appeal? Because that's what you just did there... The question "WWYD, J?" is explicitly answered by the (Son of) Man Himself concerning the soul-wracking question of heaven and hell, in the scriptures I believe in. How Jesus interacted with whores and tax collectors is a different topic again. One where incidentally you seem to have done quite a bit of selective reading, missing out on Jesus saying things like "Go and sin no more," or "Collect no more than is appointed to you."
quote:Ingo already translated it, dear.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:My German isn't much good, but that's NSFW isn't it?
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm using Duolingo to revive my high school German. I'm now rather gutted that "Du spielst die beleidigte Leberwurst" hasn't appeared in the lessons yet.
quote:And what you all do on your own time with insulted liverwursts is your own business, one I'll be having no part in.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Ingo already translated it, dear.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:My German isn't much good, but that's NSFW isn't it?
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm using Duolingo to revive my high school German. I'm now rather gutted that "Du spielst die beleidigte Leberwurst" hasn't appeared in the lessons yet.
quote:So: John Lear is a piker?
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The letter seems to cover everything.
quote:Sicher doch. (Of course.)
Originally posted by Zach82:
And that's "Sie spielen" to the likes of you, danke.
(It's also basically non-translatable, since it uses a play on words that cannot be mapped to English.)quote:Wow, this is even better than I thought it would be. But with what authority do these Orthodox bishops write here? What does the Vatican Insider mean by "It is quite surprising therefore, that their comments are tolerated by the Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church?" Simply that this has not been condemned (yet)?
Originally posted by mdijon:
Have fun.
quote:Hmm... You are on a pilgrimage to the Holy Caesar Salad?
Originally posted by Mertseger:
No, she taught me to respect the intelligence of others by presenting bread crumbs, and allowing bright people (like you!) to reach conclusions on their own since doing so is spiritually more effective.
quote:Now you're getting it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Hmm... You are on a pilgrimage to the Holy Caesar Salad?
Originally posted by Mertseger:
No, she taught me to respect the intelligence of others by presenting bread crumbs, and allowing bright people (like you!) to reach conclusions on their own since doing so is spiritually more effective.
quote:It certainly says a lot about you that you call me a wanker for declining to be on familiar terms with you, considering the way you treat me and everyone on these boards.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Sicher doch. (Of course.)
Originally posted by Zach82:
[qb]And that's "Sie spielen" to the likes of you, danke.
quote:Those passages are actually really important. The conjugation and the declension are the important parts. Das Rot takes an ~es because it's das Pferd. Das Kind becomes dem Kind in the dative tense. If you threw in another adjective, it would be dem jugen Kind.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The kind of sentence Duolingo throws at me at the moment: "A red horse plays and reads with the child."
Well, the fact that I successfully translated this to "Ein rotes Pferd spielt und liest mit dem Kind" is going to be very handy at some point, I'm sure.
quote:Gott im Himmel!* You really pray to dead guys? I don't mean to mock this, but if you pray to more than one at a time, do they have a conference about what you prayed? And here I thought the Pantheon was now a Christian church and we were working with a trinity, not a congregation, and that Christ was our propitiation.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I happen to believe that Aquinas is alive in Christ, is doing his part in shaping this world, spiritually, and can be communicated with in prayer. As are all the saints.
quote:Really. Though in translation. Call it a combination of Lenten penance and background reading for Zapaterietxe, Hunter of the Possessed.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
As far as completely bizarre conversations that have taken place in the course of a Hell call, this has got to be up in the top five.
Fucking HEGEL??? REALLY? REALLY?
quote:Lots of people pray to "dead guys". Especially RCs and Orthodox. And "praying" in this case doesn't mean "worshipping". It means asking the saints, who are "alive in Christ" and live with God, to pray for them- to the Godhead. If you believe that all the dead are asleep until the general Judgment that will be meaningless to you, but hey, different strokes.
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:Gott im Himmel!* You really pray to dead guys? I don't mean to mock this, but if you pray to more than one at a time, do they have a conference about what you prayed? And here I thought the Pantheon was now a Christian church and we were working with a trinity, not a congregation, and that Christ was our propitiation.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I happen to believe that Aquinas is alive in Christ, is doing his part in shaping this world, spiritually, and can be communicated with in prayer. As are all the saints.
*equates to "Good heavens!" or something along that line.
quote:Germans read Hegel in English too, I hear.
Originally posted by Ariston:
quote:Really. Though in translation. Call it a combination of Lenten penance and background reading for Zapaterietxe, Hunter of the Possessed.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
As far as completely bizarre conversations that have taken place in the course of a Hell call, this has got to be up in the top five.
Fucking HEGEL??? REALLY? REALLY?
quote:Oh, look, chaps. Someone just fell off the turnip truck.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Gott im Himmel!* You really pray to dead guys?
quote:You're a fucking liar, as you immediately go on to mock it.
I don't mean to mock this,
quote:
but if you pray to more than one at a time, do they have a conference about what you prayed?
quote:Your ignorance is exceeded only by you arrogance at making comments about things you're mindbogglingly ignorant about.
And here I thought the Pantheon was now a Christian church and we were working with a trinity, not a congregation, and that Christ was our propitiation.
quote:No, it means "God in heaven" and you shouldn't say things if you don't know what they mean.
*equates to "Good heavens!" or something along that line.
quote:I'm okay with drinking to dead guys, just not talking to them, unless there's something burning and I'm also tasting colours. I ain't been called Bingo for about 45 years but you can have chocolate on me any time: you carry an axe and I ain't arguing with that sort of Viking persuader.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It's called "the communion of saints," dink, and a lot of us have hope in it. And you don't pray TO them, you ask them for their prayers. Just like you would your grandma.
Bingo, you officially owe me chocolate for that one.
(crosspost-- while Ariston is indeed a dink, that comment was directed at no prophet.)
quote:It's almost as if you read The Great Divorce or something.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I sometimes get the idea that it's the people in heaven who are actually alive, and we are the dead ones, waiting for our Lord to tread his winepress to save us.
quote:Those passages are actually really important. The conjugation and the declension are the important parts. Das Rot takes an ~es because it's das Pferd. Das Kind becomes dem Kind in the dative tense. If you threw in another adjective, it would be dem jugen Kind.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:It's not great literature, but it's a quick read and lays out some cogent ideas about the afterlife in a very readable narrative. And some of the imagery is top-notch. Dated, as are most of his works. But not unoverlookably so.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I actually haven't.
quote:Hey, don't blame Zach. German doesn't have an ablative case. It atrophied long before the allemani tribes got to Brandenburg.
Originally posted by Gee D:
But as for the rest of your post. It's appalling. No reference to the poor ablative at all. There it is, stuck at the end of most declensions I've heard. all by its own, no friend to be with and all flows from it. Sheer casist behaviour if you ask em, and I hope that others will join me in expressing outrage at it.
quote:You don't get irony much Ratboy do you. Of course I'm mocking it. Beyond you apparently. Cerebral boy prays to dead guys whose jerseys are hanging from the ceiling. Get it now?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Oh, look, chaps. Someone just fell off the turnip truck.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Gott im Himmel!* You really pray to dead guys?
quote:You're a fucking liar, as you immediately go on to mock it.
I don't mean to mock this,
quote:
but if you pray to more than one at a time, do they have a conference about what you prayed?quote:Your ignorance is exceeded only by you arrogance at making comments about things you're mindbogglingly ignorant about.
And here I thought the Pantheon was now a Christian church and we were working with a trinity, not a congregation, and that Christ was our propitiation.
quote:No, it means "God in heaven" and you shouldn't say things if you don't know what they mean.
*equates to "Good heavens!" or something along that line.
quote:This you conclude from one post? You're as stupid as you're ignorant.
Originally posted by no prophet:
You don't get irony much Ratboy do you.
quote:.. the fuck?
Originally posted by no prophet:
I ain't been called Bingo for about 45 years but you can have chocolate on me any time: you carry an axe and I ain't arguing with that sort of Viking persuader.
quote:Nah not hateful, just too funny, too easy, and too much fun in a hilarious thread.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Uh... it's easy to make people think you're a hateful simpleton?
quote:Me.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Anyone laughing 'sides dink? Anyone? Anyone?
quote:Oh dear God. The rabbit has a wild hare.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Me, actually. I laughed the entire time I typed that last post. I am really grateful to NP for giving me the opportunity to use that "dullness is catching" line, because that was some funny shit.
Also the semaphore line. Funny, funny shit.
quote:Um, yeah. That's how I translated the sentence correctly, you berk.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Mebbe you already knew that.
quote:Oh good.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'll be quiet now.
quote:We are simply the dead on holiday/vaccation ?
Originally posted by Zach82:
I sometimes get the idea that it's the people in heaven who are actually alive, and we are the dead ones, waiting for our Lord to tread his winepress to save us.
quote:Leprosy o'ertake! Thou loathed issue of thy father's loins, thou wert best set thy lower part where thy nose stands. Thou art so leaky that we must leave thee to thy sinking. I do frown on thee with all my heart; and if mine eyes can wound, now let them kill thee.
Originally posted by Zach82:
It certainly says a lot about you that you call me a wanker for declining to be on familiar terms with you, considering the way you treat me and everyone on these boards.
quote:The what now?! "Arschloch" (note the 'c') indeed means "asshole", but "Dork" isn't German for "prick", try "Schwanz" or "Pimmel".
Originally posted by no prophet:
Arshlochdork**
**literally and what it actually means: asshole prick.
quote:Sorry, when you said you didn't know what the usefulness of the sentence was, I thought you really didn't know.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Um, yeah. That's how I translated the sentence correctly, you berk.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Mebbe you already knew that.
quote:Oh good.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'll be quiet now.
quote:Are you arguing with me so badly that you're proving my point, or do you agree with my initial assertion that you're an overbearing asshole, not an intellectual that is only cares about ideas, and you felt it was so obvious that I deserve derision for point it out?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Leprosy o'ertake! Thou loathed issue of thy father's loins, thou wert best set thy lower part where thy nose stands. Thou art so leaky that we must leave thee to thy sinking. I do frown on thee with all my heart; and if mine eyes can wound, now let them kill thee.
Originally posted by Zach82:
It certainly says a lot about you that you call me a wanker for declining to be on familiar terms with you, considering the way you treat me and everyone on these boards.
quote:I will correct my cousins who live in Nordrhein-Westfalen because you're cerebral and right.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:The what now?! "Arschloch" (note the 'c') indeed means "asshole", but "Dork" isn't German for "prick", try "Schwanz" or "Pimmel".
Originally posted by no prophet:
Arshlochdork**
**literally and what it actually means: asshole prick.
To attain your intended meaning, I would suggest "Du Arschgesicht und Schwanznase!" (You ass-face and dick-nose!) Asshole-prick is then the anatomo-logical conclusion...
quote:Please tell me you can comprehend the difference between a grammatically correct sentence, one of a myriad that could be used to teach grammatical points, and a sentence there is any likelihood of me needing to utter in real life?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Sorry, when you said you didn't know what the usefulness of the sentence was, I thought you really didn't know.
quote:I dunno. I seem to be talking to a horse's ass that reads OK.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Please tell me you can comprehend the difference between a grammatically correct sentence, one of a myriad that could be used to teach grammatical points, and a sentence there is any likelihood of me needing to utter in real life?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Sorry, when you said you didn't know what the usefulness of the sentence was, I thought you really didn't know.
Know a lot of horses that read, do you?
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:I dunno. I seem to be talking to a horse's ass that reads OK.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Please tell me you can comprehend the difference between a grammatically correct sentence, one of a myriad that could be used to teach grammatical points, and a sentence there is any likelihood of me needing to utter in real life?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Sorry, when you said you didn't know what the usefulness of the sentence was, I thought you really didn't know.
Know a lot of horses that read, do you?
Yeah, that's right Zach, I'm the horse's ass for thinking that a useful grammar lesson and a useful sentence aren't the same thing.quote:Sorry Zach, orfeo can't be bothered to reply.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Orfeo, honestly. You asked what phrases like that were useful for, and I told you because I like studying German. I am sincerely sorry for even bothering.
Thank you for reminding me why I increasingly can't muster the interest to post on the ship lately. Trust me, I can already deduce how much my decreased posting pleases you.
quote:Props. I'm so nicking that.
Originally posted by no prophet:
I've never actually been a DINK (dual income no kids) because we had them when I was a poor student. I am GLAM (Greying, Leisured, Affluent, Married), and picture the future as a GOFER (Genial Old Fart Enjoying Retirement) SKIing (Spending the Kids' Inheritance).
quote:German has a nicely descriptive word for your habitual grudge-bearing: "nachtragend sein" (literally: to be after-carrying). Seriously, just let it go.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Are you arguing with me so badly that you're proving my point, or do you agree with my initial assertion that you're an overbearing asshole, not an intellectual that is only cares about ideas, and you felt it was so obvious that I deserve derision for point it out?
quote:For someone so logical and rational, you sure commit a lot of fallacies. This one is Bulverism. You are also very fond of the tu quoque.
Originally posted by IngoB:
German has a nicely descriptive word for your habitual grudge-bearing: "nachtragend sein" (literally: to be after-carrying). Seriously, just let it go.
quote:I was wondering what was going on with the thou's IngoB was using, given what had come before.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I actually made a language mistake
quote:I don't feel any sort of grudge against IngoB. I honestly don't have the energy to maintain grudges. I was merely stating a fact about his behavior here.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:For someone so logical and rational, you sure commit a lot of fallacies. This one is Bulverism. You are also very fond of the tu quoque.
Originally posted by IngoB:
German has a nicely descriptive word for your habitual grudge-bearing: "nachtragend sein" (literally: to be after-carrying). Seriously, just let it go.
And it still holds (as you know very well) that using "du" with someone you're not on familiar terms with is rude, as Zach pointed out, which pointing-out you blew off. I'm not sure if that's a fallacy, or simple jerkishness. Either seems equally likely.
In short, this is one of those rare times (watch for flying pigs) I agree with Zach: you're an overbearing asshole.
(Cue jabbering masses defending IngoB because he's so darned smart and knowledgeable.)
______
*you too
quote:Should I care about the hissy fits of people who are set off by someone talking about German conjugation?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Sorry Zach, orfeo can't be bothered to reply.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Orfeo, honestly. You asked what phrases like that were useful for, and I told you because I like studying German. I am sincerely sorry for even bothering.
Thank you for reminding me why I increasingly can't muster the interest to post on the ship lately. Trust me, I can already deduce how much my decreased posting pleases you.
quote:*I* know that. And *you* know that.....
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't feel any sort of grudge against IngoB. I honestly don't have the energy to maintain grudges. I was merely stating a fact about his behavior here.
quote:Yeah. To tell the truth, I don't usually take what he says personally anymore. I am not sure he can help himself.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:*I* know that. And *you* know that.....
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't feel any sort of grudge against IngoB. I honestly don't have the energy to maintain grudges. I was merely stating a fact about his behavior here.
quote:You should probably care about your inability to get a clue.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Should I care about the hissy fits of people who are set off by someone talking about German conjugation?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Sorry Zach, orfeo can't be bothered to reply.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Orfeo, honestly. You asked what phrases like that were useful for, and I told you because I like studying German. I am sincerely sorry for even bothering.
Thank you for reminding me why I increasingly can't muster the interest to post on the ship lately. Trust me, I can already deduce how much my decreased posting pleases you.
quote:Oh, I admit to that freely. I have no idea why trying to talk about conjugation with you should upset you so much. I wasn't condescending or mean about it at all. It was nothing more than an attempt at a chat about German. But I get loud and clear that you aren't about to have one.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:You should probably care about your inability to get a clue.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Should I care about the hissy fits of people who are set off by someone talking about German conjugation?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Sorry Zach, orfeo can't be bothered to reply.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Orfeo, honestly. You asked what phrases like that were useful for, and I told you because I like studying German. I am sincerely sorry for even bothering.
Thank you for reminding me why I increasingly can't muster the interest to post on the ship lately. Trust me, I can already deduce how much my decreased posting pleases you.
quote:I was mildly rude in Hell. Woe unto me, woe.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And it still holds (as you know very well) that using "du" with someone you're not on familiar terms with is rude, as Zach pointed out, which pointing-out you blew off.
quote:Um... by noticing that I've already done what you were about to tell me to do?
Originally posted by Zach82:
How should I have known what level of German you've accomplished?
quote:I don't see how the fact that you answered the question successfully changes the point of the exercise. I never questioned the fact that you got it right.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Um... by noticing that I've already done what you were about to tell me to do?
Originally posted by Zach82:
How should I have known what level of German you've accomplished?
quote:Aaaaaaand amount of interest IngoB shows in the actual human beings around him and their feelings remains at 0.00. Ability to take criticism: 0.00. Observable self-introspection: 0.00. Can't imagine why everybody doesn't love him.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I was mildly rude in Hell. Woe unto me, woe.
quote:*pauses for a deep sigh*
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:I don't see how the fact that you answered the question successfully changes the point of the exercise. I never questioned the fact that you got it right.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Um... by noticing that I've already done what you were about to tell me to do?
Originally posted by Zach82:
How should I have known what level of German you've accomplished?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
All right you two, get a room for your conjugational visitation.
I'd quotes file that if it wasn't so damn difficult to set out the context.
quote:You asked what the point of the sentence was and I told you. That's all I've done. Carry on being offended about it all you like. I give up.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:*pauses for a deep sigh*
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:I don't see how the fact that you answered the question successfully changes the point of the exercise. I never questioned the fact that you got it right.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Um... by noticing that I've already done what you were about to tell me to do?
Originally posted by Zach82:
How should I have known what level of German you've accomplished?
Zach, it was you who posted "Mebbe you already knew that. I'll be quiet now." It was your own moment of recognition that you'd got the wrong end of the stick.
All I did was confirm that moment of recognition. So why are you coming back AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN to find other ways to say how deeply hurt you are that I've said, in Hell, that you missed the point?
"I'll be quiet now" turns out to have been a complete misstatement of reality, hasn't it?
I didn't want a discussion of conjugation in the first place. Your reply seems to have twigged halfway through that I didn't want a discussion of conjugation. So why the blazes would you come back half a dozen times to say, in as many different ways as you possibly can, how terribly hurt you are and what a big meanie I am for not wanting a discussion about conjugation?
quote:I'll keep that in mind in case if I ever attempt talking in German to you outside of Hell.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I just have no desire to be on familiar terms with you.
quote:So tell me, do you really believe that I will see the errors of my ways this time? One hundred and third time's lucky? Or is this rather an attempt to reduce the number of people that do "love" me, if you somehow can? But that would be rather sad and little of you. Is this perhaps the part where you feel so much better because you have vented your spleen? Somehow you don't sound as if you are getting happier, but what do I know... Anyway, whatever you are getting out of it, rest assured that while I'm around this will remain a remarkably repeatable experience. I guess it is comforting to know that some things will just never change.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Aaaaaaand amount of interest IngoB shows in the actual human beings around him and their feelings remains at 0.00. Ability to take criticism: 0.00. Observable self-introspection: 0.00. Can't imagine why everybody doesn't love him.
quote:I was going to say that this is a bad translation. But since the "däucht" (unusual old German) made it unlikely that you came up with it yourself, I decided to check. Turns out that "to protest" indeed used to mean something like "versprechen" or "geloben". Namely, it used to mean "to vow" or "to declare solemnly", in an affirming sense.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I mighta gone with "Mich däucht, der Physiker verspricht zu viel."* (Hamlet, act 3, scene 2)
"The physicist protests too much, methinks"
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:Er, yeah, well, that's Hell, isn't it?
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I think it's naive to expect to have a normal discussion about anything, including but not limited to grammar, in Hell without getting your head torn off for things to which you might have expected a more measured response in normal discourse.
quote:Update 7.1.01: Meant
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I was going to say that this is a bad translation. But since the "däucht" (unusual old German) made it unlikely that you came up with it yourself, I decided to check. Turns out that "to protest" indeed used to mean something like "versprechen" or "geloben". Namely, it used to mean "to vow" or "to declare solemnly", in an affirming sense.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I mighta gone with "Mich däucht, der Physiker verspricht zu viel."* (Hamlet, act 3, scene 2)
"The physicist protests too much, methinks"
I always understood "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" as meaning that one is objecting too much and unduly. Turns out it actually means something like "unintentionally suggesting that something is false by over-affirming it".
Very cool, I'm seriously upgrading my English thanks to this hell call...
quote:I meant my comment particularly to Zach82, who might not have felt so unpleasantly outraged if he had kept this in mind.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Er, yeah, well, that's Hell, isn't it?
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I think it's naive to expect to have a normal discussion about anything, including but not limited to grammar, in Hell without getting your head torn off for things to which you might have expected a more measured response in normal discourse.
quote:Not only do you admit you are you a fucking asshole, but you're proud of it? OK. So when you said you weren't being nasty on purpose, you were just arguing in order to strengthen your own thoughts, you were lying through your teeth. I kinda figured that. How anybody can defend you is beyond me.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I guess it is comforting to know that some things will just never change.
quote:No - you said yourself that arguing here strengthens your faith.
Originally posted by IngoB:
So tell me, do you really believe that I will see the errors of my ways this time? One hundred and third time's lucky?
quote:And I think you're behaving like a mouse who walked in front of a cat and started a protest movement after it dabbed half-heartedly at you with a paw because it was bored witless.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am honestly not outraged at anything here. I was just slacking off as I wrote something else. I think IngoB and orfeo are ridiculous, but that's about it.
quote:Pardon me, but you are the one putting on a show of being a hurt soul wounded by my vicious conjugation comment. I was just trying to explain that I didn't mean any offense and expressing my continued bafflement at how you could possibly take offense at that sort of thing.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:And I think you're behaving like a mouse who walked in front of a cat and started a protest movement after it dabbed half-heartedly at you with a paw because it was bored witless.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am honestly not outraged at anything here. I was just slacking off as I wrote something else. I think IngoB and orfeo are ridiculous, but that's about it.
