|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 12/26/2006 : 21:11:32 [Permalink]
|
Ah, you snuck in a couple while I was editing my last:quote:
Originally posted by McQ
Please show me where there is a statement of fact or any other claim that needs to be verified...quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
...First, is it true that the atheists communities and kindred groups treat Buddhism with kids' gloves?
Second, why?...
Right there. The "why" question assumes that the answer to the first question is "yes." Pachomius didn't give anyone's answer to the first question a response, either, until a few pages in, where he told me that if it's my opinion that skeptics don't treat Buddhism with kid gloves, it's my right to have that opinion. And from his second post:...I am amazed dismally that intellectuals or supposedly members of the intelligentsia of the West can swallow hook, line, and sinker, Buddhism... This isn't Pachomius asking a question and honestly seeking help answering it: he only asked the question rhetorically, as an introduction to his punishment of skeptics for not bashing Buddhism enough.quote:
This is what I am astonished by. This is a totally reasonable post. The answers to it started off ok, but quickly became adversarial and confrontational.
His first post was okay, mostly (except for his assumption of an answer to his first question). The responses becamse confrontational as Pachomius (and others) let it be known that he came here with an agenda which was not expressed in that first post.quote:
I was particularly surprised to find kil accusing Pachomius of "making claims of fact, and then refusing to support those claims.". Kil, look at the OP here, as I posted it. He really did no such thing.
Look at the whole thread, McQ. Pachomius makes plenty of bald assertions of fact, and then refuses to provide evidence that they are true. There's far more to him than just the OP. Here's an example, still from page one of the thread:The ideal life of the Buddhists is isolation in a sangha (read that monastery), without home and family and career and the challenges of normal and everyday life, cultivating instead emptiness by meditating on emptiness. He never did provide any evidence that such a thing is true. There are plenty of other examples past page one.quote:
I agree with starting from the position of friends first, in order to share musing, ideas, etc. Please guys, rethink this.
It's pretty clear that if you read all of his three threads, Pachomius doesn't have any intention of chatting with skeptical friends. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2006 : 21:27:11 [Permalink]
|
And you snuck in another one!  quote:
Originally posted by McQ
Dave I understand what you're saying. I was simply talking about this thread, and particularly this OP. That's it. Your reaction to what I posted is exactly what I was addressing. I was simply asking people to take this thread and this post at face value. Your other dealings with Pachomius (in other threads) shouldn't have any bearing on his OP here. They were just questions based on his observations.
What I fail to see, McQ, is why I should ignore all of Pachomius' other posts in this thread. Yes, his posts in other threads inform me more about his personality and why he is here, but if he had stuck to this one thread, my reactions would have been the same as time went on. He's made it clear that he's not interested in the answers we gave him, nor is he interested in a two-way discussion on the subject he brought up (in fact, he refuses to address the questions in the OP himself). His new "I'm only seeking feedback" nonsense is just that: it only came up when there was a "critical mass" of posts asking him why he won't back up his assertions. If it were really his intent, that should have been his first answer, but instead the requests were ignored or rudely dismissed for many pages.quote:
Again, like kil, I've read enough of what you've posted to know you're an even-handed guy. I just think your wrong here, in this case, in this thread (and yes, I think we can call bullshit on our friends...I do it too). The reaction to the OP became unduly harsh, through no fault of the original poster.
I appreciate your calling bullshit on me and the others here, but I think it's you who are wrong, through your attempts to limit our appraisal of Pachomius as if he hadn't written more than one post in this thread. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2006 : 21:27:56 [Permalink]
|
Looks like we're both sneaking 'em in at the same time!
I don't know, Dave. Maybe I'm getting soft, or becoming too warm and fuzzy with age. 
I do see what you mean in the other threads. I just thought that the "why" he asked here was justified, because it was clear that he was stating an opinion only in the OP in the thread. Sort of like when Andy Rooney says, "Didja ever notice...?"
That's how I saw it, at least. I do that too. I think about something and wonder if anyone else thinks the same thing. Maybe because of that, I'm not seeing a bigger picture here. It just came across to me that way. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
| Edited by - McQ on 12/26/2006 21:30:12 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2006 : 23:54:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
I was particularly surprised to find kil accusing Pachomius of "making claims of fact, and then refusing to support those claims.". Kil, look at the OP here, as I posted it. He really did no such thing. You are one of the sharpest, most even-handed people I've seen in here, kil. Perhaps you were referring to another post. If so, accept my apology.
