|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Warm fuzzies
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I consider this ruling by Eutychus to be well over the top. Claiming that most people on these boards will not change their religious habits and attitudes due to recent actions by Pope Francis - beyond a general feeling of being well-disposed to Pope Francis - is in my opinion completely above board for the discussion and is not a personal insult simply by content. Furthermore, the expression "warm fuzzies", while admittedly expressing clearly my personal dismissal of such feelings as unimportant, can hardly be considered to be a serious insult just by the force of these words themselves. I hence think my post was well within the realm of robust debate, and this host call was not warranted.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I intervened not because of your "warm fuzzies" term but because, as I posted in my host post, you said this:
quote:
Enjoy, since that's all this will ever change in you
In your post above you suggest your swipe was confined to others' "religious habits and attitudes", but that's not what you said.
You took care to say "most of" and not "all of" your fellow-posters, but the clear implication is that all those posting who do not agree with you are incapable of ever changing their views (not their fuzzy feelings) on anything.
To me that displays a degree of disdain for those who differ with you which is not worthy of Purgatory. How you expect to contribute to constructive debate with that attitude is beyond me. Constructive debate is what we try to do in Purg, and that's why I called you on it.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
What I wrote in context is this (and this is a separated paragraph):
quote:
But yes, according to most of you - I know - Diego is not sinning at all. So this is just the pope behaving a bit more like any decent person would, and acting as a good pastor should. So, warm fuzzies for you then. Enjoy, since that's all this will ever change in you.
The paragraph first limits to whom all of this is addressed, specifying explicitly that it is not to everybody (but to "most") and then saying whereby these "most" people will be distinguished from others, namely by their opinion about Diego.
Next, the paragraph says exactly wherein the "warm fuzzies" will consist, namely in seeing Pope Francis as a decent man and good pastor.
Finally, the last sentence clearly references what has just been stated:
"that" - feeling good about Pope Francis,
"this" - the actions of Pope Francis under discussion in the last few and also in this post,
"you" - "most" people on SoF (in my estimation), who consider Diego as not sinning.
The intended meaning is thus elaborated:
Enjoy, people who think Diego is not sinning, since feeling good about Pope Francis is the only thing that his public actions concerning Diego (which we have been discussing here) will ever change in you.
Your interpretation of what I wrote as some general condemnation of Shipmates as incapable of any change is mysterious to me. It certainly was not the intended meaning, and I struggle to see how it could be interpreted as the intended meaning.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Enjoy, people who think Diego is not sinning, since feeling good about Pope Francis is the only thing that his public actions concerning Diego (which we have been discussing here) will ever change in you.
Even by your own explanation, you are assuming everybody who disagrees with you is more closed-minded than you are.
Which is not constructive and not in the ethos of Purgatory - which it is the hosts' job to uphold.
quote:
Your interpretation of what I wrote as some general condemnation of Shipmates as incapable of any change is mysterious to me.
Above, you explain that according to you, only their feelings, not their views, will ever change. Your dismissal is not, as you allege in your OP here, of their feelings, it's of their ability to be open-minded. quote:
I struggle to see how it could be interpreted as the intended meaning.
If "that" in my highlighted text means "fuzzy feelings" as opposed to others' ability to change their views.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
It's not the hosts' job to forensically examine each post as if it were a legal document. We're not paid anywhere near enough to do that (just ask orfeo).
Therefore, if the only way you can contest a hostly warning is to debate what the specific meaning of 'is' is, you've pretty much proved the need for that hostly warning. If you want to get pissy with other shipmates without worrying about where the lines are drawn (note: that's not always going to be in the same place), Hell is open for business.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There is another "fuzzy" to bear in mind here, though it may not be warm.
The 10 Commandments and board guidelines are imprecise and "fuzzy", quite deliberately so. They provide space for hostly discretion in judging the best course of action for the proper functioning of their boards. A phrase acceptable in one situation may be unacceptable in another. Something you posted that is clear to you may be understood in a completely different way by someone else.
