Ship of Fools: Leo the coward

Thread: Leo the coward Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026316

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

You push and you push and you push on a single point, and when somebody calls you on it, and you have absolutely no response to give because your position is full of shit, you call it a tangent and say you won't talk about it until that person opens another thread.

Fucking coward. Your theology is more tangled than the inside of a bull's testicle but less life-giving.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

What Leo lacks in understanding, he more than makes up for in confidence. We could all learn that from him, if nothing else.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What Leo lacks in understanding, he more than makes up for in confidence. We could all learn that from him, if nothing else.

Don't see it. Confidence is plowing on, not saying, "Oh, this is a tangent. I refuse to play anymore." That's not confidence. That's cowardice.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I dunno. I think it takes loads of confidence to set oneself up as the expert of a subject one knows nothing about, and then carry on like the authority of the matter even when one's ignorance has been made plain to everyone. Leo does that every day, and it's amazing, I say. He might never have anything to contribute, but he never admits defeat.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
he never admits defeat.

Yeah, he just quits when it's clear he's lost.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It's an interesting way to have no losses in a season and just have 'game abandoned at half time while trailing 3-0' instead.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Isn't that a strategy in several online multi-player games?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Dunno. I have never played online multi-player games. Maybe that's my problem. Leo thinks this is a multi-player game. I think it's meant to be a discussion of knowledge, facts, truth, and opinions.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

And your problem is that Leo has opinions?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Did you read the OP, or just the thread title? I made it plain what my problem was, and it's not that Leo has opinions. Zach understood what I was saying, and he's far from my biggest fan. Try again.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Opinions like, 'Oh, I think someone should open a new thread for me on the same subject so that I can respond to the postings I made on an initial thread' seem slightly problematic on a discussion forum such as this.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Oh look! fletcher christian gets it, too.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Dunno. I have never played online multi-player games. Maybe that's my problem. Leo thinks this is a multi-player game. I think it's meant to be a discussion of knowledge, facts, truth, and opinions.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You push and you push and you push on a single point, and when somebody calls you on it, and you have absolutely no response to give because your position is full of shit, you call it a tangent and say you won't talk about it until that person opens another thread.

Not at all - the meaning of Paul's take on resurrection really belongs in kerygmania.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

In that case, it's not appropriate material for Purg, or if you are not willing to discuss it in Purg, then it's pretty pointless your introducing it into the discussion. If it's part of the argument you want to make, then it can be discussed there. I guess if the hosts think it's getting too Keryg., then they'll move it. Otherwise you introduce a point in support of a certain POV, others want to discuss whether it does in fact support that POV, and you say 'No, it can't be discussed here'. It doesn't make for a very meaningful conversation.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
he never admits defeat.
Yeah, he just quits when it's clear he's lost.

Seems reasonable.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You push and you push and you push on a single point, and when somebody calls you on it, and you have absolutely no response to give because your position is full of shit, you call it a tangent and say you won't talk about it until that person opens another thread.
Not at all - the meaning of Paul's take on resurrection really belongs in kerygmania.

Then why did you bring it up?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Because you failed to engage with the material i posted but merely made a priori assertions that there cannot be any contradictions. i pointed out what they were and you continued to disengage.

That is why it is cowardly of you to take the issue to Hell because you can continue to disengage and merely do some name-calling.

A new thread devoted to exegesis of what is in the text rather than what you would like to be there might actually get somewhere.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A new thread devoted to exegesis of what is in the text rather than what you would like to be there might actually get somewhere.

... but you're not going to start one because if he wants to discuss it, he should start it?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Because you failed to engage with the material i posted but merely made a priori assertions that there cannot be any contradictions. i pointed out what they were and you continued to disengage.

That is why it is cowardly of you to take the issue to Hell because you can continue to disengage and merely do some name-calling.

A new thread devoted to exegesis of what is in the text rather than what you would like to be there might actually get somewhere.

As far as I know (and can be bothered to find out) the existing thread, from which this thread is derived, is still open. As much of the material on which such an exegesis would be based is in there, any constructive discussion can go right back to Purgatory on that thread. There is, AFAICT, no need for yet another thread.