Thanks for the complement McQ. I try to be fair, but I do come with a skeptic's bias. The hardest part of critical thinking is to use it on ourselves I suppose. I'll let you in on a little secret. Back when ergo was posting he left a post that made me so angry that I appealed to the other moderators and administrators to stop me from banning him outright. I asked them to give me a reason why I shouldn't do it. And while banning was his ultimate fate here, I had lost it to the point that I could not trust myself to not just pull the lever on him out of blind rage. If it weren't for the advice of other staff, my even hand would have given him the hook just because I wanted to. I tell you this because sometimes it takes more than one brain at work to keep our hands even. So I did take your advice and read through the thread again.
And again…
Dave has already quoted the same quotes I would have used in this reply to you as examples of statements of fact that got some members bothered. So there is no point in repeating them. As Dave pointed out, it is the whole thread and not the OP that has gotten our goat. There was also the problem of his quoting himself from another forum and not mentioning that he was the “someone said” that he was referring to, over on page five of this thread. Very bad business, that. Can you think of another "scientific skeptic" who would reference in that way?
I appreciate your advice McQ because I know from my own experience that we need to be careful about how we interpret a persons intentions. And we can make mistakes. But in this case, I stand by my last post.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 06:59:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
I was particularly surprised to find kil accusing Pachomius of "making claims of fact, and then refusing to support those claims.". Kil, look at the OP here, as I posted it. He really did no such thing. You are one of the sharpest, most even-handed people I've seen in here, kil. Perhaps you were referring to another post. If so, accept my apology.
Thanks for the complement McQ. I try to be fair, but I do come with a skeptic's bias. The hardest part of critical thinking is to use it on ourselves I suppose. I'll let you in on a little secret. Back when ergo was posting he left a post that made me so angry that I appealed to the other moderators and administrators to stop me from banning him outright. I asked them to give me a reason why I shouldn't do it. And while banning was his ultimate fate here, I had lost it to the point that I could not trust myself to not just pull the lever on him out of blind rage. If it weren't for the advice of other staff, my even hand would have given him the hook just because I wanted to. I tell you this because sometimes it takes more than one brain at work to keep our hands even. So I did take your advice and read through the thread again.
And again…
Dave has already quoted the same quotes I would have used in this reply to you as examples of statements of fact that got some members bothered. So there is no point in repeating them. As Dave pointed out, it is the whole thread and not the OP that has gotten our goat. There was also the problem of his quoting himself from another forum and not mentioning that he was the “someone said” that he was referring to, over on page five of this thread. Very bad business, that. Can you think of another "scientific skeptic" who would reference in that way?
I appreciate your advice McQ because I know from my own experience that we need to be careful about how we interpret a persons intentions. And we can make mistakes. But in this case, I stand by my last post.
Thanks for explaining this, Kil. I missed the quoting himself thing. As I mentioned to Dave, I might not be seeing the bigger picture.
Oh yeah, ego123 deserved his "fate" long before he actually got it. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 14:55:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
Thanks to everyone who sympathize with me.
I was asking I think at least once and several times in so many words,
What kind of evidence is acceptable to people asking evidence to support my opinion, suspicion, or guess that atheists, rationalists, skeptics, or the Western intelligentsia are soft on Buddhism but harsh on other religions traditional in the West and Middle East.
And you were answered. Yet still you do not reply. How can you expect anything but hostility?
quote:
Perhaps and more certainly I should have started this thread not in the present place but in that section on anything, like what I did with my thread on what people did with hair before the invention of shears.
No. It belongs here. If not the moderator would prolly have moved it for you. The point is, that you make statments of fact and refuse to present evidence.
quote:
The thing is that I thought that we could have a casual relaxing conversation about an opinion of mine, but some people here seem to always act as though they are in mortal combat.
Sorry it is my favorite game. Go Midway! If you wanna talk about your opinions, that's fine. However, talking as if your opinions are facts is not. You may say "I think skeptics are soft on Buddhism." But then when I respond "How so, and why do you think that." you are still required to explain your statements, yes, even in casual conversations. Otherwise its up, up, down-right, circle, square, square, fatality!
quote:
If I may, I will just give this thread a rest, because some people get overly worked up in some ulcerous condition in their guts.