It's not a game of tennis with a clear line between "in" and "out", with endless TV replays to decide where the ball landed when the player shouts "you can not be serious!". The hosts make their best judgement call, without reference to a library of precedence to determine whether a particular post or series of posts warrants an official comment. We wouldn't want it any different.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Even by your own explanation, you are assuming everybody who disagrees with you is more closed-minded than you are. Which is not constructive and not in the ethos of Purgatory - which it is the hosts' job to uphold.
That's an interesting comment. First, I wasn't aware that hosts are charged with mind reading. Second, I wasn't aware that in Purgatory one has to consider everybody as either as open-minded, or more so, than oneself, in particular in the face of disagreement. Third, I didn't realise that constructive posting requires the assumption that the people one is discussing with are all open-minded.
Now, when exactly can I expect you to admonish those people who in some small corner of their mind might just think that traditionalists are more close-minded because they disagree with their opinions? We wouldn't want them to disturb the ethos of Purgatory any further, given that it has been shaken to the core by me possibly thinking less of another Shipmate (in itself surely a sign of the coming apocalypse).
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Above, you explain that according to you, only their feelings, not their views, will ever change. Your dismissal is not, as you allege in your OP here, of their feelings, it's of their ability to be open-minded.
Well, yes, under the given specific circumstances - namely that we are talking about the actions of Pope Francis as perceived by those here who think Diego is not sinning anyway - I am indeed predicting that these people under these circumstances in this particular case will only change their feelings concerning Pope Francis, and not for example - as was outlined in that same post - join RCIA to become Catholic.
Sly devil that I am, it's actually a bit of a challenge to people to prove me wrong, which - as it happens - would delight me.
But setting this aside, are you seriously saying here that I cannot make this claim in Purgatory? It is not discussable, because it insults people so deeply? Really? So when we have comments like this one
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
In other words, the Pope should stop giving the appearance of being a decent man, because people might get the wrong idea about the Catholic church...
I cannot answer that in my opinion these particular actions will however also do no more than making people think of this pope as a decent man?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You took care to say "most of" and not "all of" your fellow-posters, but the clear implication is that all those posting who do not agree with you are incapable of ever changing their views (not their fuzzy feelings) on anything.
Indeed.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's an interesting comment. First, I wasn't aware that hosts are charged with mind reading.
We aren't. I am more than a bit relieved that I am not charged with reading your mind.
We are however charged with facilitating constructive debate. quote:
Second, I wasn't aware that in Purgatory one has to consider everybody as either as open-minded, or more so, than oneself, in particular in the face of disagreement.
There is no such requirement. The requirements relate to what you say, not what you think, and accusing everyone else of being closed-minded is just a scatter-gun form of personal attack. Posters are encouraged to attack the issue, not the person - or people. quote:
Third, I didn't realise that constructive posting requires the assumption that the people one is discussing with are all open-minded.
See above.
quote:
Now, when exactly can I expect you to admonish those people who in some small corner of their mind might just think that traditionalists are more close-minded because they disagree with their opinions?
Are you accusing me of picking on you because you are a traditionalist, or even because you think I think you're closed-minded? You're wrong. I called you out because you were being provocatively disparaging about other posters as people, not because of the issues. quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Above, you explain that according to you, only their feelings, not their views, will ever change. Your dismissal is not, as you allege in your OP here, of their feelings, it's of their ability to be open-minded.
Well, yes, under the given specific circumstances
Thank you for admitting that. Your attempt at contextualization, however, is not borne out by the specific phrase I highlighted, which could and still can be read as calling into question everybody else's open-mindedness on any issue under the sun. quote:
Sly devil that I am, it's actually a bit of a challenge to people to prove me wrong, which - as it happens - would delight me.
You would to better to invite them to do so than to implicitly accuse them of closed-mindedness.
quote:
But setting this aside, are you seriously saying here that I cannot make this claim in Purgatory? It is not discussable, because it insults people so deeply?
If you want to claim that a specific group of people is closed-minded, you can go ahead and try, but I suspect it will get personal and Hellish real fast. Which is what I was trying to head off. quote:
So when we have comments like this one
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
In other words, the Pope should stop giving the appearance of being a decent man, because people might get the wrong idea about the Catholic church...
I cannot answer that in my opinion these particular actions will however also do no more than making people think of this pope as a decent man?