Haven't you got anything ELSE to do this weekend besides playing the hurt victim of big meanies? I mean, I signed up to be here daily and I have no life, but I'd be vaguely interested in your excuse.
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Gotta agree with the Indecipherable One™, however - Ingo really is in top form in hell. I would LOVE to have him on my side at school board budget hearings. "Hah! Think you can bore ME into a coma, do you? Wait to you get a load of my little buddy here!"
quote:You're a cunt. Is that beyond you too?
Originally posted by mousethief:
How anybody can defend you is beyond me.
quote:Because you're a good Catholic and every now and then you say something that provides lasting help. Other times though, you say things that make me feel hopeless, as if, if I can't somehow do better than I am doing, it'd actually go easier with me in the end if I just gave up.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Why would anyone want to play along with me then? I have no idea. You tell me what's in it for you...
quote:Darling, I dish it because you can take it. I have complete faith in your ability to disregard anyone else's reality that doesn't mesh with your own. Your skill in that regard is staggering.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Welcome back, Comet. We needed someone like you to tell us we're all idiots.
quote:Dear Erroneous Monk, IngoB's path is his own path, and may not be the path for you, nor for many other people. IngoB seems to be on a path where he prides himself on being a soldier in perpetual battle, and where he thinks the more he works out the apparently perfect logical answers to everything, the stronger his faith will be and the better he'll be in with God. That's a very arid path. If IngoB's is a path that often gives you pain when reading IngoB's posts, then I would say it's not worth the occasional gems in those posts, and it's better to ignore his posts.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
So I keep turning up here, and reading, and hoping that one day I'll get it, whatever it is. Like you get it.
quote:Go play somewhere else, misogynist jackass.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Cunt.
quote:On this ship, it's a requirement for maintenance of sanity.
Originally posted by comet:
I have complete faith in your ability to disregard anyone else's reality that doesn't mesh with your own. Your skill in that regard is staggering.
quote:mousethief, I'm simply doing my thing. If you don't like it, you can jump into a lake. That's all. There's no lying, no malice, no nothing.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not only do you admit you are you a fucking asshole, but you're proud of it? OK. So when you said you weren't being nasty on purpose, you were just arguing in order to strengthen your own thoughts, you were lying through your teeth. I kinda figured that. How anybody can defend you is beyond me.
quote:Faith is a gamble with high stakes.
Originally posted by Boogie:
As I said earlier, faith doesn't need to be strong - mustard seeds and all that. In fact, I'd go so far as it's better if it's held lightly. Extremists can be very dangerous.
quote:And I for one neither have a problem with that, nor do I regularly call people to hell for lack of intellectual engagement with theological and metaphysical questions. Yet somehow, I apparently have to justify myself for not coming here to have your kind of fun. Why?
Originally posted by Boogie:
I also enjoy the Ship but I come here for a chat about faith with interesting people. It's a great place for that. It's also a great place just to chat and have fun in hard times (see All Saints, Heaven, the Circus ...)
quote:Parable of the talents (Mt 25:14-30): There's no point at all to envying other people concerning what they have been given or not. The guy who had five talents received the same praise from the master as the one who received two, because they both worked what they had equally. It's not what you get, but what you do with it. The servant who received one talent would have received the same praise, if he had only earned a single talent. And he could have avoided condemnation, if he had at least passed his talent on to the "professionals" without ever doing anything else (cue cultural Catholics who actually stick to their Catholic culture...). There is just one advantage to receiving more talents: because of the whole charity thing, in a strange way the failures of others becomes an opportunity for those who are filled with grace. If we all worked our graces as we should, there would be no space for heroic sanctity, because all would be good by our works. But since we fail, the (extraordinary) saints can rise. No grace of God is wasted, just reinvested into those who will bring them to good use. For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. Anyway, whether I have been given a talent more or less than you, as far as God is concerned it will result only in more or less of a duty to do something with them. And we can marvel at the people with ten talents together, for that certainly is not me. I'm just proud that I managed to put a talent into a "bank account" where it will hopefully make some interest. That's the extent of my claim for fame...
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
So I keep turning up here, and reading, and hoping that one day I'll get it, whatever it is. Like you get it.
quote:Only if your heart is in the wrong place.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Faith is a gamble with high stakes.
Originally posted by Boogie:
As I said earlier, faith doesn't need to be strong - mustard seeds and all that. In fact, I'd go so far as it's better if it's held lightly. Extremists can be very dangerous.
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:Darling, I dish it because you can take it. I have complete faith in your ability to disregard anyone else's reality that doesn't mesh with your own. Your skill in that regard is staggering.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Welcome back, Comet. We needed someone like you to tell us we're all idiots.
quote:I didn't ask you to justify yourself at all. I was simply commenting that there is more to the Ship, far more than debate/discussion. All Saints, Heaven and the Circus are good places to get a more rounded view of people - and to get to know them better.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Yet somehow, I apparently have to justify myself for not coming here to have your kind of fun. Why?
quote:Translation: I, IngoB, have been given a lot, and you, Erroneous Monk, have not. And I, IngoB, am at least in the role of the 5-talent servant, using my talents correctly, while you, Erroneous Monk, are in the role of the 1-talent servant, and in danger of doing things all wrong.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Parable of the talents (Mt 25:14-30):
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
So I keep turning up here, and reading, and hoping that one day I'll get it, whatever it is. Like you get it.
quote:Tell us again what the talent is which you have in a "bank account" earning some interest for you?
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm just proud that I managed to put a talent into a "bank account" where it will hopefully make some interest. That's the extent of my claim for fame...
quote:I don't think I even need to comment.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm just proud [...]
quote:I find I do want to comment after all:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:I don't think I even need to comment.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm just proud [...]
quote:I was disagreeing with Boogie concerning the proper intensity of faith: strong faith can go horribly wrong, but it is worth the risk. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you say there, though frankly at the word "journey" I always start to retch a little...
Originally posted by Evensong:
Only if your heart is in the wrong place. Faith is a journey with God and others.
quote:That is what you got out of what I wrote? How amusing, in a tragicomic way. It's almost as if you were desperately trying to find fault.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Translation: I, IngoB, have been given a lot, and you, Erroneous Monk, have not. And I, IngoB, am at least in the role of the 5-talent servant, using my talents correctly, while you, Erroneous Monk, are in the role of the 1-talent servant, and in danger of doing things all wrong.
quote:"Tell us again" is precisely correct, because I did in fact identify what I was interpreting this as. Namely as following at least that which the Church demands of its adherents, doing what a "cultural Catholic" should be doing to deserve the name. So I drag my body to Sunday mass, whether I feel inspired to do so or not. I (mildly) fast for Lent, whether I feel that helps my spiritual life or not. I try to follow the teachings of the Church on sexuality whether that aligns with my sexual wants and needs or not. I send my son to Sunday school to prepare for his first Holy Communion, even though that runs on Saturdays and has all the substance of fairy floss. I go to confession when I get my nerve up to repenting once more my boringly repetitive sins. Simple stuff, barely even registering on the charity scale. Just some minimal obedience to the Church, so that I can hide under her skirt. That's all.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Tell us again what the talent is which you have in a "bank account" earning some interest for you?
quote:I would quite enjoy that. They do not seem to be much in the business of catechesis these days, priests, and certainly the cardinal sins do not feature heavily. But anyway, to give the obvious reply:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
There is something deeply fucking ironic in being proud of following Jesus so well. Happy, sure. Grateful, sure. Amazed, sure. Proud? Proud?! Proud?!? IngoB, you might wish to seek a priest to catechise you on the seven deadly sins.
quote:
Pride [superbia] may be understood in two ways. First, as overpassing [supergreditur] the rule of reason, and in this sense we say that it is a sin. Secondly, it may simply denominate "super-abundance"; in which sense any super-abundant thing may be called pride: and it is thus that God promises pride as significant of super-abundant good. Hence a gloss of Jerome on the same passage (Isaiah 61:6) says that "there is a good and an evil pride"; or "a sinful pride which God resists, and a pride that denotes the glory which He bestows."
quote:Yes, that's what I got out of what you wrote. Yes, my life is quite tragicomic these days. No, I was not desperately trying to find fault. I quite liked your opening sentence:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That is what you got out of what I wrote? How amusing, in a tragicomic way. It's almost as if you were desperately trying to find fault.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Translation: I, IngoB, have been given a lot, and you, Erroneous Monk, have not. And I, IngoB, am at least in the role of the 5-talent servant, using my talents correctly, while you, Erroneous Monk, are in the role of the 1-talent servant, and in danger of doing things all wrong.
quote:The rest of what you wrote left a bad taste in my mouth.
Originally posted by IngoB:
There's no point at all to envying other people concerning what they have been given or not.
quote:You see to my mind this sounds a bit arrogant/ patronising/ unnecessary. I know lots of people seem to hate the word "journey" used in this sort of context but honestly how would you express it better, IngoB?!
originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you say there, though frankly at the word "journey" I always start to retch a little...
quote:I will assume that this is spoken in good faith rather than sarcasm.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I'm so glad you're showing the good kind of pride.
quote:Mostly I would avoid overusing this word. And since it has been overused, I would let it rest for a good while now even where it would be appropriate. So that when it is used in the future again - on good occasion and with sufficient precision - it does not sound so twee and trite. It's hard to tell what Evensong exactly had in mind in responding to me, and that's part of the problem. But I think she meant something like "faith does not add risks to our lives, but rather through faith we find support and strength in God and others."
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
You see to my mind this sounds a bit arrogant/ patronising/ unnecessary. I know lots of people seem to hate the word "journey" used in this sort of context but honestly how would you express it better, IngoB?!
quote:This also encapsulates a too large percentage of IngoB's posts.
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
quote:You see to my mind this sounds a bit arrogant/ patronising/ unnecessary.
originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you say there, though frankly at the word "journey" I always start to retch a little...
quote:Thanks for your answer to my question. I didn't mean to create a Catch-22. All I was trying to say was that your reaction to someone else's use of the word journey sounded a bit arrogant. As I've said before, it seems to me that it's the how you say things that is open to negative interpretation. However you seem to be saying that that doesn't bother you really so I'll assume this is a horse that just won't run. Sadly!
Originally posted by IngoB:
By the way, for you my reaction apparently is arrogant / patronising unless I demonstrate that I know better than others how to talk about faith. That's a bit of a Catch-22, isn't it?
quote:Thence the auto da fe.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Faith is a gamble with high stakes.
quote:Honestly, I think there's scope for those of faith for a free and unfettered exchange of minds about religion. Of course, there always is a danger of causing your brethren to stumble, but if you got to a website called "Ship of Fools - The Magazine of Christian Unrest", and write in a forum there which states its purpose as "Purgatory is our serious discussion space – where theological, ethical, political, social and cultural issues are discussed from a Christian perspective. All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged." then I think you have been warned sufficiently. At some point your own responsibility as adult kicks in and you cannot blame others for doing what they said they would be doing, just because you chose to ignore the warnings.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To return to an earlier comment, if you, IngoB, truly believe in the interpretation of RC you espouse, you should be attempting to win hearts every time you speak of religion. Or, at the very least, not build walls to bar those hearts.
quote:Red, blue, prison, truth ... whatever, Morpheus. Nice sweets though; is that one blueberry? I love blueberry. (If you don't get the reference, here's a clip from the movie this refers to.)
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
As I've said before, it seems to me that it's the how you say things that is open to negative interpretation. However you seem to be saying that that doesn't bother you really so I'll assume this is a horse that just won't run. Sadly!
quote:Well, if all strong faith is hateful and murderous, then all weak faith is blasphemous and pukesome. Or perhaps we can stop identifying things simplistically with their failure modes?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Thence the auto da fe.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Faith is a gamble with high stakes.
quote:Even worse, spoken with sarcasm and the scornful belief that you wouldn't catch it. I apologize.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I will assume that this is spoken in good faith rather than sarcasm.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I'm so glad you're showing the good kind of pride.
quote:I had already attempted to clarify my intended meaning earlier. My logic here is perhaps a bit like the logic we use in driving cars. Cars are fairly high risk technology (see here for a comparison table concerning causes of death). Yet the benefits they bring are too large for most of us personally to avoid them, and for society to outlaw them. In a similar way I think strong faith gets you places weak faith just doesn't, but with an admittedly considerable risk of auto-da-fes, suicide bombings or for that matter less spectacular misery.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Boogie said extremists can be dangerous, and you shot her down with the line I quoted. And now all of a sudden it's not fair to look at the errors of extremism. Make up your mind.
quote:So, either you are a tool or simply incapable of writing in any other style, but at least you feel superior. Right?
Originally posted by IngoB:
I know that you don't, but at least you feel good. Right?
quote:But I am your superior as far as knowledge of traditional Catholicism goes. That's just a fact, unless you've been really good at hiding things. And I do not care enough about your precious feelings to closely monitor my style here all the time. I pretty much just write what I think, when I think it. If that makes me a tool, or an arrogant asshole, or what have you - fine, I'm that then. But you don't have to read what I write and I don't have to change on your behalf. Those are further fun facts of life. I can deal with all that just fine, and if you can't, then it sucks to be you. The only question I have is just how often we have to repeat the same hell routine?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, either you are a tool or simply incapable of writing in any other style, but at least you feel superior. Right?
quote:Call 900-555-IRONY or 900-555-HYPOCRITE to make your vote.
Originally posted by IngoB:
...cannot carry on without the occasional bitch fest and dissing each other
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That is what you got out of what I wrote?
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Translation: I, IngoB, have been given a lot, and you, Erroneous Monk, have not. And I, IngoB, am at least in the role of the 5-talent servant, using my talents correctly, while you, Erroneous Monk, are in the role of the 1-talent servant, and in danger of doing things all wrong.
quote:Thank you for illustrating my point. Several ways in which to phrase this and you choose arrogant.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But I am your superior as far as knowledge of traditional Catholicism goes.
quote:This genuinely caused an amused chuckle. I am not at all concerned with my feelings in response to your posts. Why on earth would I be?
Originally posted by IngoB:
And I do not care enough about your precious feelings to closely monitor my style here all the time.
quote:Again, not what you say.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I pretty much just write what I think, when I think it. If that makes me a tool, or an arrogant asshole,
quote:Sweetie, dance requires a partner and you appear to be willing.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The only question I have is just how often we have to repeat the same hell routine?
quote:You're right. I usually blanch at the word journey. Too new agey. Momentary lapse of judgement. I don't know what came over me.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I was disagreeing with Boogie concerning the proper intensity of faith: strong faith can go horribly wrong, but it is worth the risk. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you say there, though frankly at the word "journey" I always start to retch a little...
Originally posted by Evensong:
Only if your heart is in the wrong place. Faith is a journey with God and others.
quote:This is much the same point that people have been trying to make to Ingo for years.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Thank you for illustrating my point. Several ways in which to phrase this and you choose arrogant.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But I am your superior as far as knowledge of traditional Catholicism goes.
quote:You know, I do not dislike Bingo. I do not like him either, mind, more neutral.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
ETA: I've never understood why people have extended engagement with posters they dislike. There are always different people posting on any given thread. Answer the posts one is really interested in. Easy-peasy.
quote:You know what IngoB, I wasn't going to say anything else but your response has got me thinking and I will try one last time. I am aware that as this is hell people are freed from the constraints of monitoring their vocabulary and tone but unless I'm mistaken you were called here because of how you'd expressed yourself in other places so a few questions/ observations:
origiginally posted by IngoB: Red, blue, prison, truth ... whatever, Morpheus. Nice sweets though; is that one blueberry? I love blueberry. (If you don't get the reference, here's a clip from the movie this refers to.)
quote:This. IngoB, you seem either unwilling or unable to leaven your responses with grace, kindness or any presumption of good faith. ISTM this means that most people are (rightly or wrongly) bound to find it very difficult to take on board what you have to say.
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
quote:To me [the above response] reads as having an unpleasant edge, like you are looking down on me. It could have been expressed along the lines of "when it seems like a matter of life or death one doesn't have the time to sugar coat the pill" without impugning my motivation or understanding about which, in all fairness you know very little.
origiginally posted by IngoB: Red, blue, prison, truth ... whatever, Morpheus. Nice sweets though; is that one blueberry? I love blueberry. (If you don't get the reference, here's a clip from the movie this refers to.)
quote:Yes!
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
IngoB, you seem either unwilling or unable to leaven your responses with grace, kindness or any presumption of good faith.
quote:Then why would he come here rather than simply write a blog?
Originally posted by orfeo:
In which case the mistake we make is to not treat him accordingly. My own personal view is that the best response to his attitude would be to simply starve him of his audience. He's not INTERESTED in our responses, so why give him any?
quote:In recent months I have made the exact same observation to particular people on 2 other message boards I post on - that those people should be writing a blog rather than posting on a message board.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Then why would he come here rather than simply write a blog?
Originally posted by orfeo:
In which case the mistake we make is to not treat him accordingly. My own personal view is that the best response to his attitude would be to simply starve him of his audience. He's not INTERESTED in our responses, so why give him any?
quote:'Twas a joy and blessing; I still remember your baptism, and having the pleasure of meeting you [dare I say that here!], fondly.
Originally posted by IngoB:
...
Oh, and of course I have attended about half a dozen Shipmeets in person, and I invited Shipmates to my baptism (and thanks for coming, Ian).
...
quote:When I call you a spiteful moron here, then I do not pretend that this is with the aim to make you a better person or to protect the community from aggressive spillover. If I call you a spiteful moron, then I do not expect that this will help anybody or anything. I also honestly think that calling you a spiteful moron reflects badly on me, showing just how childish and nasty I still am myself. And I can honestly say that if the hell board was closed and removed this instant, I would breath a sigh of relief. It would be like finding there is no chocolate in the house when you know that you should be losing weight but just can't get the discipline together for going on a diet. The one and only defence that I would give for calling you a spiteful moron is simply that it is true. You are a spiteful moron, just as water is wet. It does nobody any good to state this undeniable truth though. That you are a spiteful moron should be reacted to with charitable kindness, not spelled out over and over again. There is no point in telling somebody who for example stutters over and over again that they are stuttering. That does not improve the situation. Neither does it help telling a spiteful moron like you that they are a spiteful moron, over and over again. No good will come from that. And no good will come from a place which has the specific purpose of telling spiteful morons like you that they are spiteful morons. But here we are - you, a spiteful moron, and I, childish and nasty enough to pointlessly tell you the truth. Can't we all just get along? Probably not.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Call 900-555-IRONY or 900-555-HYPOCRITE to make your vote.
Originally posted by IngoB:
...cannot carry on without the occasional bitch fest and dissing each other
quote:And hence you have decided to really work on your reading comprehension and prejudice. Well, thanks for sharing.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm a mere bystander here, but that's how it came across to me, too.
quote:OK. So remind me again why I'm talking to you? I am (in general) perfectly happy with both the content and the style of my posts on SoF, and see no need whatsoever for discussing them.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not at all concerned with my feelings in response to your posts. Why on earth would I be?
quote:Yes, but how you say it. I hear you. I heard this the very first time it was mentioned. I have heard this a thousand times since. I have also acknowledged this hundreds of times, to make absolutely sure that people know that I have heard it. And I still have no intention to change the way I post on SoF. I just don't. Somehow it seems utterly impossible to get this across. People here just don't believe me. No matter how often I say it, no matter how I say it. It's like talking to bloody /dev/null. There just are no words that can do the trick. Here, I have an idea. Let's try this instead. Maybe it will get the point across.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Again, not what you say.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sweetie, dance requires a partner and you appear to be willing.
quote:Dang. So close. But hey, you did actually read and cognitively process something I wrote. You have moved beyond the broken record stage, and now truly are part of the elite.
Originally posted by orfeo:
His own statements actually tend to point to the latter - he just doesn't give a damn what anyone on the internet thinks of him.
quote:So you have been talking to imaginary people? I suggest olanzapine, and if that doesn't work we will switch to clozapine.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, I do not dislike Bingo. I do not like him either, mind, more neutral. To truly like or dislike someone, you should know them. He is not real enough here.
quote:More of the former, less of the latter. Thanks.
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
You know what IngoB, I wasn't going to say anything else but your response has got me thinking and I will try one last time.
quote:Why, thank you. This is such an incredibly original thought. If only somebody had said this to me earlier, I would not have wasted years of my life posting here. But in all that time, and in dozens of hell calls, nobody ever said anything remotely as insightful and helpful as this. We had to wait for special kind of genius to figure this out, to provide this truly remarkable advice. What a glorious day. Finally, I'm freed of my illusions and will become beloved by all. My innermost wishes will come true, and peace and harmony will reign. Ahhh, rainbows...
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't really know how to improve at including grace, kindness and the presumption of good faith within your communications here, but if you want more people to learn from and engage with what you have to say then you might like to try!
quote:And yet here I am, enjoying Purgatory for almost a decade to the tune of 10,000 posts. Perhaps it is just remotely possible that I am getting what I want out of this place? Something to think about.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If other members of the message board are merely relegated to sounding boards for one's own ideas, with the occasional comment, then a blog will achieve this and the commenters will understand their appointed role.
quote:Mwah
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Why, thank you. This is such an incredibly original thought. If only somebody had said this to me earlier, I would not have wasted years of my life posting here. But in all that time, and in dozens of hell calls, nobody ever said anything remotely as insightful and helpful as this. We had to wait for special kind of genius to figure this out, to provide this truly remarkable advice. What a glorious day. Finally, I'm freed of my illusions and will become beloved by all. My innermost wishes will come true, and peace and harmony will reign. Ahhh, rainbows...