Meanwhile, continue your scheduled name-calling right here.

Thank you.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

Is this why Leo chose his name?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I guess if the hosts think it's getting too Keryg., then they'll move it.

Yes. Or put a post up saying 'please move this part of the discussion to Kerygmania'.

I forget the part that leo evidently saw, where there was an announcement that the Bible ought not be mentioned in Purgatory. Seems a bit of a stretch, even for a website that is not A Christian Website.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That is why it is cowardly of you to take the issue to Hell because you can continue to disengage and merely do some name-calling.

I didn't disengage, you coward, YOU did. You started a discussion about Paul's understanding of the resurrection, then refused to talk about it after it got going and somebody called you on your bullshit. "Oops I'm losing this argument. What can I do? I know, I'll tell them I won't discuss it here because it's a subject for another thread."

Coward.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Leo does A.
You call Leo on doing A.
Leo accuses you of doing A.

Never fails...

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

You know, despite everything within me screaming 'no. don't go there', I'm kind of intrigued and wondering what the response would have been. So Leo, If you really think it deserves another thread, then can you open one? Or will I do it for you?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Leo does A.
You call Leo on doing A.
Leo accuses you of doing A.

Never fails...

Ah, you noticed that too?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A new thread devoted to exegesis of what is in the text rather than what you would like to be there might actually get somewhere.
... but you're not going to start one because if he wants to discuss it, he should start it?

No - because he has already failed to engage with the material which is on the thread.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Leo, I don't see how you can have it both ways. Either there was a discussion going on that you decided to end, or there wasn't a discussion. The 2 claimed reasons you have for not continuing the subject are bordering on mutually exclusive.

Which doesn't actually surprise me, for some weird reason I thought it was worth pointing out in the wild hope you'd notice. But I haven't even finished typing this post and I realise I was living in fantasy-land for about 30 seconds.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

In other news… [Cool]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

Judy dies of overdose.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Leo, I don't see how you can have it both ways. Either there was a discussion going on that you decided to end, or there wasn't a discussion. The 2 claimed reasons you have for not continuing the subject are bordering on mutually exclusive.

Which doesn't actually surprise me, for some weird reason I thought it was worth pointing out in the wild hope you'd notice. But I haven't even finished typing this post and I realise I was living in fantasy-land for about 30 seconds.

You'll see now that someone else (presumably because MT won't or can't engage with the argument) has restarted it and that i have responded in considerable detail.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Don't think too much of it, Leo. All you really did was copy/paste the footnotes of some article into the browser, click "Add reply," and then imagine you've given the world a really profound bit of game changing exegesis.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leo:
They were not footnotes top any article.

Not sure it needs any - read the texts. I think they are self-explanatory.

More of the usual from Leo. I blame Mousethief for bothering to engage with him.

It's all MT's fault.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

No - don't judge everyone by your own standards. It's an extract from a paper 'Resurrection - symbol? event?' that i did in March, 1999

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Excuse me, but I'm a WASP. Whose standards would I judge everyone by?

quote:
It's an extract from a paper 'Resurrection - symbol? event?' that i did in March, 1999

Of COURSE it is.

[ 14. October 2013, 14:08: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Excuse me, but I'm a WASP. Whose standards would I judge everyone by?

quote:
It's an extract from a paper 'Resurrection - symbol? event?' that i did in March, 1999
Of COURSE it is.

Yes, of course it is and it also on my blog (of more recent origin).

Or are we getting into some sort of pantomime of 'Oh yes it is' and 'oh no it's not'

Would be good is w could get halloween out of the way before the panto seas on starts. Then we can vie for the role of wicked witch.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

All MT's fault.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Yes, of course it is and it also on my blog (of more recent origin).

By chance, leo, do you remember the exact phrasing of the Admin's warning to you about reposting material here? Let me paraphrase for you:

If we can find anything you post here written somewhere else on the web, we're going to ban the everliving fuck out of you.

Contemplate that some during an indeterminate suspension, while I confer with the Adminisphere about whether we should make it permanent.

-RooK
ADMIN

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0