To be perfectly honest with you, Russ' post came under my microscope and I let it pass. Russ got away with it, just, because the jibe was both implicit and not an insult directed against a specific individual present in the debate.
You could have answered as you did above. The difference in what you actually did put is that you used the word "you". This is hard to call at the best of times, and your attempted defence so far here seems to confirm that you were talking not about "people" in general, but about those disagreeing with you present on the thread.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Therefore, if the only way you can contest a hostly warning is to debate what the specific meaning of 'is' is, you've pretty much proved the need for that hostly warning.
I wasn't discussing the specific meaning of 'is' anywhere. I have contested the host call in the OP on the grounds that what I said was not a personal attack.
Eutychus responded with this analysis of a single sentence: "the clear implication is that all those posting who do not agree with you are incapable of ever changing their views (not their fuzzy feelings) on anything." But I never said that, and pray how else am I supposed to show this other than by restoring the context and providing the proper meaning?
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is another "fuzzy" to bear in mind here, though it may not be warm.
Sure, but "fuzzy" can become "arbitrary", at which point the Styx becomes the emperor's new clothes.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
accusing everyone else of being closed-minded is just a scatter-gun form of personal attack.
Maybe so, but since that didn't happen, I fail to see your point. What you have been doing here form the start is to defend your ruling by generalising what I actually wrote. But nowhere have I said that most people on SoF cannot change their view of anything. Nowhere have I accused everyone else of being close-minded. It's ... just ... not ... true.
What I have done is to diss a particular, large group on a particular behaviour pattern in a specific case. That happens here all the time. It does you no good to say "but the members of that group could feel personally insulted by that claim". So what? The usual response is to let other posters contend that the claim about that group is wrong, or that the evaluation is wrong. The usual response is not to simply interdict this. Heck, I could feel personally insulted every day by things people assert about Catholicism, tradition or orthodox teachings.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Are you accusing me of picking on you because you are a traditionalist, or even because you think I think you're closed-minded?
No. I'm saying that you are not likewise defending me against all the personal insults that I could possibly perceive in a like manner.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I called you out because you were being provocatively disparaging about other posters as people, not because of the issues.
I was disparaging about other people's superficial response to the pope, and about the pope. All the rest is quite simply an invention of your imagination.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Thank you for admitting that. Your attempt at contextualization, however, is not borne out by the specific phrase I highlighted, which could and still can be read as calling into question everybody else's open-mindedness on any issue under the sun.
Ripping a sentence out of context, in particular one that has lots of reference words, and then analysing it on its own is highly questionable anyway. But to simply wave aside the context and insist that you can just interpret the sentence the way you want is really beyond the pale.
I might as well claim that this
"They want to own God, and more especially claim a monopoly on God as they understand him."
is you talking about all Muslims in everything they do as worship. Context would of course reveal that you were actually talking about a specific group of Muslims doing a particular thing. But hey, I sure as heck can interpret your sentence this way without context. In fact, I might as well claim that you are talking about the Israelites and the golden calf. That makes perfect sense of the sentence, doesn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You would to better to invite them to do so than to implicitly accuse them of closed-mindedness.
Maybe. But it is not your job to make me a better man. And I have not implicitly accused them of general close-mindedness. I have explicitly accused them of failing to respond beyond a superficial adjustment of affection to the pope in this case. And if you want to bring some sophistication to the analysis, then it would be more appropriate to say that I have accused the pope of wasting his time on publicity stunts that are predictably not going to do more than making him more liked. At a deep level, this was really an attack on the pope by proxy.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you want to claim that a specific group of people is closed-minded, you can go ahead and try, but I suspect it will get personal and Hellish real fast. Which is what I was trying to head off.
Well then, why not simply say that you think things are getting unnecessarily heated? I generally do respond to such suggestions well and promptly. I do not however like to get a full commandment violation smacked in my face because of purported implications of what I have said.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Russ got away with it, just, because the jibe was both implicit and not an insult directed against a specific individual present in the debate.
*cough* just like mine *cough*
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is hard to call at the best of times, and your attempted defence so far here seems to confirm that you were talking not about "people" in general, but about those disagreeing with you present on the thread.