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't really know how to improve at including grace, kindness and the presumption of good faith within your communications here, but if you want more people to learn from and engage with what you have to say then you might like to try!
There seriously is not enough whisky in the world for this shit.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:Ingo, the point is not whether you're getting what you want, but that you are getting what you want at cost to other human beings.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Perhaps it is just remotely possible that I am getting what I want out of this place? Something to think about.
quote:If you sit down at a poker table, you can't complain if you lose money. Perhaps you are used to playing poker with your best buddies, where the winner is paying for the beer. Well, I'm not your buddy and you can buy your own beer.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo, the point is not whether you're getting what you want, but that you are getting what you want at cost to other human beings. And that this appears not to bother you in the slightest.
quote:The worst that can truthfully be said about mousethief is he's sometimes a bit prickly. The worst that can truthfully be said about you is that you're a bit tactless. Neither of you is spiteful or moronic, as can be seen by the bulk of your posts, and by the speed and civility with which both of you tend to apologise on the rare occasions when said something truly out of line (and realise that).
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:When I call you a spiteful moron here, then I do not pretend that this is with the aim to make you a better person or to protect the community from aggressive spillover. If I call you a spiteful moron, then I do not expect that this will help anybody or anything. I also honestly think that calling you a spiteful moron reflects badly on me, showing just how childish and nasty I still am myself. And I can honestly say that if the hell board was closed and removed this instant, I would breath a sigh of relief. It would be like finding there is no chocolate in the house when you know that you should be losing weight but just can't get the discipline together for going on a diet. The one and only defence that I would give for calling you a spiteful moron is simply that it is true. You are a spiteful moron, just as water is wet. It does nobody any good to state this undeniable truth though. That you are a spiteful moron should be reacted to with charitable kindness, not spelled out over and over again. There is no point in telling somebody who for example stutters over and over again that they are stuttering. That does not improve the situation. Neither does it help telling a spiteful moron like you that they are a spiteful moron, over and over again. No good will come from that. And no good will come from a place which has the specific purpose of telling spiteful morons like you that they are spiteful morons. But here we are - you, a spiteful moron, and I, childish and nasty enough to pointlessly tell you the truth. Can't we all just get along? Probably not.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Call 900-555-IRONY or 900-555-HYPOCRITE to make your vote.
Originally posted by IngoB:
...cannot carry on without the occasional bitch fest and dissing each other
quote:I think you are oversimplifying considerably for rhetorical effect in your analysis - presumably that is an occupational habit. However, I do have considerable respect for you personally, and for most of your judgements. So if you wish to guarantee mousethief as merely prickly, then it shall be so to me upon your word. At least so until contrary evidence becomes overwhelming.
Originally posted by Eliab:
The fact of your currently unfortunate failure to get on is fully explained by prickliness and lack of tact. The rival hypothesis of spite and stupidity is both superfluous and contradicted by evidence, and I'm surprised that as a scientist you would give it any consideration whatever.
quote:My God, that was about the most dreary thing I've ever read here, even including everything Yorickdog ever posted. If you think I am a moron, you are as bad at reading people as you are at treating them respectfully.
Originally posted by IngoB:
When I call you a spiteful moron here (etc blah blah blah)
quote:Again, total inability to take any criticism on board. At least two people read something he posts the same way, but does it give him pause for thought? If he ever pauses for thought about himself, it's to think how wonderful he is.
quote:And hence you have decided to really work on your reading comprehension and prejudice. Well, thanks for sharing.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm a mere bystander here, but that's how it came across to me, too.
quote:Fuck off. I don't need your faux apologies.
Originally posted by IngoB:
My apologies then, mousethief. You are merely as prickly as your beard.
quote:Oh dear......I rest my case.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
You know what IngoB, I wasn't going to say anything else but your response has got me thinking and I will try one last time.
More of the former, less of the latter. Thanks.
quote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNe58o9hTLw
Originally posted by IngoB:
Why, thank you. This is such an incredibly original thought. If only somebody had said this to me earlier, I would not have wasted years of my life posting here. But in all that time, and in dozens of hell calls, nobody ever said anything remotely as insightful and helpful as this. We had to wait for special kind of genius to figure this out, to provide this truly remarkable advice. What a glorious day. Finally, I'm freed of my illusions and will become beloved by all. My innermost wishes will come true, and peace and harmony will reign. Ahhh, rainbows...
There seriously is not enough whisky in the world for this shit.
quote:I consider that being 'nice' is being loving, joyful and peaceful - and having forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Holy fuck, this is so tedious I might just conform and become nice.
Naw, just kidding. Over my dead body. Or preferably yours.
quote:And where, exactly, do you find this text that explicitly describes the Ship in a way that enables you to regard it as equivalent to a poker table?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:If you sit down at a poker table, you can't complain if you lose money. Perhaps you are used to playing poker with your best buddies, where the winner is paying for the beer. Well, I'm not your buddy and you can buy your own beer.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo, the point is not whether you're getting what you want, but that you are getting what you want at cost to other human beings. And that this appears not to bother you in the slightest.
I'm posting here in a place explicitly designated for the sort of posting that I want to do, and I stick to its rules. As far as I am concerned, that just is the long and short of it. This kindergarten mentality indeed does not impress me in the slightest.
quote:I've never understood how sudden mentions of an erratic posters name draws forth their sudden presence. Especially in Hell.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
<<Unhellish>>
quote:'Twas a joy and blessing; I still remember your baptism, and having the pleasure of meeting you [dare I say that here!], fondly.
Originally posted by IngoB:
...
Oh, and of course I have attended about half a dozen Shipmeets in person, and I invited Shipmates to my baptism (and thanks for coming, Ian).
...
<</Unhellish>>
quote:I won't take that bet. I don't remember the substance, but I do remember that on one occasion IngoB dropped the steely facade and I was charmed. I even PMed him about it. He replied graciously, but I think I embarrassed him.
C'mon folks. I betchya a million bucks Bingo isn't such a dickhead in real life.
quote:I had a re-read my post after the first negative comment. I found it clear enough, and that someone else managed to misunderstand it does not change that. I might have been more concerned if there had been any actual engagement with the text, but there wasn't.
Originally posted by mousethief:
At least two people read something he posts the same way, but does it give him pause for thought?
quote:There was nothing "faux" about it, unless you consider it "faux" to set aside your own judgement on the word of someone else. I have a lot of time for Eliab. Not enough to make us two best buddies, but enough for a ceasefire.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Fuck off. I don't need your faux apologies.
quote:And likewise, MrsBeaky.
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Go well, IngoB!
quote:Turning these ends into means.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I consider that being 'nice' is being loving, joyful and peaceful - and having forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. What do you think being 'nice' involves?
quote:I did not consider the Ship equivalent to a poker table. I made an analogy concerning the silliness of crying foul if as an adult you chose freely to engage in activities which have known potential for harm. And I have already quoted the relevant bits above. Given the stated purpose of Purgatory, I expect the usual emotional fallout one gets from the clash of highly diverse opinion, as well as people confusing their inability to deal with a challenge with personal attack. To this I may add that I assume that the Purgatory hosts are doing their job and hence that my posts are staying within the 10Cs as well as the board-specific guidelines. So don't bother working the "you are not challenging but a jerk" line. I don't think that I am, particularly, and clearly the vast majority of my posts stays within the bounds patrolled by my betters.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And where, exactly, do you find this text that explicitly describes the Ship in a way that enables you to regard it as equivalent to a poker table?
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I consider that being 'nice' is being loving, joyful and peaceful - and having forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. What do you think being 'nice' involves?
quote:So, you dislike being 'nice'. But you do approve of (eg) kindness as an 'end'.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Turning these ends into means.
quote:For example, to actually consider an answer given to a question one has asked, to appreciate the insight that it may contain, and to react positively to it as far as that is possible. Instead of basically ignoring it once it has served its rhetorical purpose of creating an opening through which one can hoist some Platonic questioning as lead-in for a lesson that one is so itching to deliver. That would be a means toward kindness.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:So, you dislike being 'nice'. But you do approve of (eg) kindness as an 'end'. So, if the 'end' is kindness (on a message board) - what would the 'means' be, in your view?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Turning these ends into means.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I consider that being 'nice' is being loving, joyful and peaceful - and having forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. What do you think being 'nice' involves?
quote:I see; so readers alone bear responsibility for miscommunications in a textual medium; writers bear none. Good to know; nobody need attempt book reviewing any more, as the profession's obviously based on mistaken assumptions.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:And hence you have decided to really work on your reading comprehension and prejudice. Well, thanks for sharing.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm a mere bystander here, but that's how it came across to me, too.
quote:Or, to strip the irony aside... When IngoB reads, writers fails to communicate. When IngoB writes, readers fail to comprehend.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:I see; so readers alone bear responsibility for miscommunications in a textual medium; writers bear none. Good to know; nobody need attempt book reviewing any more, as the profession's obviously based on mistaken assumptions.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:And hence you have decided to really work on your reading comprehension and prejudice. Well, thanks for sharing.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm a mere bystander here, but that's how it came across to me, too.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Hell does get to me), their total worship of Diversity (TM), etc etc...quote:One of the main problems is that I happen to think that most of theology is indeed akin to "cold, hard fact". Yes, "facts" of faith, not "proper facts" of empirical science. But not therefore an entirely different kind of thing as far as I am concerned, mostly just using a different mode of knowledge gathering and affirmation. Honestly, I do not see theology as all that different from the natural science I've studied. And I'm mostly interested in talking about theology, not about religious experiences and sentiments. But that does not sit well with people who approach taking about religion from that angle. (I would be interested in discussing prayer and contemplation, and other non-liturgical religious practices, concerning method and experience. But I feel SoF doesn't really have a proper board for doing that.)
Originally posted by orfeo:
The KINDS of issues that people are discussing are not cold, hard factual ones. They are issues with a lot of nuance and emotional content.
quote:It is obvious that the rules of Purgatory leave plenty of space for people to hurt each other. It is also obvious that the sort of discussions Purgatory invites will lead to people hurting each other. So obvious is this in fact, that the powers that be have decided to create an entire board to contain the inevitable and frequent angry conflict that arises primarily from discussions in Purgatory. The very existence of this very board of which you are a host argues my point. It is ridiculous that I have to argue in Hell to a Hell host the very fucking foundation of Hell. But anyway, back to me. Do I set out in Purgatory to hurt people? No, I do not. (Or at least only rarely. I am actually human and occasionally I do attack people under the guise of arguing fact. But that indeed is evil and shameful, and I do not defend such attacks of mine.) However I do present views that I know will be very contentious, and highly challenging to many present. Hence I know that there will be hurt and anger. Yet I think this is justifiable, given that it should be obvious that those things are on the cards in Purgatory.
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is absolutely nothing in Purgatory to indicate that the appropriate mode of discussion involves being completely insensitive to the feelings of others, nor does it validate your attitude that big adults shouldn't complain if they get hurt by the manner in which you discuss things and that it's all their problem, not yours, just because you keep a little checklist besides you of the Ship's rules and don't break any of them.
quote:You just pulled that one out of your ass. I never said anything like that. The only thing I'm saying is that I'm largely happy with my mode of discourse as it is.
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's all you. You choose that mode of discourse out of the range of possible modes of discourse. So stop presenting it as if it's the inherent mode of discourse and the rest of us are somehow stuffing it up.
quote:What letter of the law am I following right here and now, orfeo? Why do I participate in this hell call?
Originally posted by orfeo:
If a person spent their time in real life society only taking into consideration the letter of the law and nothing else, I suspect they would be labelled as sociopathic.
quote:But I'm no troll, orfeo. So if you could pause in your rage that I just won't do what you think I should do, and be as you think I should be, then you could perhaps look at why all this "IngoB the social monster" stuff doesn't really quite add up. Or not.
Originally posted by orfeo:
A recent study showed that there's a correlation between people being 'trolls' on the internet and showing sociopathic traits in real life, because both involve the same disregard for how anyone else feels.
quote:A man has got to do what a man has got to do.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And if you genuinely find that tiresome, well then, the solution is in your hands. Stop causing it. Because you are causing it. It's not caused by other people getting Purgatory wrong, it's caused by you making your personal choice to be an arsehole.
quote:The other function of Hell, I hear, is to give people space to bitch about the ills of the world. About all those things that are not right but which they cannot change. Without Hell, they would have to suffer in silence but thanks to this wonderful place they can get it off their chest.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you don't genuinely find it tiresome, then STFU and stop saying that you do and just accept it's one of the costs of 'doing business' around here in your chosen manner.
quote:It's not required, though.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is obvious that the rules of Purgatory leave plenty of space for people to hurt each other.
quote:Certainly. And quite often, when this happens, the posters involved recognize they've miscommunicated, try again right there on the thread, work out the problem, apologize as appropriate, and the discussion moves forward, with nobody called to Hell, no grudge matches scheduled, and no lasting damage.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is also obvious that the sort of discussions Purgatory invites will lead to people hurting each other.
quote:blah blah blah off on an IngoBesque tangent which is, alas, utterly beside the point orfeo was attempting to address with you. Seriously: are you really supposing that orfeo hasn't quite grasped Hell? orfeo?!
Originally posted by IngoB:
So obvious is this in fact, that the powers that be have decided to create an entire board to contain the inevitable and frequent angry conflict that arises primarily from discussions in Purgatory. The very existence of this very board of which you are a host
quote:I would be atheist with such an approach. Also tone deaf, art blind and would find poetry wordy. Have you found anything "sentimental" moving? Sorry for being mushy and of soft boiled brain.
Originally posted by IngoB:
One of the main problems is that I happen to think that most of theology is indeed akin to "cold, hard fact". Yes, "facts" of faith, not "proper facts" of empirical science. But not therefore an entirely different kind of thing as far as I am concerned, mostly just using a different mode of knowledge gathering and affirmation. Honestly, I do not see theology as all that different from the natural science I've studied. And I'm mostly interested in talking about theology, not about religious experiences and sentiments. But that does not sit well with people who approach taking about religion from that angle. (I would be interested in discussing prayer and contemplation, and other non-liturgical religious practices, concerning method and experience. But I feel SoF doesn't really have a proper board for doing that.)
quote:Yes, indeed, I am a human being who emotionally engages. And your list of emotions is right on the money, at least for the sort of discussions that tend to lead to these hell calls. However, it is in fact my ideal to keep my emotions out of things. Or to be precise, to keep them tightly controlled and targeted, which is not exactly the same thing. There is a good reason why my favourite analogy is to boxing. People here tend to focus on how terrible it is to compare a discussion to people beating each other up etc. That's largely missing the point. Boxing is civilised. It is the sweet science. It has a ring. It has referees. It has rules of engagement. You touch gloves. You break when the referee tells you to do so. There are rounds. You do not hit low. When you do hit low, you apologise and points get subtracted from your score. ... When you knock somebody out, it is not a golden opportunity to kick him to pulp. When you bite another boxers ear off, that's not a celebrated tactic for winning but a career-ending move. When somebody has managed to beat the living daylights out of you, that's not an occasion to wait for him in a dark alley and murder him from behind. It is an occasion for respect and often even friendship, and motivation to train harder. Boxing, not war.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
There's also something that has been bugging me about the whole " irrelevance of feeling" stance that Bingo has taken- there has been many times I have sensed that his posts are a lot more emotionally driven than he lets on. He crafts things in the language of academia, but I frequently see him lashing out with provocative remarks in a way that only makes sense to me if he was angry, or stung, or disgusted, or despairing, or spoiling for a reaction. Emotionally engaged, in other words.
quote:Rather, I would be terribly annoyed if my carefully crafted counter was not appreciated for what it was. Hell is also more fight club than a boxing ring. Or perhaps it's Wrestlemania. Though I have to say, hats off to Boogie for her one-liner response. I hope everybody is getting the meta-level of that answer.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm now looking at his exchange with Boogie. He's going to deny this, i'm sure, but there is no way anyone is gonna convince me that what she was saying wasn't bugging him. His irritation drips from his posts.
quote:Rather, the counselling rooms are over there. Fear and pain? Suck it. Ferocity? Control it. Always disciplined. Focused. If you let your emotions get the better of you in a fight, you get your clock cleaned. That's just the way that works.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Sensing that,it becomes easier to translate his insistence that "emotions are irrelevant" as "emotions that aren't my own are irrelevant."
quote:Of course YOU found it clear, you dickfor. You wrote it. The question is whether it's clear to OTHERS. Which you are 100% incapable of judging, BY DEFINITION.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I had a re-read my post after the first negative comment. I found it clear enough,
quote:And when they do, they apologize and don't say "sucks to be you." If they're not assholes, I mean.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is also obvious that the sort of discussions Purgatory invites will lead to people hurting each other.
quote:The latter part indeed happens quite often, the former ... not so much.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Certainly. And quite often, when this happens, the posters involved recognize they've miscommunicated, try again right there on the thread, work out the problem, apologize as appropriate, and the discussion moves forward, with nobody called to Hell, no grudge matches scheduled, and no lasting damage.
quote:Interesting. Now I would say that most of the time when I find that something didn't get across as I expected it to, I try again. And again. And again. With considerable patience and quite a bit of inventiveness. Admittedly, if the exchange is heated anyhow, then the repetitions tend to be heated as well. But if not, then not. And even if they are heated, I do not simply repeat myself in an even louder or shriller voice, but tend to seek some new way forward. That's what I see myself as doing.
Originally posted by Porridge:
What I've observed ... is your apparent reluctance to acknowledge having any responsibility for any part of any miscommunication; it's always somebody else's failing.
quote:That's not really how that works. Or we should be helpless to ever improve our writing.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course YOU found it clear, you dickfor. You wrote it. The question is whether it's clear to OTHERS. Which you are 100% incapable of judging, BY DEFINITION.
quote:It was simply precise. I withdraw from "spiteful moron" to "prickly", my bad, and I will cease fire. For a while that is, we will see how things go.
Originally posted by mousethief:
BTW, Real apologies don't include veiled insults or cutesy swipes. Sorry. By any reasonable scale of apologiology, it was fake.
quote:You are confusing a statement from a rant in Hell with behaviour in Purgatory, and furthermore you are confusing a statement about how people deal with their duties to each other, or the lack thereof, with a reaction to hurt in others. Finally, you skipping lightly over the whole issue of how hurt is actually expressed in Purgatory, and how such expressions become a rhetorical tool in their own right.
Originally posted by mousethief:
]And when they do, they apologize and don't say "sucks to be you." If they're not assholes, I mean.
quote:Except that's all in YOUR head, not necessarily in the heads of the other people in Purgatory.
Originally posted by IngoB:
For me this is a spiritual battle zone, frankly just by virtue of who hangs out here. But I am a boxer, a martial artist. And this is a ring, a dojo. People also come here to drink coffee or tend to the Zen garden or whatever they do in the games room. Fine, I don't mind, to each his own. I look for people that want to dance a little, and so I hang out where the punch bags are swinging.
quote:Non sequitur. There are lots of things to improve about one's writing that don't involve getting inside one specific person's head. They do involve having a bit of empathy for how other people read, but that doesn't imply you will be able to discern for everything you write in every context and for every reader how they will take it. Perhaps this is the problem: you overgeneralize from "I usually can tell when I write something that the vast majority of people won't get" to "I can tell for every single thing I write exactly how it will come across to all readers who aren't idiots by my definition."
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That's not really how that works. Or we should be helpless to ever improve our writing.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course YOU found it clear, you dickfor. You wrote it. The question is whether it's clear to OTHERS. Which you are 100% incapable of judging, BY DEFINITION.
quote:Fuck if it is. Cutesy bits about prickly beards are not a part of a sincere apology. You're smart enough to know this, therefore you are lying.
quote:It was simply precise.
Originally posted by mousethief:
BTW, Real apologies don't include veiled insults or cutesy swipes. Sorry. By any reasonable scale of apologiology, it was fake.
quote:Oh. So you apologize in Purgatory, then come to Hell and say you don't intend to apologize? No, I don't think you generally apologize in Purgatory when you ride roughshod over people. You have said you don't, and that it's foolish for us to expect you to, and we have seen that you don't. So let's not have any bullshit about the different you in Purg and Hell. It's the same you, and the same behavior, just tailored to the rules of the two boards. Either way, you act like an asshole.
quote:You are confusing a statement from a rant in Hell with behaviour in Purgatory,
Originally posted by mousethief:
And when they do, they apologize and don't say "sucks to be you." If they're not assholes, I mean.
quote:And the difference here would be?
and furthermore you are confusing a statement about how people deal with their duties to each other, or the lack thereof, with a reaction to hurt in others.
quote:And this matters why?
Finally, you skipping lightly over the whole issue of how hurt is actually expressed in Purgatory, and how such expressions become a rhetorical tool in their own right.
quote:Why do you care why I am doing it? That's motivations. Squishy people stuff. You hate that stuff.
I assume that you know what you are doing. So why exactly are you doing it?
quote:Both statements are factually incorrect. However, anybody who really wants to dig up this particular ancient history can read this thread.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And no-one turned up. No-one wanted it.
quote:Not exactly. I'm saying that I for one am "boxing" in Purgatory, and that I see that as perfectly legitimate use of Purgatory. If you choose to have your origami meeting right in my 'boxing ring', then your paper folding may occasionally get ruffled by a jab. You can complain all you want about that, I think it is just a consequence of your bad choice of location.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You believe that they've somehow blundered across the ropes separating this 'boxing ring' from elsewhere.
quote:Every analogy has its weaknesses. Otherwise it would be an identity. And the number of high volume participants in any discussion is usually quite small.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Some kind of group setting (honestly, how you keep going with the boxing stuff when nothing about a message board is set up for one-on-one contest is beyond me - your favourite analogy is ludicrously inadequate on this point, which is why you wanted the Duel board).
quote:First, they are not sitting down at some table. They are standing around in the middle of my ring, and usually they are throwing some punches in the air or beat their chest and flex their muscles. Second, they do not actually say "stop" much in the beginning, or indeed ever. Rather, many flail ineffectually at me. Some people respond instantly with well practiced and targeted strikes. And some people try to kick me in the nuts, as hard as they can. Third, the complaining usually starts in round nine or ten of some particularly heavily fought bout, where I myself look decidedly worse for the wear. And then I get dragged from the ring to this other room, where we get to use any weapon we want to mutilate each other and a whole bunch of shady characters with butterfly knives and baseball bats are hanging about, looking for trouble. Brilliant conflict resolution strategy, that.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Basically, other people walk up to you or sit down at the table you're hanging around, or whatever, and engage in debate - possibly quite serious debate - and you bring your gloved hand up and tap them under the jaw. Maybe not hard, but you've come to the cafe / meeting room wearing boxing gloves. "Hey, stop that!" they say. You give them a little punch to the chest. "What are you doing?! Stop that!" An uppercut to the other side of the jaw. "WTF! WILL YOU CUT THAT OUT!" "Crybaby", you mutter as you walk away, irritated that your 'opponent' didn't glove up before walking into the room.
quote:(My italics)
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:. . .
Originally posted by Porridge:
What I've observed ... is your apparent reluctance to acknowledge having any responsibility for any part of any miscommunication; it's always somebody else's failing.
Perhaps we can find some reason for this disparity. It would not happen to have anything to do with me recently telling you that you did misread my post here, and that that really was pretty much all your fault? Recent experiences sometimes colour our recall of the past...
quote:Are you addressing this to me? We are not here because I am complaining about not getting what I want.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Here's a thought: you'll get more of what you want, if you don't be such a dick about what it is you want.
quote:Your lucky run has ended. I very much do not enjoy this process. I deal with it.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Desert Daughter, while I do think we can get dogpiley on occasion, in this case the guy at the bottom so clearly enjoys the process it's hard to feel too bad about this pile.
quote:Indeed, we can agree on that. However, you did not say that one cannot predict the effect of one's writings on 100% of the readers. You said that one is 100% incapable of judging how clear something is to others. Thus, that one cannot predict the effect of one's writing on any reader at all. That is clearly not true.
Originally posted by mousethief:
They do involve having a bit of empathy for how other people read, but that doesn't imply you will be able to discern for everything you write in every context and for every reader how they will take it.
quote:When one is downgrading reluctantly from "spiteful moron" to "prickly", then cutesy bits relieve some of the tension. And yes, my apology is not terribly heartfelt. But it is also not a lie. It is the formal expression of an effort to step back. You could make that apology heartfelt, retroactively, by confirming its appropriateness.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Fuck if it is. Cutesy bits about prickly beards are not a part of a sincere apology. You're smart enough to know this, therefore you are lying.
quote:Huh? I thought you were making an explicit reference to my actual use of the words "sucks to be you" here. I do not recall using them in Purgatory recently.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh. So you apologize in Purgatory, then come to Hell and say you don't intend to apologise?
quote:Active participants in my hell call? It's a bit of a tough crowd, wouldn't you say?
Originally posted by Porridge:
How many contributors to this thread would have to have understood your post to Erroneous Monk in the way that AR and I did for you to begin to wonder whether you might bear any responsibility for what you claim is a misreading?
quote:Help me out here, since you apparently read this in the same way? I don't get it. I don't see a claim that I have more than EM, rather a statement that whether I have more or less than her does not matter. I don't see a claim that I'm in the role of the 5-talent servant (same guy as the 10-talent one, just counting the return), indeed, I see an explicit denial that I am one. I also see no identification of EM with the 1-talent servant, rather a very clear hint that I identify myself with that servant - except that I have taken the master's advice to at least bring that one talent to a bank to gain some interest on it). Well?
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Translation: I, IngoB, have been given a lot, and you, Erroneous Monk, have not. And I, IngoB, am at least in the role of the 5-talent servant, using my talents correctly, while you, Erroneous Monk, are in the role of the 1-talent servant, and in danger of doing things all wrong.
quote:No. This is Simon's Venue or it is OUR venue. That is actually important.
Originally posted by IngoB:
First, they are not sitting down at some table. They are standing around in the middle of my ring,
quote:Yes, there are people who will jump in to Hell calls with little agenda other than stirring the pot. But most are letting off steam generated in Purg or another board.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And then I get dragged from the ring to this other room, where we get to use any weapon we want to mutilate each other and a whole bunch of shady characters with butterfly knives and baseball bats are hanging about, looking for trouble. Brilliant conflict resolution strategy, that.
quote:Ah, yes ... reminds me of the early years in my marriage as I learned just how differently my family communicated compared to my wife's family. Time after time, their feelings were hurt by some innocent remark that I made. As my wife explained their point of view in each case over the years, I gradually realized that their whole purpose in having a conversation was utterly different than in my family. I grew up in a family that was emotionally very cool, but very secure. We talked about ideas for their own sake, and the more precisely we expressed our ideas, the less misunderstanding there was. The purpose of conversation in my family was to have fun with the ideas.
Originally posted by IngoB:
OK, here's what I actually said there in reference to Erroneous Monk and myself:
"Anyway, whether I have been given a talent more or less than you, as far as God is concerned it will result only in more or less of a duty to do something with them. And we can marvel at the people with ten talents together, for that certainly is not me. I'm just proud that I managed to put a talent into a "bank account" where it will hopefully make some interest. That's the extent of my claim for fame..."
All the rest was a straightforward exegesis (whether you agree with it or not is a different matter) with no personal reference. So. How exactly do we get from that to
quote:Help me out here, since you apparently read this in the same way? I don't get it. I don't see a claim that I have more than EM, rather a statement that whether I have more or less than her does not matter. I don't see a claim that I'm in the role of the 5-talent servant (same guy as the 10-talent one, just counting the return), indeed, I see an explicit denial that I am one. I also see no identification of EM with the 1-talent servant, rather a very clear hint that I identify myself with that servant - except that I have taken the master's advice to at least bring that one talent to a bank to gain some interest on it). Well?
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Translation: I, IngoB, have been given a lot, and you, Erroneous Monk, have not. And I, IngoB, am at least in the role of the 5-talent servant, using my talents correctly, while you, Erroneous Monk, are in the role of the 1-talent servant, and in danger of doing things all wrong.
quote:No, but while we are here, you're complaining that theological pugilism (which is what you're here for) isn't everyone's cup of tea.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Are you addressing this to me? We are not here because I am complaining about not getting what I want.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Here's a thought: you'll get more of what you want, if you don't be such a dick about what it is you want.
quote:Paper, scissors, stone.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you choose to have your origami meeting right in my 'boxing ring', then your paper folding may occasionally get ruffled by a jab. You can complain all you want about that, I think it is just a consequence of your bad choice of location.
quote:I do both, sometimes on the same thread. I enjoy the cut-and-thrust style of debate that IngoB exemplifies, not least because such an uncompromising opponent forces me to really examine my own position in true depth. He may not have ever managed to convince me of the rightness of his position, but his argumentation has led me to far greater insights into God, theology and the world than I'd have ever reached otherwise, purely because without those insights I'd have been unable to keep getting up off the canvas and swinging back at him. In some ways he's taught me more about what I believe than anyone who happens to believe the same things as me.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I go to Purgatory because I find it interesting. I think through what's said, offer the occasional opinion and ask a few questions. I have no weapons to fight with - but will occasionally catch and bend someone's sword to cause them to pause a moment.
Faith, and matters of faith are important to me but I wouldn't fight over them. When the battle gets nasty I back off. Life's too good and too short.
quote:That is simply incorrect. He is capable of quite vicious nastiness, and when I was more open to such things he caused me serious and genuine hurt. It was deliberate and clever and very real. He has a dark and mean side, does our beloved little mousey.
Originally posted by Eliab:
The worst that can truthfully be said about mousethief is he's sometimes a bit prickly.
quote:Well, I guess you're referring to my calling you all fucking babies. But I thought we were in Hell.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes Yorick, because you've shown yourself to be such a mature resilient adult at all times.
Ease up on the hyperbole.
quote:The problem is that there are various interest groups, and they are all crammed into one space with no separation by timetable, uniform or anything else. Actually it's worse. Almost everybody does everything at some point or another. It's just that some people have a clearer preference than others. And before the discussion goes to Hell it has often carried on for considerable time, with all sides beating on all other sides quite happily. It just is not the case usually that some poor innocent origamista is being bludgeoned to death by an insensitive boxing bully. It's more that a few people have been beating the snot out of each other, and one of them wants to throw the towel or start kicking their opponent in the nuts. Actually, usually they want both, or one disguised as the other. Go ahead and read the thread this hell call came from, for example. It just was not a meeting of the water-colour painters, and I hardly was the only one firing shots there. Heck, read the bloody OP here. I'm not sure what comparing someone's God to a violent child abuser is, but it sure is no origami. However, once we get here it rarely is a focused discussion of whether I landed a low shot somewhere. That would be something that could lead to an honest and quick apology. But no, it's all about the horrors of some people duking it out in Purgatory, and the even greater horror of me finding that basically OK and even enjoying it for the most part. And I will just not move a fucking inch concerning that, even if we do this here till the end of time.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo, the shift in that last post between "It's legitimate to use it as a boxing ring" and "It IS a boxing ring" (and so therefore you are having your origami group in a boxing ring was beautifully subtle. But still wrong.
quote:All this is true, if one has no interest in what other Shipmates individually and the Ship as a community think about oneself. Otherwise it is plain false. That I'm not competing for the spot of the most beloved or popular Shipmate, or the softest shoulder to cry on, does not mean that I absolutely do not give a crap about anything. I think that it is actually pretty damn obvious where I invest shitloads of energy to maintain a "Ship-internal reputation". And no, I'm not talking about being the biggest badass in town, or the most ultra Catholic. However, that's all I will say about that. Because I honestly think that there are some really mean people around, and if they haven't figured out what's going on then that is just fine with me.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The thing is, no one gets dragged to Hell. No one is forced to stay. You take only as much a beating as you choose.
quote:I never had any doubt that you know what Hell is for. And my rhetorical move of explaining it to you was not about telling the world that you love your job as Hell host. I hope that you do, but that was not the point. Rather it was to affirm the negative consequences I was drawing from the stated aims of Purgatory by their embodiment as Hell.
Originally posted by orfeo:
A separate thought, IngoB, on your attempts to explain to me the purpose of Hell: I also understand the purpose of jails. That doesn't mean I have to enjoy seeing them fill up.
quote:Interesting analysis. However, Autenrieth Road and Porridge are not my wives. In fact, I wasn't even talking to them. I was talking to Erroneous Monk, and as always, to the anonymous crowd of listeners. Until they raged at me, I had no idea that they were listening. And I neither see it as my duty, nor is it in my opinion even possible, to adapt my writing so as to be compatible with the emotional state of everybody out there. So if Erroneous Monk had responded angrily, then it would have been a somewhat different matter. As it is, frankly I don't think this is my problem. Furthermore, this is a written interaction. One of the big advantages of that is that one can read at one's own pace, and re-read as often as one wants, what the other is saying. And one does not have to respond instantly either, the conversation here is ticking along much slower than a spoken one. In consequence, there is no real excuse here for arriving at conclusions that are demonstrably the opposite of what was written. And no, in this particular case I do not think that this is a matter of interpretation. So, while I appreciate your point, it is more interesting to me concerning "real world" settings.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Ah, yes ... reminds me of the early years in my marriage as I learned just how differently my family communicated compared to my wife's family.
quote:Nope, I haven't done that. I have complained that people insist that I must do origami instead or be a bad person.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, but while we are here, you're complaining that theological pugilism (which is what you're here for) isn't everyone's cup of tea.
quote:I've been arguing with orfeo about this. In my opinion, if you wander into Purgatory without expecting to be hit with some frequency, then you are being stupid: you then have ignored the official header of Purgatory (what do you think "so long as you can stand being challenged" means?) as well as the unofficial but frequently affirmed reason for the existence of Hell (to contain explosive exchanges mostly originating in Purgatory).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And to quote a subsequent analogy, you're hitting people when they don't expect to be hit. That's being a dick.
quote:I'm sure that I will experience a drastic shortage of willing opponents some time soon. Or maybe not. Let's cross that bridge if we ever get there, shall we?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Be less of a dick, and (some) people might be willing to give you a little of what you want. Keep on being a dick, and you'll get even less of it than you do now because you'll be ignored - at least by the people you've already beaten up.
quote:Very high level soft martial arts then, I will approach with considerable care.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I have no weapons to fight with - but will occasionally catch and bend someone's sword to cause them to pause a moment.
quote:Only to return when people are exhausted and do a little neck break here and a little backstab there. Sneaky, sneaky ninjas...
Originally posted by Boogie:
Faith, and matters of faith are important to me but I wouldn't fight over them. When the battle gets nasty I back off.
quote:Thanks for the kind words, Marvin. This is exactly what I was trying to get at earlier. There is such a thing as deep respect and even friendship that arises out of rather than being destroyed by fighting hard with each other. It's difficult to explain if one hasn't experienced it, but I value it highly. It depends crucially on certain spoken or unspoken rules of engagement though, a certain attitude of both sides as they lock horns. (And in fact, I think this points to an alternative to "soft ecumenism", one I could get behind. But that's perhaps too much of a tangent now.)
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I kinda wish there were more people like IngoB on these boards. He may never be my theological ally, but by God he is a worthy and respected opponent.
quote:No, they're actually asking you to be less of a dick. Not dickless. There is a difference, and one which you seem to be either unable or unwilling to comprehend.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Nope, I haven't done that. I have complained that people insist that I must do origami instead or be a bad person.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, but while we are here, you're complaining that theological pugilism (which is what you're here for) isn't everyone's cup of tea.
quote:So what you are saying is that I am hung like a donkey, but really should consider grinding my manhood down to a micro-dick like yours?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, they're actually asking you to be less of a dick. Not dickless. There is a difference, and one which you seem to be either unable or unwilling to comprehend.
quote:Seriously?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Your lucky run has ended. I very much do not enjoy this process. I deal with it.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Desert Daughter, while I do think we can get dogpiley on occasion, in this case the guy at the bottom so clearly enjoys the process it's hard to feel too bad about this pile.
quote:Having is not being. This applies especially to big dicks.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:So what you are saying is that I am hung like a donkey, but really should consider grinding my manhood down to a micro-dick like yours?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, they're actually asking you to be less of a dick. Not dickless. There is a difference, and one which you seem to be either unable or unwilling to comprehend.
I guess penis envy is in the hand of the beholder.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's very true, Evensong; but the great thing about being at the bottom is that you get tons of attention.
quote:So you run the same ambiguity that I have used to create an amusing (*) insult backwards to insult me. How creative. You should choose a profession that plays to your talents. Hmm, Senior Pencil Sharpener and Paper Clip Counter, perhaps?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Having is not being. This applies especially to big dicks.
quote:There are some big swinging dicks around here but most of those who fall into that category know not to parade them in public. All. The. Time.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:So what you are saying is that I am hung like a donkey, but really should consider grinding my manhood down to a micro-dick like yours?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, they're actually asking you to be less of a dick. Not dickless. There is a difference, and one which you seem to be either unable or unwilling to comprehend.
I guess penis envy is in the hand of the beholder.
quote:Yes, what this world really needs is a psychological analysis that pins the blame to the person at the bottom of the dog pile. A truly enabling effort that will be appreciated by dogs everywhere. Of course, if we strip away the sophistication, then "he asked for it, didn't he?" is not exactly the most original justification ever. But the packaging makes all the difference, doesn't it? And that's why we need professionals on the job.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's very true, Evensong; but the great thing about being at the bottom is that you get tons of attention. You know the boy who keeps leaving his coat at school, and his mum bawls him out. He's getting something at least, and he's not being ignored.
quote:FWIW, none of the previous 8 pages of posts particularly fazes me.
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
A few years ago, I sat next to Bingo at dinner.
I'd recently started a thread in Hell about him and, on quite few other occasions commented on what a complete dick he is.
Before he arrived (it was a ship meet) there was some tension about how it would all go. Given that I - and most of the others at the table - had said some quite rude things about him, we were a tad nervous.
He arrived a bit late. He sat next to me.
He had not the slightest clue about - or interest in - who anyone else at the table was. He didn't ask. I don't think he cared who anyone else was, to be frank.
He was perfectly polite. He talked endlessly about himself.
He told us how clever he is.
He is clever. No doubt about it.
But he's still a dick.
And he has no idea about how to relate to anyone.
quote:A battle of attrition has never been the best way to deal with a dogpile in the long term. Short term yes - you can win a few over but long term - no.
Originally posted by IngoB:
best way of dealing with dog piles is hence to keep on hitting back hard at everybody who has a go. Dealing with an able defender and getting their own noses bloodied is not what this was supposed to be about, and soon the number of dogs begins to shrink.
(snip)
Anyway, I'm actually mildly surprised how long it is taking me to whittle down the dog numbers this time. Either this is because it has been quite a while since my last Hell call, or because the reality of hell really pisses people off, at Dead Horse levels. Or both.
quote:Odd that. That's not the impression others that have met him have given.
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
A few years ago, I sat next to Bingo at dinner.
I'd recently started a thread in Hell about him and, on quite few other occasions commented on what a complete dick he is.
Before he arrived (it was a ship meet) there was some tension about how it would all go. Given that I - and most of the others at the table - had said some quite rude things about him, we were a tad nervous.
He arrived a bit late. He sat next to me.
He had not the slightest clue about - or interest in - who anyone else at the table was. He didn't ask. I don't think he cared who anyone else was, to be frank.
He was perfectly polite. He talked endlessly about himself.
He told us how clever he is.
He is clever. No doubt about it.
But he's still a dick.
And he has no idea about how to relate to anyone.
God will sigh heavily when Bingo gets to the pearly gates. He'll find out what he's been doing wrong all this time.
quote:Maybe others were being polite.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Odd that. That's not the impression others that have met him have given.
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
A few years ago, I sat next to Bingo at dinner.
I'd recently started a thread in Hell about him and, on quite few other occasions commented on what a complete dick he is.
Before he arrived (it was a ship meet) there was some tension about how it would all go. Given that I - and most of the others at the table - had said some quite rude things about him, we were a tad nervous.
He arrived a bit late. He sat next to me.
He had not the slightest clue about - or interest in - who anyone else at the table was. He didn't ask. I don't think he cared who anyone else was, to be frank.
He was perfectly polite. He talked endlessly about himself.
He told us how clever he is.
He is clever. No doubt about it.
But he's still a dick.
And he has no idea about how to relate to anyone.
God will sigh heavily when Bingo gets to the pearly gates. He'll find out what he's been doing wrong all this time.
quote:Assuming that Left at the Altar's post accurately recounts an actual event, it's interesting in that it tends to undercut the idea that one's internet personality is at all likely to be substantially different from one's personality style IRL. Of course, this is just an N=1 case study, but I seem to recall that Ingo has in the past implied that his SoF self-presentation isn't to be taken as representative of his relational style IRL. He's also stated that the community aspects of SoF aren't particularly important to him, as they are to some shipmates. Those two assertions would seem to be rather mutually contradictory.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I cross-posted with this.
quote:FWIW, none of the previous 8 pages of posts particularly fazes me.
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
A few years ago, I sat next to Bingo at dinner.
I'd recently started a thread in Hell about him and, on quite few other occasions commented on what a complete dick he is.
Before he arrived (it was a ship meet) there was some tension about how it would all go. Given that I - and most of the others at the table - had said some quite rude things about him, we were a tad nervous.
He arrived a bit late. He sat next to me.
He had not the slightest clue about - or interest in - who anyone else at the table was. He didn't ask. I don't think he cared who anyone else was, to be frank.
He was perfectly polite. He talked endlessly about himself.
He told us how clever he is.
He is clever. No doubt about it.
But he's still a dick.
And he has no idea about how to relate to anyone.
This one hurts.
quote:My foregoing observations would be incomplete without affirming what Evensong says here. The one person I know who has had RL dealings with Ingo paints a picture of him that is different to what one would tend to infer from his SoF presentation. And yet...
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Odd that. That's not the impression others that have met him have given.
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
A few years ago, I sat next to Bingo at dinner.
I'd recently started a thread in Hell about him and, on quite few other occasions commented on what a complete dick he is.
Before he arrived (it was a ship meet) there was some tension about how it would all go. Given that I - and most of the others at the table - had said some quite rude things about him, we were a tad nervous.
He arrived a bit late. He sat next to me.
He had not the slightest clue about - or interest in - who anyone else at the table was. He didn't ask. I don't think he cared who anyone else was, to be frank.
He was perfectly polite. He talked endlessly about himself.
He told us how clever he is.
He is clever. No doubt about it.
But he's still a dick.
And he has no idea about how to relate to anyone.
God will sigh heavily when Bingo gets to the pearly gates. He'll find out what he's been doing wrong all this time.
quote:Shippies?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Maybe others were being polite.
quote:This is true. I also have a compassionate side that I can extend to people who are hurting through no fault of their own. Although perhaps nobody here has seen it, or remembers it.
Originally posted by Yorick:
He has a dark and mean side, does our beloved little mousey.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by IngoB:
I cross-posted with this.
quote:FWIW, none of the previous 8 pages of posts particularly fazes me.
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
A few years ago, I sat next to Bingo at dinner.
I'd recently started a thread in Hell about him and, on quite few other occasions commented on what a complete dick he is.
Before he arrived (it was a ship meet) there was some tension about how it would all go. Given that I - and most of the others at the table - had said some quite rude things about him, we were a tad nervous.
He arrived a bit late. He sat next to me.