Russ wasn't aiming his jibe at the entire population of the world either. Frankly, it is already a bit of a stretch to say that he was aiming it at trad/conservative Catholics in general - people who disagree with him on this issue - rather than plain and simply at me.
But anyway, there must be space to critique group behaviour, even if it pains group members. Or, and I say this in all seriousness, Purgatory is dead.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Therefore, if the only way you can contest a hostly warning is to debate what the specific meaning of 'is' is, you've pretty much proved the need for that hostly warning.
I wasn't discussing the specific meaning of 'is' anywhere. I have contested the host call in the OP on the grounds that what I said was not a personal attack.
You call a host to Styx. The host gives their reasoning. You then proceed to fisk their reasoning based entirely on the precise meanings you intended the words to have when you used them in Purgatory.
You are doing the equivalent of arguing what the meaning of "is" is. Once you press "add reply", you don't own your words any more. If someone, in good faith, thinks those words say something else to what you intended, you were simply not precise enough. We're not mind readers, we don't want to be mind readers, we don't want to be expected to be mind readers. That's acknowledged by all parties, yet here we are.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Eutychus
To me that displays a degree of disdain for those who differ with you which is not worthy of Purgatory. How you expect to contribute to constructive debate with that attitude is beyond me. Constructive debate is what we try to do in Purg, and that's why I called you on it.
It would be nice if Purgatory was always like that, but that seems to me far from the basis of which is generally hosted. I can think of several people for whom displaying disdain for people who disagree with them is pretty much their entire posting style.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Eutychus responded with this analysis of a single sentence: "the clear implication is that all those posting who do not agree with you are incapable of ever changing their views (not their fuzzy feelings) on anything." But I never said that, and pray how else am I supposed to show this other than by restoring the context and providing the proper meaning?
You said, emphasis mine quote:
Enjoy, since that's all this will ever change in you
The combination of those three words is what puts that firmly in the "attack" category, and I could argue from the immediate context - the same post - that it is personally directed at specific individuals on the thread, if you'd like to go there.
You are trying to back off those words by providing context, but to do so you have to resort to going well beyond the rest of that post. quote:
Nowhere have I accused everyone else of being close-minded. It's ... just ... not ... true.
You said, in response to specific posters, that the only thing that would ever change for them was their fuzzy feelings, which as you have already admitted here, are trivial in your view. quote:
Heck, I could feel personally insulted every day by things people assert about Catholicism, tradition or orthodox teachings.
That's your prerogative. It is not however a licence to make provocative comments that can be taken personally (e.g. by using "you" carelessly). It seems to me that all you are doing here is reiterating your lack of respect for those whose views differ from yours. quote:
I was disparaging about other people's superficial response to the pope, and about the pope. All the rest is quite simply an invention of your imagination.
You asserted they would never change anything except their superficial feelings. Your critique was not about their response but their absence of thought-out response. quote:
But to simply wave aside the context and insist that you can just interpret the sentence the way you want is really beyond the pale.
I might as well claim that this
"They want to own God, and more especially claim a monopoly on God as they understand him."
is you talking about all Muslims in everything they do as worship. Context would of course reveal that you were actually talking about a specific group of Muslims doing a particular thing.
If in an attempt to prove your point you are reduced to trawling through all my posts as a poster, which are subject to the same rules and hosted by my colleagues, I suggest you stop digging a hole for yourself.
I'm called to give an account of myself here for my host posts only, and I'm not going to be drawn into an argument on my posts in an individual capacity. Besides, the content of the post of mine you link to, compared to the one I called you on, speaks for itself. quote:
But it is not your job to make me a better man.
No more than it is to read your mind. It is the hosts' job to call it out when we see something going against the spirit of the Ten Commandments. quote:
I have explicitly accused them of failing to respond beyond a superficial adjustment of affection to the pope in this case.
That is not the implication of the words all and ever in what you wrote. quote:
At a deep level, this was really an attack on the pope by proxy.
In case you feel the need, please note that so long as the pope is not an identified Shipmate, you are free to insult him provided it is not construed by us as potentially libellous.
quote:
Well then, why not simply say that you think things are getting unnecessarily heated?
Because at this point it was you applying the heat unilaterally and unnecessarily. Frustration is fine. But coming out like that it belongs in Hell. quote:
I do not however like to get a full commandment violation smacked in my face because of purported implications of what I have said.
Spend more time composing your Purgatory posts and accept hostly rulings, and you'll save a lot of time spent digging through hosts' personal posts in a misguided attempt to prop up your Styx complaints.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Russ got away with it, just, because the jibe was both implicit and not an insult directed against a specific individual present in the debate.
*cough* just like mine *cough*
The difference to my mind resides in the three words bolded by me in your post. quote:
Russ wasn't aiming his jibe at the entire population of the world either. Frankly, it is already a bit of a stretch to say that he was aiming it at trad/conservative Catholics in general - people who disagree with him on this issue - rather than plain and simply at me.
Again, to be perfectly honest, I took the time, at the time, to consider whether Russ' post was, even implicitly, directed personally at you. I decided it wasn't, on the basis that you are not the sole representative of trad/conservative Catholics here. quote:
But anyway, there must be space to critique group behaviour, even if it pains group members. Or, and I say this in all seriousness, Purgatory is dead.
If you want to do that, avoid using the words you, all, and ever and you'll be off to a good start.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I can think of several people for whom displaying disdain for people who disagree with them is pretty much their entire posting style.
If you see evidence of that and it isn't hosted, I suggest you either call them to Hell or take it to the Styx. Either of which will require you to name names and supply examples.
[ 29. January 2015, 19:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If someone, in good faith, thinks those words say something else to what you intended, you were simply not precise enough.
Blame for a breakdown in communication can obviously attach to the listener as much as to the speaker. And one can easily listen badly in good faith.
Imagine I had in fact understood Eutychus as claiming that all Muslims try to claim God exclusively for themselves in all their practices. Is this possible if I am reading him in good faith? Of course it is, for example if I am skim-reading and jumping to conclusions. It is not that I wanted to misattribute something to Eutychus then (bad faith), it is simply that my reading was bad. Now say Eutychus answers: "No, look at the context. That's not what I was saying at all. I was talking specifically about Malaysian Muslims appropriating the word 'Allah'." Is it then fair to blame Eutychus? Is he protesting too much? Is he required to make every single sentence entirely unequivocal considered individually? No, of course not, and that's impossible anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You are trying to back off those words by providing context, but to do so you have to resort to going well beyond the rest of that post.
I'm not backing away from a single thing I have said, and I'm pointing straight at the immediate context of this sentence, to which it clearly makes reference, and without which you cannot fairly interpret it. This is not rocket science, this is the very basis of any text interpretation ever.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You said, in response to specific posters, that the only thing that would ever change for them was their fuzzy feelings, which as you have already admitted here, are trivial in your view.
Indeed, but for a particular, identified group of people in a specific and argued case. I'm saying "that is how you, namely this kind of people, deal with that, and so because of that". People are of course free to disagree with my assessment. I note that nobody so far has done so. And yes, I am saying that I think I can predict certain people's reactions to certain things. People are predictable to a degree. I certainly am at times, wouldn't you agree?
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If in an attempt to prove your point you are reduced to trawling through all my posts as a poster, which are subject to the same rules and hosted by my colleagues, I suggest you stop digging a hole for yourself.
Are you even trying to understand what I'm writing here? I did not look for any rule violation of yours at all. I simply used a sentence you wrote to demonstrate that one can read all sorts of stuff into a single sentence ripped out of context. The point of using your sentence was simply that you presumably remember what you were trying to say there...
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That is not the implication of the words all and ever in what you wrote.
Yes, it very much is. Because of the reference word "this" in that sentence.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The difference to my mind resides in the three words bolded by me in your post.
Both "all" and "ever" clearly refer to "this", and hence the preceding specification. And the group of people addressed by "you" was also explicitly singled out by objective criteria just prior. Do you see a significant difference between:
But yes, you Catholics believe in the real presence. That is what turns you into idolators.
and
Correct. Catholics believe in the real presence, which turns them into idolators.
?
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Again, to be perfectly honest, I took the time, at the time, to consider whether Russ' post was, even implicitly, directed personally at you. I decided it wasn't, on the basis that you are not the sole representative of trad/conservative Catholics here.