He had not the slightest clue about - or interest in - who anyone else at the table was. He didn't ask. I don't think he cared who anyone else was, to be frank.
He was perfectly polite. He talked endlessly about himself.
He told us how clever he is.
He is clever. No doubt about it.
But he's still a dick.
And he has no idea about how to relate to anyone.
This one hurts.
quote:It was, indeed, another of your wholly consoling posts and reminded me of what the Pope says in the recent exhortation, that God never tires of forgiving us - it is we who tire of going to him with the same old sins. I shall be thinking of you when I take the little I have to the bank this weekend.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, I was responding to EM wishing she would "get it" like me, as should be obvious from me quoting that. As incomprehensible as that my appear to you, I was hence actually responding to the EM's suggestion that I had more (religiously relevant) talents than her. And my point was that there is no good reason for her to make such comparisons.
I also actually identified more with the one talent guy, except that unlike that fearful servant of the parable I believe that I have taken the master's advice to bring that talent to a bank.
quote:You really should have tried harder to "help it"! Then you would have spared us all the big pile of steaming ox-dung you unloaded in your post!
...I cannot help it, I just **have** to analyse the discourse going on in this thread...
quote:"thin-skinned" of course!
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Being think-skinned...
quote:In real life, yes. Our RL selves are gentler, more polite and more nuanced than we are on-line. Mostly.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Shippies?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Maybe others were being polite.
Unlikely.
quote:Well, people who are being victimized are often reluctant to see their part in it; it's not about blame though, as that would just repeat the bullying. My later example of women who have boy-friends who beat them up is the classic case - how do you stop it? One way is to show the woman that she is choosing the man; and there are other choices, and other men.
IngoB wrote:
Yes, what this world really needs is a psychological analysis that pins the blame to the person at the bottom of the dog pile. A truly enabling effort that will be appreciated by dogs everywhere. Of course, if we strip away the sophistication, then "he asked for it, didn't he?" is not exactly the most original justification ever. But the packaging makes all the difference, doesn't it? And that's why we need professionals on the job.
quote:That's lovely for you. I hope he's suitably chastened by your analysis, sensitive soul that he undoubtedly is, and gets back to crying himself to sleep and wetting the bed.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I've reached that point now with IngoB. Doubtless, quite smart, quite clever, well-educated. But not nearly as smart as he appears.
quote:In passing, can I say that back in the dim and distant past when I was a Purgatory host I never had to tell IngoB off for breaching the rules of Purgatory and I cannot recollect a single instance subsequently when a Purgatory host has had to tell IngoB off. Granted, not everyone who posts in Purgatory wants to win as badly as IngoB does and, sure, if people did we might reach 'Peak IngoB' and Purgatory might suffer thereby. But, given that he plays within the rules and that Purgatory would, undoubtedly be rather duller without his presence I think the whole "Oh Noes, IngoB does not appreciate the ethos of Purgatory" bit is rather overdone. Unless an Admin or Purgatory Host says otherwise IngoB is an entirely legitimate part of the Purgatorial ecosystem. You can disagree with his mission to vindicate the history and doctrine of the Catholic Church prior to the accession of Pope Francis or think that he is more concerned with winning arguments than with winning hearts and minds or whatever. But, galling as it is, IngoB is quite entitled to turn up in Purgatory and to start shredding your argument and to demonstrate that, by his lights, you are entirely wrong and a heretic to boot. People who don't like that sort of thing can always post in All Saints, Heaven or the Circus.
Do I set out in Purgatory to hurt people? No, I do not. (Or at least only rarely. I am actually human and occasionally I do attack people under the guise of arguing fact. But that indeed is evil and shameful, and I do not defend such attacks of mine.) However I do present views that I know will be very contentious, and highly challenging to many present. Hence I know that there will be hurt and anger. Yet I think this is justifiable, given that it should be obvious that those things are on the cards in Purgatory.
quote:What can you say after that?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
But, honestly, I wasn't looking for a victory of any sort.
Because, yes, Yorick, speaking only for myself, I am a big, huge baby!
As a member of a minority group that has endured real abuse, I found your attempt to identify IngoB as a member of a suffering minority utterly repulsive ...
quote:Again, I don't think anyone is actually disputing this. There's nothing (above "don't be a jerk" and "don't crusade") in the 10Cs that prevent him from continuing his preferred mode of interaction.
Originally posted by Gildas:
But, galling as it is, IngoB is quite entitled to turn up in Purgatory and to start shredding your argument and to demonstrate that, by his lights, you are entirely wrong and a heretic to boot. People who don't like that sort of thing can always post in All Saints, Heaven or the Circus.
quote:One can hope that you, in particular, won't say anything.... Something about opening your mouth and removing all doubt....
Originally posted by moron:
quote:What can you say after that?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
But, honestly, I wasn't looking for a victory of any sort.
Because, yes, Yorick, speaking only for myself, I am a big, huge baby!
As a member of a minority group that has endured real abuse, I found your attempt to identify IngoB as a member of a suffering minority utterly repulsive ...
quote:Doc Tor has it right, I think. I don't recall anyone suggesting IngoB is in breach of the Purgatory rules, merely that his approach to posting and his overall intentions are unsavory. People who don't like to have their arguments shredded or to be called a heretic don't need to avoid Purgatory; we just need to avoid engaging with IngoB.
Originally posted by Gildas:
But, galling as it is, IngoB is quite entitled to turn up in Purgatory and to start shredding your argument and to demonstrate that, by his lights, you are entirely wrong and a heretic to boot. People who don't like that sort of thing can always post in All Saints, Heaven or the Circus.
quote:You think that's how I imagine IngoB? How strange! I doubt that IngoB has ever cried himself to sleep or wet his bed. Ever!
Originally posted by passer:
That's lovely for you. I hope he's suitably chastened by your analysis, sensitive soul that he undoubtedly is, and gets back to crying himself to sleep and wetting the bed.
quote:One may hope. But I would recommend against holding one's breath! I find it very difficult to be "detached" about matters of the heart and soul. Add to that my thin-skin and sensitive nature ... and I'm a disaster constantly happening.
On a more positive note, hopefully your recent withdrawal from engagement in your thread has enabled you to view the exchanges on this board with the same level of detachment that I suspect Ingo does. Really.
▲
quote:Obviously there are real people behind the avatars. But our interactions here are at most a shadow of reality. We are disembodied voices that have a naming label slapped onto them. I perhaps narrate my reality to you, and you perhaps narrate yours to me. But we share those realities like we share the imaginary reality of a character in a book. Maybe it is a gripping story, but we do not really play in it together.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why? Do you honestly not see the people on here as real people - only when you see them IRL?
quote:LatA is a she (I hope, I'm sort of reeling from memory reorganisation at the moment...). Perhaps I'm just sad to see my younger self (by over a decade, unless I'm mistaken) getting trashed so mercilessly. And what can I say in my defence? Unlike interactions here, which one can point to and re-read, these are just memories. And frankly, I do not recall much about how that evening went. If I have the right meeting in mind, then this was in some relatively fancy restaurant with Zappa, Foaming Draught, LatA and probably one more person present (sorry if I forgot you, this is long ago...). If I really talked a lot about myself, as LatA claims, then most likely I was very nervous and/or there were plenty of uncomfortable silences. I tend to blab about my adventures when I feel under pressure to make conversation. Anyway, this certainly didn't stick in my mind as some kind of social disaster. Also it didn't register as a highlight of my life, obviously. But it was firmly in the "nice to have been there" category, as are all Shipmeets that I have attended. Now it got kicked into the gutter. Apparently I did not see past the polite facade of at least one person, and made some kind of fool of myself there. That hurts. Even though I think I am quite a bit different these days, at least certainly much more experienced, that hurts for the guy I was then.
Originally posted by Boogie:
You have spent 8 pages on here affirming how clever you are and how you enjoy sharpening your wits and arguments in the boxing ring of discussion by winning points. You sit next to a Shippie IRL and he comes here and says you are no different IRL - but that hurts. Again, why?
quote:Really? Why?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Well, now, it's Friday in "Bright Week," which seems a good time to end my exercise in re-lurking....
quote:That's an interesting and perhaps in some ways accurate point. But I think it's a mistake to think of 'real' people as one thing, and SOF interactions as something much less real. They may not always be sincere, or genuine, or kind - or have integrity. But in terms of our interactions with one another - unless we know otherwise - they represent what we know of each other, and are the measurement by which we can demonstrate respect and understanding for each other, even when in disagreement.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Obviously there are real people behind the avatars. But our interactions here are at most a shadow of reality. We are disembodied voices that have a naming label slapped onto them. I perhaps narrate my reality to you, and you perhaps narrate yours to me. But we share those realities like we share the imaginary reality of a character in a book. Maybe it is a gripping story, but we do not really play in it together.
quote:First off-- yes, I chimed in to say, LATA is a "she" , but you beat me to it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
What I can say though with confidence, and in spite of apparently shot memory, is that I wasn't in boxing ring mode there. I'm not sure what makes LatA say that I told them how clever I am. But it certainly was not in terms of some Purgatory-style heated debate over something. I don't do that at Shipmeets...
quote:Hey, cool, I got a free upgrade to Satanic class. Do the succubi still serve free crack cockaine there?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I've noted various statements (many amounting to damning with faint praise) about IngoB being "intelligent," "smart," "clever," etc. It's that last word that got me really thinking: In Genesis 3:1, the snake is characterized with a Hebrew word, 'arum עָרוּם, which can be translated "clever." It strikes me that this is the right designation for IngoB. Like the snake, he is "more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made." Like the snake, he can out-smart people foolish enough to engage in conversation with him. But, is being "clever" like the snake in Eden really something to admire?
quote:I'm sure that you excel at churning our regulation size poppies.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Of course, since I'm in a position of real authority, I can usually manage such a negative classroom presence, and reduce the damage that he/she can do.
quote:Oh, the irony of it all...
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
You think that's how I imagine IngoB? How strange! I doubt that IngoB has ever cried himself to sleep or wet his bed. Ever!
quote:Yes, I would be interested. I leave it up to you whether you want to do this here or by PM. (FWIW, I considered the matter between us settled satisfactorily until Porridge chimed in. I had to use what you wrote in responding to him, simply because he had not said anything specific but that he agreed with you.)
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
If you would still like to understand what led to my thinking, let me know and I will try to explain.
quote:Yes we DO!
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Obviously there are real people behind the avatars. But our interactions here are at most a shadow of reality. We are disembodied voices that have a naming label slapped onto them. I perhaps narrate my reality to you, and you perhaps narrate yours to me. But we share those realities like we share the imaginary reality of a character in a book. Maybe it is a gripping story, but we do not really play in it together.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why? Do you honestly not see the people on here as real people - only when you see them IRL?
quote:Well, I'm a punk-ass, yellow-bellied, jerk. I do as I am. So, feel free to have at it.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Calling someone to Hell right before a self-imposed two-week exile is a punk-ass, yellow-bellied, jerkish move. Coming back after scarcely contributing to the thread in the interim ... well, you'll find out what that is now, I suppose.
quote:OK. I'll do it here rather than in PM. (I'm happy to PM, but I figure since I brought it up in public I should be willing to discuss it in public.) It might not be until Sunday or Monday that I can get to it. I'm supposed to be finishing up on a project before going to a conference.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Yes, I would be interested. I leave it up to you whether you want to do this here or by PM. (FWIW, I considered the matter between us settled satisfactorily until Porridge chimed in. I had to use what you wrote in responding to him, simply because he had not said anything specific but that he agreed with you.)
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
If you would still like to understand what led to my thinking, let me know and I will try to explain.
quote:I wasn't patting myself on the back for it at all. If it came across that way, then the fault is entirely mine -- failure to communicate my intentions effectively.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
As for Dubious Thomas,
Ruth has you nailed, my friend. Stop patting yourself on the back for the outcome of a discussion you barely participated in.
quote:Huh?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I'm sure that you excel at churning our regulation size poppies.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Of course, since I'm in a position of real authority, I can usually manage such a negative classroom presence, and reduce the damage that he/she can do.
quote:Thanks! The linked definition says the idiom is used in Canada. I'm from Canada, but have never once heard it. Perhaps that's because my Canadian family and friends are mere ordinary height poppies, who don't use such sophisticated language. Anyway, it's nice to learn something new, especially since the idiom has its origins in classical Greek literature. Now, as is my wont, I'll go on using the expression to excess.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Cutting down the tall poppy.
quote:It was a bit mean of me and I apologise for hurting your feelings. To be honest, I am a bit surprised that you have the capacity to be hurt (not because I don't recognise you as human, but just that on these boards, you don't come across that way).
Originally posted by IngoB:
LatA is a she (I hope, I'm sort of reeling from memory reorganisation at the moment...). Perhaps I'm just sad to see my younger self (by over a decade, unless I'm mistaken) getting trashed so mercilessly. And what can I say in my defence? Unlike interactions here, which one can point to and re-read, these are just memories. And frankly, I do not recall much about how that evening went. If I have the right meeting in mind, then this was in some relatively fancy restaurant with Zappa, Foaming Draught, LatA and probably one more person present (sorry if I forgot you, this is long ago...). If I really talked a lot about myself, as LatA claims, then most likely I was very nervous and/or there were plenty of uncomfortable silences. I tend to blab about my adventures when I feel under pressure to make conversation. Anyway, this certainly didn't stick in my mind as some kind of social disaster. Also it didn't register as a highlight of my life, obviously. But it was firmly in the "nice to have been there" category, as are all Shipmeets that I have attended. Now it got kicked into the gutter. Apparently I did not see past the polite facade of at least one person, and made some kind of fool of myself there. That hurts. Even though I think I am quite a bit different these days, at least certainly much more experienced, that hurts for the guy I was then.
What I can say though with confidence, and in spite of apparently shot memory, is that I wasn't in boxing ring mode there. I'm not sure what makes LatA say that I told them how clever I am. But it certainly was not in terms of some Purgatory-style heated debate over something. I don't do that at Shipmeets...
quote:A nice story is still just a story. Again, I do not deny the reality of the people behind the story. But we are building a construct here, we weave a Matrix. It is false to say that this is the same for reality. I consider embodiment to be fundamental, and not just in a theoretical sense. I ultimately cannot be with your mind, but I can be with you. A point best made by for example giving a massage. I can describe to you what my hands can do. But the knots in your shoulder will not dissolve like butter in the sun from my words... My actual fingers must seek and circle and dig in and smooth out. I can make you imagine this, perhaps make you long for this, but I cannot speak it into being. Only one person can do that, and I am not Him. I am me, I am my hands. Lovely hands. Sensitive but powerful hands. Words have their own magic, and I sure can spin them. But there is a glass in my hand, and a whisky on my tongue and if you were here you could have one, too. But you are not here. And nothing I can say can change that. Ever.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But in terms of our interactions with one another - unless we know otherwise - they represent what we know of each other, and are the measurement by which we can demonstrate respect and understanding for each other, even when in disagreement.
quote:But my argument has never been "you are just a virtual entity, therefore I can hurt you at will". That's absurd. I believe that a certain way of discussing is a good way. And I believe that Purgatory is a good place for doing that concerning religion. Maybe it's also a good place for other things, but it is a good place for this. And when people say that they are hurt by that, then I think they are not getting the point of Purgatory. Or at least, they are not getting a valid point of Purgatory, one which I happens to be interested in. That's really all there is to that.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I think it is wrong to assume that we can be cold, dismissive or potentially hurtful simply because someone is communicating to us electronically; thinking that to respond that way on a forum has no 'real' effect on the person.
quote:Just checking in-- are you in any way aware how thoughtful and sensitive and moving and damn beautiful the above is? I just want to read that paragraph over and over again.
Originally posted by IngoB:
A nice story is still just a story. Again, I do not deny the reality of the people behind the story. But we are building a construct here, we weave a Matrix. It is false to say that this is the same for reality. I consider embodiment to be fundamental, and not just in a theoretical sense. I ultimately cannot be with your mind, but I can be with you. A point best made by for example giving a massage. I can describe to you what my hands can do. But the knots in your shoulder will not dissolve like butter in the sun from my words... My actual fingers must seek and circle and dig in and smooth out. I can make you imagine this, perhaps make you long for this, but I cannot speak it into being. Only one person can do that, and I am not Him. I am me, I am my hands. Lovely hands. Sensitive but powerful hands. Words have their own magic, and I sure can spin them. But there is a glass in my hand, and a whisky on my tongue and if you were here you could have one, too. But you are not here. And nothing I can say can change that. Ever.
quote:I agree, and that is why I've stopped trying to debate with IngoB. He avoids the substance of what is being put and simply responds in terms of pure rhetoric - the subject matters not, the grinding of the other into the ground is what debate is all about. That's OK at school, but not in real life.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
That is why mere verbal pugilism doesn't cut it for me--it's too easy. I believe we are evolving towards something much bigger than the chimps squabbling at the bottom of the monolith in 2001. And given the way things are developing-- evolutionarily and historically-- I believe the way we connect with each other by exchanging our thoughts an experiences is a big part of that evolution.
quote:As I pointed out in my overly-long post above, I don't regard that kind of behavior as "OK at school," which I experience very much as part of "real life." (For what it's worth.)
Originally posted by Gee D:
... the grinding of the other into the ground is what debate is all about. That's OK at school, but not in real life.
quote:Suit yourself.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
No tears in my eyes.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:I heartily agree.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't understand the denigration of words. Jesus is the Word of God. God created the world using words. And when people get together at say something like a shipmeet, what do they do? They talk. The words we weave here are not unreality.
quote:I apologise - I meant rhetoric school.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:As I pointed out in my overly-long post above, I don't regard that kind of behavior as "OK at school," which I experience very much as part of "real life." (For what it's worth.)
Originally posted by Gee D:
... the grinding of the other into the ground is what debate is all about. That's OK at school, but not in real life.
quote:No problem! I clearly misunderstood what you were referring to by "school" -- my mind was fixed on my own context, where I really hate it when a student sets out to demolish another in an argument. You were referring to something different.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:I apologise - I meant rhetoric school.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:As I pointed out in my overly-long post above, I don't regard that kind of behavior as "OK at school," which I experience very much as part of "real life." (For what it's worth.)
Originally posted by Gee D:
... the grinding of the other into the ground is what debate is all about. That's OK at school, but not in real life.
quote:Fear not. Thou hast redeemed thyself.
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I need to stay away from this website. It is bad for me.
In the space of a few hours, I've hurt Ingo's feelings and made Kelly cry (indirectly).
Away from these boards, I can go a year without doing either to anyone.
So I might bugger off again and return to being a relatively nice person.
quote:That thought's crossed my mind, too!
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
So I might bugger off again and return to being a relatively nice person.
quote:Oh for heaven's sake, I said they were happy tears! Yeesh!
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I need to stay away from this website. It is bad for me.
In the space of a few hours, I've hurt Ingo's feelings and made Kelly cry (indirectly).
quote:I understand that completely. I'm a very physical person and relate to the world very much through my senses.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Words have their own magic, and I sure can spin them. But there is a glass in my hand, and a whisky on my tongue and if you were here you could have one, too. But you are not here. And nothing I can say can change that. Ever.
quote:It needs the presumption that all parties are operating on the same principles to even begin to resemble reality.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm at a bit of a loss as to how Ingo can survive with a mindset that says interactions here aren't like real life.
quote:I've seen plenty of personal views from Ingo - he hasn't been shy, for example, about describing where he sees the actions of the current Pope as enabling sloppy or incorrect thinking.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The thing that I find vexatious about IngoB is his unwillingness to engage with theological debate at a level of personal experience or personal views.
quote:I'm not sure that pure rhetoric is even possible, it would be like Cage's 4'33''. However, to characterise my contributions (in Purgatory at least) as generally "avoiding the substance" is remarkably close to pure bullshit, which I guess is a form of pure rhetoric. So, we are getting there.
Originally posted by Gee D:
I agree, and that is why I've stopped trying to debate with IngoB. He avoids the substance of what is being put and simply responds in terms of pure rhetoric - the subject matters not, the grinding of the other into the ground is what debate is all about. That's OK at school, but not in real life.
quote:It's like you people have never known anyone who really likes to do something. Let's say playing basketball. That makes him a baller. You get invited to coffee at the baller's place. Curious, it must be another way of saying "let's have a short game of basketball". You go there, and the man actually serves you coffee and plays with his baby. And no, I don't mean that he's throwing the baby through a hoop. You go home marvelling and worry that he will jumps out of the bushes, shouting "Got you! Just kidding, let's play ball now." But no, you get home with not a basketball in sight... What's going on? The baller must be sick somehow, or on drugs. Yet the next day you see him again playing basketball in the court. He is a baller after all. Order is restored to the universe.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
So frustrated right now. Bingo just wrote something that brought tears to my eyes--in a good way, for a change--and I fully expect he will just write it off as a neurotic blip of some sort. Gahhh! That's the shit I live for!
quote:One of the things that keeps places like SoF going is the near infinite capacity of people to completely miss each other's points. I bet if you counted the number of re-explanations, they would easily amount to 50% of the traffic generated. Anyway, you completely missed my point there. Again.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I relate to all sorts of people in RL who don't massage me.
quote:Nobody has denigrated words here. Certainly not the Word, which I incidentally gave special mention. However, our words have no solidity of their own. I can give you a promise, and I can break it. It's not the words that bind me, per se, rather I can bind myself to words. I can describe a juicy steak to you, but you cannot eat it. But if I fry one for you, you can. Etc. Words can become real through agents, but they are fundamentally virtual. And if you have a "community" that interacts essentially only with words, then that is challenging in a fundamental way. It is not simply a real community but now on the internet.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't understand the denigration of words.
quote:This is really well put.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
OK, more bluntly, I can't imagine that Ingo really believes many of the things he argues for, unless he willfully turns off all independent critical judgment, or unless he is just playing games with language. I understand that his subjective, experiential religion may be quite different to the intellectual argumentation he presents on the Ship. I just think his apparent subscription to the dogmatic authority of the Roman Catholic Church is either disingenuous or neurotically rigid. If he is not simply winding us all up, then it's not very different to me from any other variety of unquestioning fundamentalism. Since that can't be put down to ignorance in his case, it would seem to express a rigidity of character and a need for absolutes that finds expression in his approach to Catholicism.
quote:Though perhaps I might rephrase ‘avoids the substance of what is being put’ as ‘avoids recognising any validity in the point that is being made’.