Fine. And if we have about 18,000 Shipmates now, then the number of people I was addressing, by my own explicit statement, was more than 9,000. Yes, the handful of them active in the thread could feel more directly addressed by me. I could also feel that I was being more directly addressed by Russ (after all, he was even quoting me...).
I am not saying that I think Russ did anything wrong there. I just don't think that I did anything significantly different.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But anyway, there must be space to critique group behaviour, even if it pains group members. Or, and I say this in all seriousness, Purgatory is dead.
If you want to do that, avoid using the words you, all, and ever and you'll be off to a good start.
Really? Really.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If someone, in good faith, thinks those words say something else to what you intended, you were simply not precise enough.
Blame for a breakdown in communication can obviously attach to the listener as much as to the speaker. And one can easily listen badly in good faith.
Yes. And you know what? "You're too much of an idiot to understand my deathless prose/finely honed argument" is something you say in Hell, or not at all.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That is not the implication of the words all and ever in what you wrote.
Yes, it very much is. Because of the reference word "this" in that sentence.
FWIW, when I first read Eutychus' host ruling (before reading this thread), it struck me as a personal attack, but when I then read IngoB's paragraph immediately before the part Eutychus quoted, it became pretty clear to me that IngoB's use of the word "this" was important. It seemed to me that he was saying something along the lines of "what do you care about the implications regarding key Catholic teachings since you're not Catholic and they don't affect you" and was therefore not insulting other posters, just pointing out that they had a very different stake in the discussion.
[ 29. January 2015, 21:19: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes. And you know what? "You're too much of an idiot to understand my deathless prose/finely honed argument" is something you say in Hell, or not at all.
You make a much better point there. Though one that remains firmly wedded to one side, betraying not the slightest sympathy for the other.
Still, I take your point serious enough to withdraw.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If someone, in good faith, thinks those words say something else to what you intended, you were simply not precise enough.
Blame for a breakdown in communication can obviously attach to the listener as much as to the speaker. And one can easily listen badly in good faith.
But it's not "the speaker" and "the listener". It's "the speaker" and dozens or hundreds of "listeners".
We are talking about Hostly rulings here. Which do you think is more practicable, for Hosts to focus on what they perceive is being said or what they perceive is being heard by a myriad different people?
Styx is in fact the place to come to discuss whether a Host has got the wrong end of the stick, and in fact in some particular cases it turns out the answer is 'Yes'. But that conclusion can often only be reached by a lot of evidence provided by other 'listeners' indicating that they understood a post in a way different from the Host.
Arguing extensively about what your words meant doesn't establish you're in the right here. If a lot of readers would have understood your words in the same way that Eutychus did, then you were imprecise. You can only blame a particular listener for an idiosyncratic interpretation. You can't blame the whole field of listeners for misunderstanding you.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I can think of several people for whom displaying disdain for people who disagree with them is pretty much their entire posting style.
If you see evidence of that and it isn't hosted, I suggest you either call them to Hell or take it to the Styx. Either of which will require you to name names and supply examples.
Myeah, but it doesn't really work like that, does it? Indeed, if it did, I reckon there'd be more threads in Styx and Hell than Purg (and Hosting would be an even more thankless task*).
* I'd like to take this opportunity to offer my ongoing gratitude to those kind people who help to run this place. Thank you.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
having skimmed through this thread, I am very happy that I am not in the position of having to parse the meaning of "is".
A huge "Thank you" to the Hosts who put up with this sort of thing in order to make the rest of the boards habitable and to the specific host(s) who are dealing with the increasingly-long justifications in this thread.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
having skimmed through this thread, I am very happy that I am not in the position of having to parse the meaning of "is".
Consider yourself fortunate we haven't asked you to parse the meaning of "meaning".
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
How do you mean "parse"?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
How do you mean "parse"?
I think "explain" is a reasonable explanation.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Grok?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
"Pars" must have something to do with eating, since one can talk parsely in recipes.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Maybe I'm junior-Hosting given that I'm a Host elsewhere rather than here, but folks this ain't the Circus.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Maybe I'm junior-Hosting given that I'm a Host elsewhere rather than here, but folks this ain't the Circus.
You said that way more nicely that I would have done!
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