I agree, and that is why I've stopped trying to debate with IngoB. He avoids the substance of what is being put and simply responds in terms of pure rhetoric - the subject matters not, the grinding of the other into the ground is what debate is all about.
quote:No hint at all of any recognition of the point that GeeD was trying to make – just a clever parry and deflection. It’s quite ironic really. I doubt that my post will get through IngoB’s defences either – it’s intended for other shipmates, to say ‘yes, I know what the problem is, too’.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I'm not sure that pure rhetoric is even possible, it would be like Cage's 4'33''[link removed to save hostly effort]. However, to characterise my contributions (in Purgatory at least) as generally "avoiding the substance" is remarkably close to pure bullshit, which I guess is a form of pure rhetoric. So, we are getting there.
Originally posted by Gee D:
I agree, and that is why I've stopped trying to debate with IngoB. He avoids the substance of what is being put and simply responds in terms of pure rhetoric - the subject matters not, the grinding of the other into the ground is what debate is all about.
quote:I'll quit when I'm good and ready, and certainly not at the request of Bingo's chief lickspittle. You're so uncritical of his writings that if he said the moon had turned paisley you'd rush outside with your camera in breathless excitement.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Mousethief, if you're so determined to paint IngoB as a baddie that you're having baldly to misrepresent his posts - or are no longer able to make the effort to understand them in the first place - maybe it's time to quit.
quote:Forgot the third option: "freak".
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
As for LSK's comment above that IngoB'd have to be an idiot or a knave actually to believe what the RCC teaches [...]
quote:Mine was just observation and advice, mousethief, certainly not a request. In fact, since I'm not as spiteless as I'd like to be, I'll admit that I will get a certain satisfaction from your carrying on exactly as you are. Every post you splurt makes IngoB seem less and less unattractive.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I'll quit when I'm good and ready, and certainly not at the request of Bingo's chief lickspittle. You're so uncritical of his writings that if he said the moon had turned paisley you'd rush outside with your camera in breathless excitement.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Mousethief, if you're so determined to paint IngoB as a baddie that you're having baldly to misrepresent his posts - or are no longer able to make the effort to understand them in the first place - maybe it's time to quit.
quote:You should like this tactic -- it's closely related to IngoB's chief way of deflecting criticism, which is ignore-and-attack. I am a pompous ass, but I have a solid track record of taking criticism on board. IngoB has no such record. So if you're going to play the "let's compare how they accept criticism" game, your demigod is going to lose.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Yours, on the other hand, is one of the oldest intimidatory tricks in the book: try embarrass those who criticise your conduct into giving up by making them seem craven and contemptible for defending the other guy - in this case, the harried (and overwhelmingly under-supported) target of the attack. It's your tactic that's contemptible, however. It won't work on me, I'm afraid, so you may as well quit that too.
quote:And note how he has responded to people who have made a genuine attempt to reach out to him.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And please. IngoB is hardly "harried" by this criticism, as he will be the first to admit.
quote:I for one have no problems with MOOCs and the like. Other than that they may one day make superfluous the sort of job that I have currently. But I hope to be done with working by then. My point that online communities are not real says precisely nothing about their ability to teach people something. A book (as far as its written content goes) is not real in the same sense as well, but nobody doubts that one can learn something from a book.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Secondly, this assumption that on-line communities are not real is very common. I've heard Professor Mary Beard completely dismissing MOOCs in a debate because the discussion wasn't as good as that found in Oxbridge tutor groups, Ironically I thought of the level of debate in Purgatory and the effort put in by people like IngoB when I was talking to one of the proponents of MOOCs after the debate.
quote:There's a basic assumption behind this kind of critique. It is putting the individual person at centre stage, elevating one's own understanding as the ultimate arbiter, and turning all spiritual motions into a process of the self realising its goals. This is the central modern heresy. Its closest ancient predecessor is Pelagianism, but it really has its own flavour. Let's call it individualism. One curious feature of individualism is that it loves to call on (modern natural) science as its ally. However, other than by the cultural accident of both having come to the fore together during the "enlightenment", they have little to do with each other. Like any search for the truth, science is fundamentally opposed to individualism. It operates through group consensus, not by individual judgement. It establishes hierarchies and formalises its internal power structures in terms of these hierarchies. It relies deeply on authority, and the comprehensive "indoctrination" of those who wish to take part in its operations. The romantic view of science as proceeding by revolutionaries challenging the status quo is rubbish, as everybody in the sciences knows. The "challengers" are invariably deeply embedded in the community, indeed usually they are among the foremost authorities themselves; and they do not make their discoveries by leaving all that is known behind, but precisely by working the edge of the known in full light of all that has gone before. Individualism is basically incapable of approaching the truth. It is a delusion that impotently circles on itself. This is true in science, and it is true in religion. A single human mind simply does not cut it.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I find it hard to believe that, as a neuroscientist, Ingo simply uncritically submits himself to the doctrine of the Catholic Church - in its most unloving iteration - with such a complete lack of intellectual curiosity or a looking at the bigger cultural-evolutionary matrix into which religion itself fits. He has a background in Zen Buddhism, so one would very much infer that he has a religiously subtle, questing mind (unless he surrendered that utterly in order to have something solid to hold onto in a particular type of Catholicism).
quote:The basic problem here is the idea that one can question faith. One cannot. One can question based on faith, one can question in what one should have faith, but faith itself cannot be questioned without dissolving. Because faith just is an answer one has chosen in the absence of conclusive evidence. If one is questioning faith, then one is simply removing that very part of faith in question from the faith, at least temporarily. And if one questions all of faith, then one simply has none. There is however a difference between faith proper, and "blind faith" or even "blinding faith". The principle that truth cannot contradict truth is deeper than faith, and hence faith can be challenged by the discovery of independent truth, and the potential contradiction it may bring. However, the usual "truths" that are brought forward against the traditional truths of Christianity are for the most part not independent truths at all. Rather, they are alternative faiths, different answers that have been chosen, not contradictory truth that has been discovered. I've looked fairly hard at Catholicism, and there certainly is nothing there that is in irresolvable contradiction to well-established natural science. There is however plenty there that is in tension with the secular individualist-humanist-hedonist faith of modernity.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
If he is not simply winding us all up, then it's not very different to me from any other variety of unquestioning fundamentalism. Since that can't be put down to ignorance in his case, it would seem to express a rigidity of character and a need for absolutes that finds expression in his approach to Catholicism.
quote:To each his own. Have a go with that then. My personal suspicion is that the "diplomatic negotiations" will turn out to have been "preaching to the choir" where successful. It's amazing how far you can get when you try to convince people of things they already believe in. But then I'm admittedly rather cynical, and youthful enthusiasm can only invigorate the discussion.
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
What I prefer is an engagement style more like diplomatic negotiations between representatives of wary but hopeful potential trading nations, in which the negotiations look for common ground on which to establish a tentative link, and the areas of disagreement can be identified and debated; possibly resolved by a change of position by one party or the other, or possibly unresolved and left as an agreement to disagree, but where both parties have the common ground of an understanding of what they disagree about.
quote:GeeD wasn't making a point. If you have followed my posting in Purgatory at all, then you know that the claim that my posts are free of substance is patently absurd. GeeD was simply launching a personal attack based on an outright falsehood, and I called her on it. That's all.
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
No hint at all of any recognition of the point that GeeD was trying to make – just a clever parry and deflection.
quote:Interesting. I would have said that you are pretty much the same mousethief I have always known, except that you are for some reason increasingly out to get me. But perhaps the changes have occurred concerning parts of the Ship I do not participate so much in, or perhaps they were slow so that every step along the way you appeared "the same old" even though there was a substantial change if one compares the end with the beginning. In what way have you become a new and improved mousethief?
Originally posted by mousethief:
I am a pompous ass, but I have a solid track record of taking criticism on board.
quote:You have been spending a lot of time talking about me, judging my various performances by your standards, rather than talking to me. That's not "reaching out". It's also nice that you appreciated one thing I wrote to the point of tears. But instead of leaving it at that, you tried to turn that into a teaching moment about communication for me. Perhaps that's a kind of "reaching out", but one that tries to pull me precisely where others have been trying to push me. I don't like either. Finally, instead of letting that one moment of genuine interaction simply stand (whether I learn something from it or not), you had to go and predict that I will trash it. Well, guess what, that prediction itself pretty much trashed the moment for me (as expressed in the baller analogy: because it just blithely assumes that I'm one-dimensional).
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And note how he has responded to people who have made a genuine attempt to reach out to him. Ain't gonna try that again.
quote:Not really a lot of time, I only chimed in fairly recently. And I kind of gave myself huge latitude to be judgemental, because 1. you said it doesn't bother you in the slightest and 2. you have said over an over again you like challenge. I genuinely thought any thing I would have to say-- which is pretty tame compared to what lots of other people have said--would shed off your back unnoticed. My reason for believing this comes from a steady stream of such claims coming from you!
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:You have been spending a lot of time talking about me, judging my various performances by your standards, rather than talking to me. That's not "reaching out".
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And note how he has responded to people who have made a genuine attempt to reach out to him. Ain't gonna try that again.
quote:So, the way I spoke to you effected you in an emotional way, ruined the moment for you, and now you are disinclined to take whatever positive feedback you might have gotten from it.
It's also nice that you appreciated one thing I wrote to the point of tears. But instead of leaving it at that, you tried to turn that into a teaching moment about communication for me. Perhaps that's a kind of "reaching out", but one that tries to pull me precisely where others have been trying to push me. I don't like either. Finally, instead of letting that one moment of genuine interaction simply stand (whether I learn something from it or not), you had to go and predict that I will trash it. Well, guess what, that prediction itself pretty much trashed the moment for me (as expressed in the baller analogy: because it just blithely assumes that I'm one-dimensional).
quote:He's intellectually developed and emotionally, morally and spiritually stunted. A very common dysfunction here in Silicon Valley.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I don't think Ingo uncritically believes that shit unless he desperately needs an external authority to define all his world view. So Chesterbelloc, there is another option: IngoB is an intellectual and moral coward.
quote:How would you know since all you care about is pugilism? To try to judge people's character, and whether or not it changes, requires treating them as feeling beings and not just sparring partners. My faith in your ability to do so, therefore, is just slightly less than nil.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Interesting. I would have said that you are pretty much the same mousethief I have always known
Originally posted by mousethief:
I am a pompous ass, but I have a solid track record of taking criticism on board.
quote:I also have absolutely no faith in your ability to accept anything I might say here. Your ability to accept anything I say is stunted and withered, and even where I agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church, or do my best to present its teachings fairly and even-handedly, you find infinitesimal nits to pick, if you don't attack me outright.
In what way have you become a new and improved mousethief?
quote:Page 2, but OK, you really started getting into this only on page 7.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Not really a lot of time, I only chimed in fairly recently.
quote:That I can take most crap thrown at me without flinching doesn't mean that I like people to approach me by throwing crap at me. Anyway, given the rising polarisation so typical to Hell it would be rather tricky to "genuinely reach out" to me now without joining "my side". Hell has worked its usual magic and the trenches have been dug deep.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And I kind of gave myself huge latitude to be judgemental, because 1. you said it doesn't bother you in the slightest and 2. you have said over an over again you like challenge. I genuinely thought any thing I would have to say-- which is pretty tame compared to what lots of other people have said--would shed off your back unnoticed.
quote:I'm actually OK with touchy feely talk, where we talk about touchy feely things. I don't like touchy feely talk where that is used to circumvent arguments, or where that is even directly wielded as an attack weapon. And let me be clear about this, a Hell call, where I'm trying to fend off one attack wave after the other, is not exactly the best time to ask for a bit of touchy feely time. Or indeed, the best time to expect a pleasant response from me. I try to switch modes appropriately as I move from post to post, but some spill-over is unavoidable. Finally, I am actively working towards ending this Hell call, and I have been from the start. My way, which doesn't involve white flags much. Again, that leads to some responses that I would not make if I was just dealing with a single person. So I'm sorry if things didn't go so well. I suggest as a general principle to just write what you would like to write, without second-guessing me, and to just lower your expectations of what may happen in this particular setting.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
TBH, I genuinely was frustrated, because you have made so many sneery comments about touchy feely talk that I was struggling to come up with something that wouldn't come off as sappy and Joan Baez- y, and tried to craft something that would fit more with what I imagined would be language you prefer.
quote:I'm the son of a teacher. Some allergic reactions to teacher-speak are to be expected...
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I guess the closest thing I have to Bingo- speak is Teacher- speak, and you are not the first person who has complained about me lapsing into teacher-speak.
quote:Perhaps instead of trying to figure out my internal mechanisms, you should adopt a "black box" approach. Simply take note under what circumstances I produce the behaviour that you like, and then make those happen.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
My Achilles heel is trying to figure you the fuck out-- I am not a pugilist, I am a high school biology student with rusty tools and your brain pinned to a lab pan. Maybe I need to drop the scalpel.
quote:Reasonable advice. My perception was that you seemed to be taking in comments in an unusually receptive way-- from my experience-- and yeah, a teacher will jump on shit like that like ants on a crumbcake.
So I'm sorry if things didn't go so well. I suggest as a general principle to just write what you would like to write, without second-guessing me, and to just lower your expectations of what may happen in this particular setting.
Ok. Got it. I will consider my tone in future engagements with you. We have a tendency not to know when to shut it off.
quote:I think when most people say 'questioning faith' they mean questioning in what one should have faith.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The basic problem here is the idea that one can question faith. One cannot. One can question based on faith, one can question in what one should have faith, but faith itself cannot be questioned without dissolving. Because faith just is an answer one has chosen in the absence of conclusive evidence. If one is questioning faith, then one is simply removing that very part of faith in question from the faith, at least temporarily.
quote:No, it's not especially pathetic or cowardly. But it's VERY convoluted and a waste of time. He could be using his time to enjoy life and help others do the same rather than tying himself in knots defending such stuff.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
A scientifically trained mind capitulating to the social control dogma of the RCC - and its reactionary political compensations - is simply pathetic. I don't think Ingo uncritically believes that shit unless he desperately needs an external authority to define all his world view. So Chesterbelloc, there is another option: IngoB is an intellectual and moral coward.
quote:Except that you're only partially and marginally correct.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Like any search for the truth, science is fundamentally opposed to individualism. It operates through group consensus, not by individual judgement. It establishes hierarchies and formalises its internal power structures in terms of these hierarchies. It relies deeply on authority, and the comprehensive "indoctrination" of those who wish to take part in its operations. The romantic view of science as proceeding by revolutionaries challenging the status quo is rubbish, as everybody in the sciences knows. The "challengers" are invariably deeply embedded in the community, indeed usually they are among the foremost authorities themselves; and they do not make their discoveries by leaving all that is known behind, but precisely by working the edge of the known in full light of all that has gone before. Individualism is basically incapable of approaching the truth. It is a delusion that impotently circles on itself. This is true in science, and it is true in religion. A single human mind simply does not cut it.
quote:Tell you what, you convince our Protestant brethren of the Real Presence, and I will come back to you on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. In other breaking news, I believe that the RCC is what she says she is, and has the authority that she claims she has, and you don't.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
First, i make a distinction between faith regarding such ineffables as the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Atonement, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist on the one hand, and intellectual subscripfion to many other aspects of the magisterium such as its utter pomposity in dogmatising the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the BVM, ...
quote:A committee of psychologists rewriting DSM definitions concerning "abnormal" sexuality is admittedly not the kind of "science" I was thinking about. The sort of science that is involved in the usual secular hagiography of Galileo Galilei indeed is more like it. I'm not aware that the RCC denies the existence of various LGBT circumstances though, she differs simply in their moral and social evaluation.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
... and its superstitious and archaic teachings regarding various aspects of sexuality and gender. In regard to the latter, the RCC is about as up with objective reality as its reactionary rejection of the heliocentric understanding of our own solar system.
quote:I wonder, just how mainstream does your view have to become, and just how few people have to maintain mine, before you stop pretending that your view requires heroic courage and mine the instincts of a lemming? I'm also not quite sure why you would consider for example the RC social principle of subsidiarity to be pathetic and reactionary. But perhaps your social concerns are entirely genital...
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
A scientifically trained mind capitulating to the social control dogma of the RCC - and its reactionary political compensations - is simply pathetic. I don't think Ingo uncritically believes that shit unless he desperately needs an external authority to define all his world view. So Chesterbelloc, there is another option: IngoB is an intellectual and moral coward.
quote:Perhaps, but you are not otherwise shy to appeal to the audience when talking to me. It seems to me that it is quite reasonable to ask you to back up a claim you have made.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I also have absolutely no faith in your ability to accept anything I might say here.
quote:Seems to me that if I am indeed as entirely incapable of both empathy and introspection as you say that I am, then there is not much reason to be hostile. It would be like remonstrating a quadriplegic for performing so badly in the long jump.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And you wonder why I am hostile to you? Ho boy. Self-awareness of a rock.
quote:It was actually a suggestion to save you some time and emotional energy...
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Oh, but I'm not gonna put in the time and effort to "black box" you. I have enough of my own behaviour to modify without taking on that venture
quote:In which case I would say that many people spend a lot of time going over the same faith issues again and again, rather than coming to a decision once and then moving on to other issues. Frankly, I just don't see this big stream of new evidence rushing in that would justify that.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think when most people say 'questioning faith' they mean questioning in what one should have faith.
quote:But I am enjoying myself. Well, not here right now so much, but that's because Hell involves dealing with incessant personal attacks. I like defending stuff, not myself. I find it very tiresome to defend my own person.
Originally posted by Boogie:
He could be using his time to enjoy life and help others do the same rather than tying himself in knots defending such stuff.
quote:Well, that's a view skewed by the last reverberations of an unique time in physics in the early 20th century. See here (primary source here): "Today, the average age at which physicists do their Nobel Prize-winning work is 48. Very little breakthrough work is done by physicists under 30."
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Most scientists do their ground-breaking work in their 20s or early 30s. They know enough about the science to do the experiments. They're not so thoroughly indoctrinated that they don't do things that are different or dangerous. They're not 'foremost authorities' - they become them. At the time of their breakthroughs, they're young whippersnappers that have their professors shaking their heads.
quote:And there lies the problem for me.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But I am enjoying myself. Well, not here right now so much, but that's because Hell involves dealing with incessant personal attacks. I like defending stuff, not myself. I find it very tiresome to defend my own person.
quote:So what you're saying is that you were wrong, but now you're right? Uh huh.
Originally posted by IngoB:
"Today, the average age at which physicists do their Nobel Prize-winning work is 48. Very little breakthrough work is done by physicists under 30."
quote:It could be that Nobel Prizes are now more commonly won by scientists working in well-funded institutions, whereas the prizes won by the young stars of the pre-war era were mostly of a different nature that didn't require much more than a blackboard, chalk, pencil and paper.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:So what you're saying is that you were wrong, but now you're right? Uh huh.
Originally posted by IngoB:
"Today, the average age at which physicists do their Nobel Prize-winning work is 48. Very little breakthrough work is done by physicists under 30."
quote:Not exactly. Newton was in his twenties when he made breakthroughs in optics, gravity and calculus, Kepler was 24 when he published his first major work, Marie Curie was 31 when she isolated radium, Darwin was 28 when he started formulating the theory of evolution: some of them needed nothing more complicated than a bit of parchment, but Darwin's research needed a long sea voyage and a lot of specimens, the Curies worked out of a shed packed with stuff they'd made themselves, and Kepler had access to the latest astronomical instruments and tables of his time.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:It could be that Nobel Prizes are now more commonly won by scientists working in well-funded institutions, whereas the prizes won by the young stars of the pre-war era were mostly of a different nature that didn't require much more than a blackboard, chalk, pencil and paper.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:So what you're saying is that you were wrong, but now you're right? Uh huh.
Originally posted by IngoB:
"Today, the average age at which physicists do their Nobel Prize-winning work is 48. Very little breakthrough work is done by physicists under 30."
quote:I really like Monty Python, including their stuff on religion / Catholicism. There's something good-natured about their mockery, it is neither sour-faced nor vicious, and usually is quite even-handed. (I also think that "Life of Brian" is quite possibly the funniest film I've ever seen.) In particular, this particular song would not be complete without its Protestant coda.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk&feature=kp : Ingo I had something far more comprehensive in mind than LGBT issues.
quote:Well, yes. Because they are (by and large) not assholes about respecting other people. You are.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Perhaps, but you are not otherwise shy to appeal to the audience when talking to me.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I also have absolutely no faith in your ability to accept anything I might say here.
quote:A quibble: many Protestants - Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists - are in fact convinced of the Real Presence.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Tell you what, you convince our Protestant brethren of the Real Presence, and I will come back to you on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption.
quote:[Point of Information] I swear I am not paying mousethief to type this stuff. [/Point of Information]
Originally posted by mousethief:
(Cue chesterbollocks whining about how I just don't like losing arguments. Give it a rest, brown-noser.)
quote:If the points are those of a Rusty Farm Implement then yes, that is so.
Originally posted by Caissa:
I always thought points of information belonged in Hell.
quote:And that was actually A JOKE.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Oh, but I'm not gonna put in the time and effort to "black box" you. I have enough of my own behaviour to modify without taking on that venture [Big Grin]
It was actually a suggestion to save you some time and emotional energy...
quote:I think (I could be wrong) you don't think you should have to defend your own person. You are a Roman Catholic; you believe the Church is what she says she is and has the authority she says she has. Any beliefs that are a direct consequence of those two key points may be explained, but shouldn't have to be defended.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I like defending stuff, not myself. I find it very tiresome to defend my own person.
quote:Don't say that, he'll take it as a compliment!
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I can't quite believe that this has gone on for ten pages! I partly don't understand why people really care that much. At times Ingo presents reasoned arguments, at worst it's like chewing through Summa Theologia.
quote:If I make a factual claim, then I consider it fair to be asked to back it up, even if the person asking is an asshole. The standard I'm holding myself to resides in me, not in the other.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, yes. Because they are (by and large) not assholes about respecting other people. You are.
quote:You are wrong. I'm delighted to defend the doctrines of the RCC, and I have no expectation that others will consider my belief in her authority as limiting those discussions. When I say that I don't like to defend my person I mean the litany of my personal character faults, real or imagined, and my purported wrongdoings on the Ship.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think (I could be wrong) you don't think you should have to defend your own person. You are a Roman Catholic; you believe the Church is what she says she is and has the authority she says she has. Any beliefs that are a direct consequence of those two key points may be explained, but shouldn't have to be defended.
quote:Hope never dies, eh?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
He reminds me of other dogmatics who have spent time on this ship, not least a Greek one who went the way of many others of his type.
quote:We're taking turns at caring. Different people sort of phase in and out. I know I phased in for a while, and then phased right out a couple of days ago.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I can't quite believe that this has gone on for ten pages! I partly don't understand why people really care that much.
quote:But most people I meet don't separate what someone believes from what kind of person they are. Many people believe that many of the things the Church teaches are unkind, either in essence, or in effect, or both. That is bound to affect what they think of people who affirm the Church's teaching, no matter the manner in which they do it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:You are wrong. I'm delighted to defend the doctrines of the RCC, and I have no expectation that others will consider my belief in her authority as limiting those discussions. When I say that I don't like to defend my person I mean the litany of my personal character faults, real or imagined, and my purported wrongdoings on the Ship.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think (I could be wrong) you don't think you should have to defend your own person. You are a Roman Catholic; you believe the Church is what she says she is and has the authority she says she has. Any beliefs that are a direct consequence of those two key points may be explained, but shouldn't have to be defended.
quote:And I keep writing posts, hitting "preview," then saying "screw it, too logical for this crowd" and deleting them.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:We're taking turns at caring. Different people sort of phase in and out. I know I phased in for a while, and then phased right out a couple of days ago.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I can't quite believe that this has gone on for ten pages! I partly don't understand why people really care that much.
quote:No it isn't. But that really isn't what this thread is about.
Originally posted by Ariston:
Seriously people. Is it such a sin for someone trying to construct arguments valid for more than one person to want to base them on something not as subjective, personal, and valid for only one person as personal experience and fwuffy feelz?
quote:I'm not.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
We should not confound "kindness" with "in line with the Zeitgeist", "deemed good by popular acclaim", or "pandering to the lowest common denominator".
quote:Well, for the most part people here have been more sophisticated than saying "IngoB believes what the RCC teaches, hence must be a bad person." It is rather obvious that an attack on the person is superfluous then. If the RC teaching is the problem, then the RC teaching is what needs to be attacked in a discussion forum, not the personal character of any individual supporter. And if RC teaching is truly beyond the pale, then all defence of RC teaching must be banned, not any specific effort by any individual supporter. It is simply dishonest to formally allow RC participation, but then to attack people at the personal level if they in fact support the RCC. However, I would like to stress that I do not think that this has been the case here (with some regrettable exceptions).
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But most people I meet don't separate what someone believes from what kind of person they are. Many people believe that many of the things the Church teaches are unkind, either in essence, or in effect, or both. That is bound to affect what they think of people who affirm the Church's teaching, no matter the manner in which they do it.
quote:I'm 100% sure that the Church is not right about everything. She never was, and she never will be - till Christ comes again. It is also unavoidable that the human institution Church fails and sins, until she is raised up to heaven by the Lord. However, I do not share any longer the deep faith of modern people in the West in the individualist - humanist - hedonist secular philosophy (in the old sense of "rule of wisdom governing life"). I do not share the "de fide" dogma of Western society that sexual fulfilment is a human right. I do no longer believe in the doctrinal principle of Western society that consent establishes good. And so forth... In the end one has to ask what the basis is of any claim that involves faith and morals. People that proclaim the Zeitgeist always think that their ideas are the plain and obvious truth that any right-thinking person must agree to. That's exactly why it is the Zeitgeist. But it really is just one voice that can speak both evil and good. I have found something else that - if push comes to shove - I find more trustworthy. This does not mean that I think that all the Zeitgeist has to say is wrong, much of it is good and beautiful. I also do not seek conflict with the Zeitgeist at all costs, rather, where I can follow two masters I happily do. But there are points of conflict that one cannot honestly set aside, and there I take sides with the RCC against the Zeitgeist. Because I do believe that the RCC is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that in a long term and average sense at least she will endure in eternal holiness whereas the Zeitgeist flickers through transient goods.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
And unless we can be 100% sure that the Church is right about everything, then there is always a chance that we *are* affirming unkindness to no purpose. This is the sort of thing I worry about...
quote:sorry if you misunderstood this, I did not imply you did. It was just a general concern about how "kindness" is often framed. I certainly was not having a go at anyone in particular.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'm not.
quote:I go by the Golden Rule. If I'd perceive it as unkind if someone did it to me, then it is unkind.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
quote:sorry if you misunderstood this, I did not imply you did. It was just a general concern about how "kindness" is often framed. I certainly was not having a go at anyone in particular.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'm not.
quote:This. Precisely this.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Ohhhkay. It's beginning to get a bit glaringly patent to me by now - can I really be alone? I ask - that for some of the posters on this thread, no matter what IngoB says, no matter how or how many different ways he says it, they'll keep coming back with precisely the same criticisms of his posting as they came here to vent in the first place.
(snip)
quote:Since he shows no sign of changing, it's hardly surprising that the complaints don't change either.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:This. Precisely this.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Ohhhkay. It's beginning to get a bit glaringly patent to me by now - can I really be alone? I ask - that for some of the posters on this thread, no matter what IngoB says, no matter how or how many different ways he says it, they'll keep coming back with precisely the same criticisms of his posting as they came here to vent in the first place.
(snip)
I'm not RC, but I value IngoB's posts and participation here highly. Even when I disagree with him.
quote:As other people have said, lots of shipmates actually do that- -to great effect. The disequilibrium I get is when I sense there "is" emotion in the post-- via extra provocative word choice, or indirect name-calling, or speculations about someone's character or mental state, or whatever-- and it gets projected on the person targeted.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:No it isn't. But that really isn't what this thread is about.
Originally posted by Ariston:
Seriously people. Is it such a sin for someone trying to construct arguments valid for more than one person to want to base them on something not as subjective, personal, and valid for only one person as personal experience and fwuffy feelz?
quote:And were we talking about the dry facts of theology or whatever, that might be a reasonable dictum. But here we're talking about my personality and personal characteristics, and you have already proven yourself a total asshole in this area. Indeed, you are proud of it. I would have to be several factors of 10 stupider than I already am to enter into a conversation with you about that. And in Hell, to boot.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:If I make a factual claim, then I consider it fair to be asked to back it up, even if the person asking is an asshole. The standard I'm holding myself to resides in me, not in the other.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, yes. Because they are (by and large) not assholes about respecting other people. You are.
quote:But we have established across many pages that 1) I have no intention to change, since I basically do not think that the complaints are justified, and 2) there is nothing in the rules of SoF that actually would force me to change.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Since he shows no sign of changing, it's hardly surprising that the complaints don't change either.
quote:Your unspoken assumption is that "engagement" here has to privilege catering to the emotional state of the people involved in the discussions. I disagree with that assumption. If however you are trying to claim that I do not engage in any sense of the word, thus merely stating my opinions while totally ignoring the contributions of others, then that is just a blatant lie. I very much react to what others are saying here, and always spend considerable time in dealing directly with their contributions. That I do not do so in a mode that you approve of may be true, but does not establish a lack of engagement. (And I note with considerable amusement that "to engage" and "engagement" are words often used in describing combat, whether referring to individuals as in fencing or to groups as in war. The English language really makes a point for me there...)
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And I think, inadvertently, "participation" is exactly the problem. Participation is not engagement.
quote:But I have not portrayed myself as an emotionless arguing machine. Other people accuse me of being that, occasionally, but I simply have not claimed that about myself. As I've already explained above, to you as it happens, I consider it important to retain a level of emotional control and to stick to formal rules of engagement. This does not mean that I'm some kind of intellectual robot.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The disequilibrium I get is when I sense there "is" emotion in the post-- via extra provocative word choice, or indirect name-calling, or speculations about someone's character or mental state, or whatever-- and it gets projected on the person targeted.
quote:You said here, "I am a pompous ass, but I have a solid track record of taking criticism on board. IngoB has no such record." So you have made a personal claim about yourself in Hell, and you made it explicitly in comparison with me. It's not like I am somehow trying to trick you into making such an assertion; rather you have made it without my prompting, and I can now reasonably ask you to back it up.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And were we talking about the dry facts of theology or whatever, that might be a reasonable dictum. But here we're talking about my personality and personal characteristics, and you have already proven yourself a total asshole in this area. Indeed, you are proud of it. I would have to be several factors of 10 stupider than I already am to enter into a conversation with you about that. And in Hell, to boot.
quote:It's Hell. There's nothing in the rules of SoF that that require us to shut up - in fact, this is exactly the place where we're supposed to express our frustrations.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:But we have established across many pages that 1) I have no intention to change, since I basically do not think that the complaints are justified, and 2) there is nothing in the rules of SoF that actually would force me to change.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Since he shows no sign of changing, it's hardly surprising that the complaints don't change either.
At this point then, I think people cannot claim that they are still bitching about me in Hell to actually achieve anything in this matter. It is simply about releasing their anger unfettered, or perhaps an attempt to extract a kind of retributive justice by making me suffer, or maybe an exercise in "us vs. him" group building. I find all of these motivations rather childish and certainly not particularly Christian.
quote:A quick follow-up, if you don't mind. You've probably already mentioned this, but if so I missed it - what are your reasons for (continued) posting on this thread? (After all, as you note, it's been repetitious, you don't approve of the Hell board in general, it doesn't offer the sort of boxing/debate you prefer, and you doubt your opponents have any worthy motives for continuing...)
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:But we have established across many pages that 1) I have no intention to change, since I basically do not think that the complaints are justified, and 2) there is nothing in the rules of SoF that actually would force me to change.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Since he shows no sign of changing, it's hardly surprising that the complaints don't change either.
At this point then, I think people cannot claim that they are still bitching about me in Hell to actually achieve anything in this matter. It is simply about releasing their anger unfettered, or perhaps an attempt to extract a kind of retributive justice by making me suffer, or maybe an exercise in "us vs. him" group building. I find all of these motivations rather childish and certainly not particularly Christian.
Anyway, fine. Are we done with that yet?
quote:We could do that, but they would be paddled at 90 degrees to one another, so hosts would still be needed to sort out the collisions and arguments.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If hopeless causes weren't permitted on the Ship, Ingo, we could downsize to a couple of canoes.
quote:I actually found it interesting that in the thread that sparked this one, it was Ingo that left the debate first, and the thread died. But, perhaps it had run its course.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Another way of "winning" a debate is simply to be the last debater standing. As other posters, one by one, recognize the futility of continuing & drop out, IngoB may eventually be the cheese who stands alone.
Not that I'm holding my breath.
quote:Good question, really. I thought there was a trickle of interesting stuff, like concerning the virtuality of online interactions. There were also some good clarifications on what I think I'm doing (cf. my exchanges with Kelly concerning just how "emotionless" I am), and some things that I will have to think about (in particular from LatA). But to a considerable degree it is a certainly a "last man standing" sort of thing, as Porridge suggests. I would say that there are some good motivations even behind that, i.e., I really do see a duty for me to stand and take the critique, and answer it best as I may, no matter how pointless I consider that to be. But there is certainly also an element of pride (the wrong sort) in being able to hang in there. Generally my Hell calls fade out before I have to question myself too seriously about my motives... This one is getting a bit long in the tooth though.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
A quick follow-up, if you don't mind. You've probably already mentioned this, but if so I missed it - what are your reasons for (continued) posting on this thread? (After all, as you note, it's been repetitious, you don't approve of the Hell board in general, it doesn't offer the sort of boxing/debate you prefer, and you doubt your opponents have any worthy motives for continuing...)
quote:And I reasonably told you "no fucking way." Reasonable because of who you are and how you act. Once again you fail to realize that not everything is a boxing match.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's not like I am somehow trying to trick you into making such an assertion; rather you have made it without my prompting, and I can now reasonably ask you to back it up.
quote:If only IngoB acknowledged the existence of that fine line and why it is important, and tried to tread it. Hurting people? They shouldn't be in the ring. DING! Let me at 'em.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I understand that it's difficult that when you have certain convictions. You tread a fine line between compromising those convictions, and causing discomfort and hurt.
quote:But I tread a very clear line. It is a line that for example does not allow me to make assertions without being willing to back them up. It is a line that makes me rather predictable in my behaviour more generally. And while occasionally some newcomer might be surprised about where that line runs, most people here are fully aware of its course. It is also a line that runs within the boundaries set by the Ship. So if you think that you might get hurt by what I do, and you can predict that with a fair degree of certainty because I am making myself predictable, then simply do not engage with me.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If only IngoB acknowledged the existence of that fine line and why it is important, and tried to tread it. Hurting people? They shouldn't be in the ring. DING! Let me at 'em.
quote:I'm sorry, I was under the mistaken impression that this was Simon's website, not yours. Everything is now clear, and I for one welcome our new Roman Catholic overlord.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I draw my line in the sand. Here it is, straight and clear. Step over it, and you will be in my ring. Whether that will mean too much hurt for you or not is for you to decide. If you do not think that you can take it, then do not step over it. Stay out of my ring.
quote:Well, yeah, that is pretty much my case for "why I do not think the Roman Catholic Church is the fount of all goodness and knowledge". I think that if you look at the historical record of the Catholic Church it's fairly hard to say that you should buy a doctrinal used car from it, as it were. I suspect that most people on the Ship agree with me, wrt that one. Now IngoB would disagree with that particular position. I'm not sure how someone as obviously as intelligent as he is can sign up to that little lot, but, there you go, he does.
And unless we can be 100% sure that the Church is right about everything, then there is always a chance that we *are* affirming unkindness to no purpose.
quote:Duty to whom? To God? To your fellow man? To the Catholic Church? Or to your own inflated ego?
Originally posted by IngoB:
My duty is to stay true to the that clear line.
quote:And implying someone doesn't actually believe his religion, or has a shallow faith, or must just be experiencing a soon-to-pass convert zeal, just because he takes his cues from something other than personal experience and sentimentality posited as a universal law, isn't an example of that?
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:As other people have said, lots of shipmates actually do that- -to great effect. The disequilibrium I get is when I sense there "is" emotion in the post-- via extra provocative word choice, or indirect name-calling, or speculations about someone's character or mental state, or whatever-- and it gets projected on the person targeted.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:No it isn't. But that really isn't what this thread is about.
Originally posted by Ariston:
Seriously people. Is it such a sin for someone trying to construct arguments valid for more than one person to want to base them on something not as subjective, personal, and valid for only one person as personal experience and fwuffy feelz?
In Purg, understand, not here.
quote:Are your motives for posting in Purgatory particularly Christian? Are your motives for your choice of debating style particularly Christian?
Originally posted by IngoB:
At this point then, I think people cannot claim that they are still bitching about me in Hell to actually achieve anything in this matter. It is simply about releasing their anger unfettered, or perhaps an attempt to extract a kind of retributive justice by making me suffer, or maybe an exercise in "us vs. him" group building. I find all of these motivations rather childish and certainly not particularly Christian.
quote:I'm telling you what I will do, within the limits of what Simon (by H&A proxy) is allowing for his website. I'm precisely not telling you what you have to do, only how I will react to certain things that you might do.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sorry, I was under the mistaken impression that this was Simon's website, not yours. Everything is now clear, and I for one welcome our new Roman Catholic overlord.
quote:I don't really know, to be honest. Facing those who are angry with me seems like an honourable thing to do. But I'm not sure on what grounds precisely, and I also am aware that this can become a playground of pride. Are you of the opinion that it would be better to ignore Hell calls altogether?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Duty to whom? To God? To your fellow man? To the Catholic Church? Or to your own inflated ego?
quote:I've never claimed to be a particularly good Christian. I've also never claimed to be on my best Christian behaviour on the Ship. I have a basic grasp of RC / traditional Christian doctrine and a pretty decent mind, and I exercise those here. Because I like to. That's all.
Originally posted by art dunce:
Curious to profess strong and abiding faith and yet exhibit so few fruits of the spirit.
quote:Perhaps, perhaps not. But I don't think that one has to be a Christian to judge much of the ado here to be childish and/or mean-spirited.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Are your motives for posting in Purgatory particularly Christian? Are your motives for your choice of debating style particularly Christian?
quote:Your Hell call may be an occasion, but certainly is not a leading cause, for that.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
In particular, I regret having made you a focus for Mousethief's vomit of abuse.
quote:I'm not picky, and we are good.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
You may decide that this apology comes too late and with insufficient depth.
quote:And this is where the confusion lies.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I've never claimed to be a particularly good Christian. I've also never claimed to be on my best Christian behaviour on the Ship. I have a basic grasp of RC / traditional Christian doctrine and a pretty decent mind, and I exercise those here. Because I like to. That's all.
quote:That's kind of been my contention from the start- rather than an emotional robot, I sense a person who is clamping down on their emotions because they get pretty volatile.
I consider it important to retain a level of emotional control and to stick to formal rules of engagement. This does not mean that I'm some kind of intellectual robot.
quote:Agreed. I kind of liked some of the stuff he said when he first came on board, but what a chest-beating dork he is turning out to be.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Good grief, but you're a turd.
quote:That seems fair. Maybe even a little over-generous.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And [mousethief's] claim that he has a "solid record of taking criticism on board" has to be amended with "after a week or so of letting it sink in." (IME)
quote:This from the man who called me a hysterial Nazi for disagreeing with him about the State of Israel. Consider the source.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I wouldn't wish Mousethief's idiotic vitriol on my worst enemy ... and you, Sir, are very far from being my worst enemy.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:That seems fair. Maybe even a little over-generous.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And [mousethief's] claim that he has a "solid record of taking criticism on board" has to be amended with "after a week or so of letting it sink in." (IME)
The bottom line is that it does eventually sink in. (IME)quote:And my sense is that you are taking a rather one-sided view there of the exchanges that actually do happen. First, I manage to post quite a lot without being anywhere near a C3 violation. Second, while it is weirdly flattering to suddenly be considered as a highly skilled manipulator of people with nefarious aims, that simply is nonsense. On some topics (and indeed, with some people) things tend to get more heated, and I do go along with that rather than pulling back. That's perhaps bad enough, but a rather far cry from me being an über-ninja-troll. If I'm getting blamed now for people beating on me, because supposedly I goaded them into being nasty just so I could be nasty in return, then really there is nothing left to say but "wow."
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Either one of the techniques above is how most people handle the fact that they are emotional beings while still maintaining conversational decorum. My sense is you have become really good at recrafting bursts of emotion into rhetoric speak, lashing out in ways that only just fall short of C3, and letting other do the reacting for you.
quote:Once more, I consider this to be simply an unfair characterisation. It is just not the case that I run around all the time sneering at people for their emotions, whether they are like mine or not. I'm mostly busy contending propositions, not telling people that they should suppress their emotions. Certainly I have said here a thing or two about how people should stop whining about not getting their emotional needs catered to by me. But this is me getting called to Hell, this is not me calling other people to Hell over their emotions, or for that matter for powering their arguments emotionally.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And them sneering at them for having the same emotions you do. This is the bit that is particularly unfair. Why should anyone try to open themselves up to someone else's point of view when opening up most likely would just provide that person with access to a whole lot more buttons to push? There HAS to be a return of respect-- and evidence of listening-- for the conversation to continue.
quote:It is difficult to imagine how you could fail even more at that ...
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Just to kind of attempt to send the message that I am on your side
quote:I'm absolutely certain this is how you believe you act.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And I call bullshit on the suggestion that I do not listen or have no respect for other Shipmates. I can only assume that this notion derives from the idea that listening means agreeing and respecting means accepting as true / good / beautiful. But for me, it is simply the case that I do not agree with many things people say here, and I often do not accept as true / good / beautiful where they are at. However, I very carefully listen to what people have to say and often spend a lot of time in adapting my response accordingly. Furthermore, I try to give due consideration to all responses, even where I'm getting absolutely swamped with them. That in my eyes is showing them respect.
quote:Me, too, for the record-- I should have made it clearer that the dynamic I was trying to describe was reactionary and occasional, rather than studied and commonplace.
I'm absolutely certain this is how you believe you act.
quote:Just to give mousethief the satisfaction I know he will derive from it, I am absolutely certain that that is how quite a few others, including myself, believe IngoB does generally act. Amongst those others are several people on this very thread who - unlike myself - do not share IngoB's religious convictions. Some of them have no axe to grind for him at all and - also unlike myself - are long-standing, widely respected members of this community and/or current/erstwhile members of the crew.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm absolutely certain this is how you believe you act.
Does the number of people telling you otherwise give you the tiniest pause for introspection?
quote:
Captain: You gonna get used to wearing them chains after a while, Luke. Don't you never stop listening to them clinking, 'cause they gonna remind you what I been saying for your own good.
Luke: I wish you'd stop being so good to me, Cap'n.
Captain: Don't you ever talk that way to me. (pause, then hitting him) NEVER! NEVER! (Luke rolls down hill; to other prisoners) What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.(wikipedia "what we've got here is a failure to communicate")
quote:All the time. Your point is?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Does any of that give you any pause for reconsidering your own apparent "absolute certainty" that he doesn't generally so act?
quote:If you really think that IngoB hasn't given enough info at this point in this thread to make the answer to that question blindingly obvious, what I think we have here is a failure to comprehend.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Ingo, reading much of this thread prompts me to ask if only, or mainly, your faith and thus argument is driven by fact-truth and logic alone? Is there any component for you driven by beauty or more specifically aesthetics? Or personal experience of joy? Or of mystic connection, what psychologists call "flow"?
I'm thinking we've got a a failure to communicate
quote:My current point is that you could have fooled me. Your last question to IngoB was of the form, "When will you just admit you're wrong?"
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:All the time. Your point is?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Does any of that give you any pause for reconsidering your own apparent "absolute certainty" that he doesn't generally so act?
quote:I'm sorry. Are you implying he's never wrong?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:My current point is that you could have fooled me. Your last question to IngoB was of the form, "When will you just admit you're wrong?"
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:All the time. Your point is?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Does any of that give you any pause for reconsidering your own apparent "absolute certainty" that he doesn't generally so act?
quote:Er, no. I'd have said that if I'd meant that - and mousethief would have promptly peed with glee.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sorry. Are you implying he's never wrong?
quote:No, that's not it, it's the astounding rigidity and wondering if it's for real. And incredulity about it. The apparent incapacity to switch modes of discourse (and what this represents about psychological and psychosocial functioning). And wondering, though now less about being trifled with on various board threads. Though less after all of these pages, as you note.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If you really think that IngoB hasn't given enough info at this point in this thread to make the answer to that question blindingly obvious, what I think we have here is a failure to comprehend.
Seriously, what would it take for some of you guys to drop some of your - and I use the term advisedly - prejudices?
quote:<tangent>
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
True story, I had a heck of a lot of fun with the mutual teasing going on on the 2048 thread. Maybe my sole reason for participating in this thread is the jonesing for Bingo- fun that exchange created.
Obviously it is not my place to suggest anything to anyone, but I do wonder how much of these problems with communication would become less grating on all of us if we met Bingo more in play and in prayer?
quote:I'm game. But first he'd have to play and pray in our vicinity.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Obviously it is not my place to suggest anything to anyone, but I do wonder how much of these problems with communication would become less grating on all of us if we met Bingo more in play and in prayer?
quote:Doc Tor's comment was because you talked about 'my ring' again.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I'm telling you what I will do, within the limits of what Simon (by H&A proxy) is allowing for his website. I'm precisely not telling you what you have to do, only how I will react to certain things that you might do.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sorry, I was under the mistaken impression that this was Simon's website, not yours. Everything is now clear, and I for one welcome our new Roman Catholic overlord.
quote:Hmmm.... What IngoB says seems to me to match up very well with what I see in those posts of his that I read, especially the parts about spending a lot of time adapting his response and giving due consideration to all responses. As far as I can tell, he does both of those far more than the average poster does.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I'm absolutely certain this is how you believe you act.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And I call bullshit on the suggestion that I do not listen or have no respect for other Shipmates. I can only assume that this notion derives from the idea that listening means agreeing and respecting means accepting as true / good / beautiful. But for me, it is simply the case that I do not agree with many things people say here, and I often do not accept as true / good / beautiful where they are at. However, I very carefully listen to what people have to say and often spend a lot of time in adapting my response accordingly. Furthermore, I try to give due consideration to all responses, even where I'm getting absolutely swamped with them. That in my eyes is showing them respect.
Does the number of people telling you otherwise give you the tiniest pause for introspection?
quote:This.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Don't assume that other people are boxing. Don't even assume it if they make some kind of giggly uncoordinated slap in your direction.
Because it's precisely these unstated assumptions about the rules of engagement, on both sides that get you dragged down here. You assume that others are here to box, like you. Other assume that you are here for a intellectually stimulating chat, like them.
quote:Quite. People are all different; they have different styles and approaches to things. I personally don't have a huge problem with Ingo's style, I do with some other posters, and I'm sure others have a problem with me. That's fine, it's the way the world works. I know you grasp that, Ingo.
Originally posted by Boogie:
This.
quote:As far as I'm concerned, you can stop this very instant, and never ever mention it again.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't know how many times we're going to have point this out to you.
quote:The boxing ring / martial arts analogy is three things: First, it is an analysis. I think it captures what some people (like yours truly) do a lot in Purgatory, what most people do with some regularity, and what almost everybody does sometimes. If you disagree with this analysis, then that's just too bad for you. I'm firmly convinced that it is true. And I'm also firmly convinced that much of the protestations against it are not a failure of my analysis, but rather a failure of others to deal with the next step. Namely, second, it is an acknowledgement. An acknowledgement of the fact that this just is to a considerable degree why I spend a lot of my time in Purgatory. Whether that is good or bad, Christian or not, it simply is the case. Third, in answer to this realisation, it is a codification. As pointed out before, boxing and martial arts are not an all out slug fest. Indeed, they have their own set of social rules and in some sense very strong ones, because they are trying to contain something very volatile. I consciously try to stick to a code of conduct, for the lack of less pretentious words, I'm trying to be chivalrous in my engagement with the "enemy".
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's one thing for you to say that what you're doing is within the Ship rules. It's quite another to talk as if others should be behaving in the same way, and that if you somehow hurt them with your boxing then it's THEIR fault for wandering into 'the boxing ring'. If there is one thing in this thread that you need to take away with you, it's that message. Don't assume that other people are boxing. Don't even assume it if they make some kind of giggly uncoordinated slap in your direction.
quote:Fine. I see no particular reason why I should fulfil their wishes any more than they fulfil mine. I'm not dragging people here, so if they could stop dragging me here then that would be just splendid.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Because it's precisely these unstated assumptions about the rules of engagement, on both sides that get you dragged down here. You assume that others are here to box, like you. Other assume that you are here for a intellectually stimulating chat, like them.
quote:That's true, but I don't think that's what people want to happen in the slightest! They merely want you to recognise that sometimes "boxing" is appropriate, and sometimes it isn't, and to be able to discern the difference.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But if you try to change Purgatory so as to remove "boxing" from it, then you will kill it.
quote:Apart from tell you that you're wrong.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Because I'm firmly convinced of my analysis, I believe that there is basically nothing you can do about this.
quote:It is kinder to point out that the emperor is naked than to spare his feelings and allow him to develop hypothermia.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Just to clarify: I can understand why IngoB's posts sometimes seem to be contemptuous and mean, but I don't think he's actually being contemptuous and mean, just blunt.
quote:Conversely, I'm reminded of the story about the kind, helpful Fiona Apple fan
Originally posted by CL:
quote:It is kinder to point out that the emperor is naked than to spare his feelings and allow him to develop hypothermia.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Just to clarify: I can understand why IngoB's posts sometimes seem to be contemptuous and mean, but I don't think he's actually being contemptuous and mean, just blunt.
quote:But in my opinion I do that! Or to be more precise, there just are certain topics (and to some extent, certain people) that have "boxing match" written all over them, if you chose to engage from a contrary position at all. With other topics and other people this is not the case. The problem here is that just because I have no problem with this, and I even like being part of the ensuing fray (sometimes a more significant part, sometimes less), people seem to think that the entire dynamics is my responsibility and that it is my duty to do something about it. It's a sort of "you name it, you will be shamed by it" deal. But I just do wear this lightly.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
They merely want you to recognise that sometimes "boxing" is appropriate, and sometimes it isn't, and to be able to discern the difference.
quote:One of the most tragicomic aspects of this whole nonsense is that people who basically fail to listen to me, and make no discernible effort to grasp what I am saying, are constantly screaming at me that I must listen to them and take on board what they are saying.
Originally posted by orfeo:
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE BOXERS IN PURGATORY. NOT ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE IN PURGATORY ARE BOXERS. Read and inwardly digest.
quote:Well, indeed. That's precisely what is happening here. You have mentally declared a specific target for me, and all your are using your fantastic analytical skills for is to judge whether that target has been met. If not, then you judge that I must have failed, and since I am a pretty intelligent science kind of guy, you aim your "you fail" response at that. Nothing I say actually matters in the slightest, unless it is in fulfilment of the target you have set for me. It is a purely teleological judgement, and perfectly rigid. There is a checkbox and you will make me tick it somehow, come what may.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Every reply you make that has some variant of 'you can't stop me from boxing' in it just convinces me that you're not using your comprehension skills.
quote:Hasn't it occurred to you that you could be misunderstood not as a consequence of the shortcomings of others, but because of a lack of clarity in your posts?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:One of the most tragicomic aspects of this whole nonsense is that people who basically fail to listen to me, and make no discernible effort to grasp what I am saying, are constantly screaming at me that I must listen to them and take on board what they are saying.
Originally posted by orfeo:
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE BOXERS IN PURGATORY. NOT ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE IN PURGATORY ARE BOXERS. Read and inwardly digest.
quote:Meh, my opinion's that you sometimes do, but quite often do not. Whatever - I can't change your perception. Like I said, I don't have any huge problem with you - just that I've learnt to avoid engaging with you on certain topics, which could well be down to my own issues as much as anything. I've said my piece. Pax.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But in my opinion I do that!
quote:A scurrilous lie. The words come down from the mountain, perfectly formed. Let he who has ears to hear, hear.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You've got to remember your audience.
quote:Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:A scurrilous lie. The words come down from the mountain, perfectly formed. Let he who has ears to hear, hear.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You've got to remember your audience.
quote:Depending on context, it can be contemptuous and mean to be blunt.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Just to clarify: I can understand why IngoB's posts sometimes seem to be contemptuous and mean, but I don't think he's actually being contemptuous and mean, just blunt.
quote:Posts of mine on this thread where the existence of "non-boxers" in Purgatory is acknowledged / discussed: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The true listener will of course not hear Ingo equate Purgatory with a boxing ring, ever.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Posts of mine on this thread where the existence of "non-boxers" in Purgatory is acknowledged / discussed: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The true listener will of course not hear Ingo equate Purgatory with a boxing ring, ever.
quote:Exactly. This has been the whole freaking point the entire time that I've been criticising this analogy. If a non-boxer is in a boxing ring, a boxer feels justified in hitting them or at the very least being irritated at them and telling them to get out of the way. It's the boxer's rightful space. They are exhibiting the correct behaviour for the space.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But you'll still punch them, right? Your ring, remember?
quote:IngoB, did you see upthread where orfeo said that you 'slide between related but critically different propositions all the fucking time'? You've nicely provided exhibit A for the prosecution here - orfeo said 'The true listener will of course not hear Ingo equate Purgatory with a boxing ring, ever' and, in response, you noted several points at which you've said there are 'non-boxers' in Purgatory.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Posts of mine on this thread where the existence of "non-boxers" in Purgatory is acknowledged / discussed: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The true listener will of course not hear Ingo equate Purgatory with a boxing ring, ever.
quote:How brilliantly wet.
Originally posted by Boogie:
When dogs are afraid they often fight. When people are afraid they often fight too.
"Do not be afraid" comes up time and again in the Bible.
Maybe using Purgatory as a place to fight is a sign of fear for loss of your faith IngoB? 'The harder I fight and hone my skills, the stronger my faith will become so I don't need to fear losing it'?
quote:Kinder to offer one's cloak
Originally posted by CL:
quote:It is kinder to point out that the emperor is naked than to spare his feelings and allow him to develop hypothermia.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Just to clarify: I can understand why IngoB's posts sometimes seem to be contemptuous and mean, but I don't think he's actually being contemptuous and mean, just blunt.
quote:By 'wet' you mean "Showing a lack of forcefulness or strength of character; feeble:" (Oxford dictionary)?
Originally posted by CL:
How brilliantly wet.
quote:Indeed. If you may be so kind as to remember that "punching" here merely means a blunt / stark statement of my opinion, if potentially made with emotional engagement (pace Kelly), which aims to refute the opinion of another poster thoroughly (without particularly caring about their emotional state). And if you would like to remember as well that this does not happen all the time at "punch level", but mostly for specific topics and with specific people - though some people might get caught in the "crossfire". I know, I know, little details... but sometimes details are important.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But you'll still punch them, right? Your ring, remember?
quote:The true listener cannot hear me equating Purgatory with a boxing ring, certainly not any longer, because he would have heard me saying contrary things in at least ten different posts.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's like you can't even see the difference between my sentence and your sentence.
quote:The true listener orfeo clearly suffers from selective amnesia, so let me repeat and summarise my points made earlier (see the ten posts). Sticking with the analogy, Purgatory is multi-purpose community hall. There is a sign at the door "Feel free to come in to do whatever activity, as long as you can stand getting hit." In this hall, there is no separation by rooms or timetable. In fact, even worse, most people that come here switch at the drop of a hat between different activities. In this setting I mostly hang out where I think martial arts type of stuff is going to happen, because I like doing that sort of thing. Of course, it occasionally happens that some origami person walks into a sparring session. Then they get hit, which going by the sign at the door, they should be able to deal with. Sometimes however instead of picking themselves up and either going elsewhere or hitting back, they whine loudly and endlessly how this would be a much better place if I did origami instead.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If a non-boxer is in a boxing ring, a boxer feels justified in hitting them or at the very least being irritated at them and telling them to get out of the way. It's the boxer's rightful space. They are exhibiting the correct behaviour for the space. No such justification exists when a boxer and non-boxer are sharing space that is not a boxing ring.
quote:Including this one, there are now at least eleven posts that you can read to see what I really think about that.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Do you in fact see Purgatory as a boxing ring, albeit one in which there are several non-boxers? (But they're in a boxing ring so it's okay to hit them.) Or do you think Purgatory is not really like a boxing ring, but can sometimes share some of the characteristics of one?
quote:Maybe. Or maybe not. Will we ever find out? A cliffhanger that has lasted a decade already, it must be some kind of record...
Originally posted by Boogie:
Maybe using Purgatory as a place to fight is a sign of fear for loss of your faith IngoB?
quote:You, Sir, are the most intelligent idiot it has ever been my misfortune to encounter.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sticking with the analogy, Purgatory is multi-purpose community hall. There is a sign at the door "Feel free to come in to do whatever activity, as long as you can stand getting hit."
quote:There's some more wetness here:
Originally posted by CL:
How brilliantly wet.
quote:
love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control
quote:Extending your analogy, how about when someone carrying a nice paper giraffe and muttering 'One day I'll get the hang of that Eiffel Tower model!' wanders into the area where another person is shadow-boxing, the shadow-boxer asks 'Hi, are you up for a spot of sparring?' before belting the paper giraffe carrier round the face? That would, ISTM, be a rather more responsible way to use a 'multi-purpose community hall'.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course, it occasionally happens [in the multi-purpose community hall that is Purgatory] that some origami person walks into a sparring session. Then they get hit, which going by the sign at the door, they should be able to deal with. Sometimes however instead of picking themselves up and either going elsewhere or hitting back, they whine loudly and endlessly how this would be a much better place if I did origami instead.
quote:Sure. Unfortunately, in reality the differences are not as obvious as someone throwing punches in the air vs. someone carrying a paper giraffe. It's all just people saying stuff about something. So it's more like a "Taiji for health" group mixing with some Thai boxers, or some such. At first glance, it all looks pretty much the same.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Extending your analogy, how about when someone carrying a nice paper giraffe and muttering 'One day I'll get the hang of that Eiffel Tower model!' wanders into the area where another person is shadow-boxing, the shadow-boxer asks 'Hi, are you up for a spot of sparring?' before belting the paper giraffe carrier round the face? That would, ISTM, be a rather more responsible way to use a 'multi-purpose community hall'.
quote:Heh
Originally posted by IngoB:
A
quote:I'm also not entirely sure what I am supposed to ask there. Perhaps something like this? "I would like to express my opinion about this matter precisely and bluntly...
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Extending your analogy...
Just... try to be gentler with people. Gentleness is part of the fruit of the Spirit; so practice it! And if you think people are showing they'd be happy to have a robust discussion, then make moves that way.* But don't go straight in with the uppercut to the chin of 'That's patent nonsense' and suchlike.quote:Brilliant Ingo. Because when people object to being hit, the perfect solution is to give them a quick reminder warning before each punch.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Perhaps I can simply put an "A" for "argumentative" in front of any post that I write? So that everybody knows exactly what they are dealing with.
quote:POTT
Originally posted by orfeo:
The sign DOESN'T say 'be prepared to be hit', it says 'be prepared to be challenged'. The fact that you can't understand there are other forms of 'challenge' besides being an in your face jerk is why we're still here after all these pages.
quote:... calling kettle black? My thoughts precisely, mousethief. I'm glad we finally agree on something here.
Originally posted by mousethief:
POTT
quote:ALOL. Nothing further from me.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course, I read this post a bit like someone who has just ducked into a safe zone from a run of the Zombie apocalypse. The idea that all these people out there are having some kind of competitive run together, and that the slow pokes are fun runners rather than zombies trying to eat your brain, is just wildly inaccurate. But it has a sort of sweet idealism to it, and one could think that perhaps things will be better on the next run if one pretends that all this is true. For a while.
quote:Don't give me too much credit, IngoB; I didn't get the literary reference in your letter A thing!
Originally posted by IngoB:
I read SCK's post, and because he actually was amused at the fine sarcasm of my last post, and because he noticed that it actually had a decent point and honestly tried to react to that, I was somewhat inclined to give his recommendations a go. I know that his suggestion is one-sided, still not recognising that this is a rather vicious place if one is not in its mainstream. I know that it is naive, and will only lead to me getting ignored and/or walked over. But sometimes it is good to do something naive and unilateral. For a while.
quote:ALOL is "actually laughing out loud". Sorry
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
WTF are POTT and ALOL?
quote:Ye gods, he's right.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Nobody has to read a single word I write, nobody has to react to anything I say
quote:You really are good at logical fallacies, aren't you?
Originally posted by IngoB:
But returning from that acid trip, we come to the conclusion that the one thing that being prepared to be challenged cannot possibly mean is to be prepared to be challenged by me in my way.
quote:Here you are saying that orfeo is being a hypocrite because he, too, is a pugilist who can't seem to take on board that not everybody else in Purgatory is a pugilist.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:... calling kettle black? My thoughts precisely, mousethief. I'm glad we finally agree on something here.
Originally posted by mousethief:
POTT
quote:I checked in the Urban Dictionary (I had no idea either). The only hit I got was "Piss On The Tongue".
Originally posted by Porridge:
Meanwhile, we still don't know what POTT means. Yes, I did google it.
quote:I found "Permissive Overreaching Transfer Trip", which I suppose it could be, if anyone could tell me WTF it means. Hello? Is that the West Coast of the USA?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I checked in the Urban Dictionary (I had no idea either). The only hit I got was "Piss On The Tongue".
Originally posted by Porridge:
Meanwhile, we still don't know what POTT means. Yes, I did google it.
I'm still unclear...
quote:I know where to go to hit people. I'm there right now.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Here you are saying that orfeo is being a hypocrite because he, too, is a pugilist who can't seem to take on board that not everybody else in Purgatory is a pugilist.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:... calling kettle black? My thoughts precisely, mousethief. I'm glad we finally agree on something here.
Originally posted by mousethief:
POTT
Which simply isn't true.
Bzzzzt. Game over.
quote:There you go, making a liar of me. You bandy-legged, gap-toothed, flea-infested legislation drafter.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I know where to go to hit people. I'm there right now.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Here you are saying that orfeo is being a hypocrite because he, too, is a pugilist who can't seem to take on board that not everybody else in Purgatory is a pugilist.
Which simply isn't true.
Bzzzzt. Game over.
quote:We did. It's not our fault if you walk in.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Good grief. Get a room.
quote:Honey, while you're up, could you bring me a Scotch?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:We did. It's not our fault if you walk in.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Good grief. Get a room.
You're not supposed to be home until Tuesday!!
quote:What he says. Ice in scotch signifies mediocre whisky or a lack of class. A sip of water between sips of whisky is another thing.
Originally posted by Ariston:
No thank you, but water on the side, if you don't mind.
quote:If one has actual cask strength whisky, rather than the already watered down variety usually sold, then indeed even adding some water to the whisky can improve the taste.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:What he says. Ice in scotch signifies mediocre whisky or a lack of class. A sip of water between sips of whisky is another thing.
Originally posted by Ariston:
No thank you, but water on the side, if you don't mind.
quote:AVERT!
Originally posted by orfeo:
...ice?
quote:You are a better man than me.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think I'll leave it at this.
quote:True, but the bar is at its lowest setting.
Originally posted by moron:
quote:You are a better man than me.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think I'll leave it at this.
quote:Is that at the "tripping over it", "stubbing your toe on it" or the "secure carpet to the floor" level?
Originally posted by JonahMan:
quote:True, but the bar is at its lowest setting.
Originally posted by moron:
quote:You are a better man than me.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think I'll leave it at this.
quote:I doubt it. And a thread is about so many things. But as far as I know we don't bother keeping such esoteric records and we dump this stuff into Limbo on a regular basis.
Originally posted by Caissa:
Has this achieved the record for the longest hell thread about one Shipmate?
quote:I was the guest of honor some years back in a hell thread that ran 25 pages. In which I spoke not one word. It wasn't funny, it wasn't pretty, it wasn't pleasant, and a good time was not had by all. Most of it, I thoroughly deserved.
Originally posted by Caissa:
Has this achieved the record for the longest hell thread about one Shipmate?