You can leave this thread anytime. I doubt many here care. You have presented an unfounded opinion you cannot defend. Ok, end of debate.
quote:
Maybe I have the kind of attitude which people or some here do not or are not accustomed to, namely: I habitually join a forum to hear from others, how they react to my opinions; because they first read my opinions as statements of facts which I absolutely maintain with all the arsenals of proofs and logic and whatever instruments of argumentation of the heated to white hot hue kind -- which definitely I do not; for being a skeptic I have questions but no answers except guesses or suspicions or opinions.
The definition of skeptic is not - uninformed without any answers, but it may be the definition of Pachomius/Yrreg/Gorgon.
quote:
Next, some people here then keep insisting on evidence, and start using unkind namecalling; when all I wish to engage in is to hear their opinions on the topic I bring up.
Name calling? I missed that. Opinions on a forum about skepticism should be phrased as such. Even when not, you could simply clarify it in another post. What you seem to be missing is that opinions can still have reasons behind them, even "no reason in particular" would be a helpful response. In text context and tone can be misread or absent.
quote:
Well, if these people here want to see in me a dodger, then it's their privilege. I will not argue with them.
These forums are primarily about argument. Argument in the debate sense. I personally appreciate a little adherence to formality in definitions and etc. when reading posts. BTW note how I said it is my opinion, no one else's, and not a fact nor requirement.
quote:
Let me just ask this question again in re skeptics, etc., are soft on Buddhism, since you ask me to produce evidence:
What kind of evidence will be acceptable to you?
For the third time. Facts - which are, things that can be verified as true independently. No opinions, anecdotes, or false analogies.
quote:
In the meantime I will start a new thread in that section of this SNF forum on anything, about anal wipe, where the atmosphere is more relaxed and people don't put on armors and strap on their big guns to do combat of evidence and namecalling.
We do if you makes unfounded statements of fact repeatedly despite an abundance of contrary evidence.
quote:
Thanks, McQ Skeptic Friend, for your kind words, I really appreciate how you get my mind and heart very correctly. What do you say? if we all here act like friends first and then combative skeptics never, we would be enjoying a most cordial environment together in the pleasure of exchange, where we try out our hypothetical musings on a host of subjects.
I have yet to get on the bad side (I hope) of anyone here and I may very well be decribed as a combative skeptic. You are not on my bad side, per se, Pachomius, and I forgive between forums and days etc. but you must start acting like a skeptic and take some of my previous suggestions. Skeptic forum courtesy says that you should acknowledge your fellow skeptics when they reply and clarify your positions if misunderstood by a member. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 12/27/2006 14:59:08 |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 18:02:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
Thanks to everyone who sympathize with me.
I was asking I think at least once and several times in so many words,
What kind of evidence is acceptable to people asking evidence to support my opinion, suspicion, or guess that atheists, rationalists, skeptics, or the Western intelligentsia are soft on Buddhism but harsh on other religions traditional in the West and Middle East.
And you were answered. Yet still you do not reply. How can you expect anything but hostility?
quote:
Perhaps and more certainly I should have started this thread not in the present place but in that section on anything, like what I did with my thread on what people did with hair before the invention of shears.
No. It belongs here. If not the moderator would prolly have moved it for you. The point is, that you make statments of fact and refuse to present evidence.
quote:
The thing is that I thought that we could have a casual relaxing conversation about an opinion of mine, but some people here seem to always act as though they are in mortal combat.
Sorry it is my favorite game. Go Midway! If you wanna talk about your opinions, that's fine. However, talking as if your opinions are facts is not. You may say "I think skeptics are soft on Buddhism." But then when I respond "How so, and why do you think that." you are still required to explain your statements, yes, even in casual conversations. Otherwise its up, up, down-right, circle, square, square, fatality!
quote:
If I may, I will just give this thread a rest, because some people get overly worked up in some ulcerous condition in their guts.
You can leave this thread anytime. I doubt many here care. You have presented an unfounded opinion you cannot defend. Ok, end of debate.
quote:
Maybe I have the kind of attitude which people or some here do not or are not accustomed to, namely: I habitually join a forum to hear from others, how they react to my opinions; because they first read my opinions as statements of facts which I absolutely maintain with all the arsenals of proofs and logic and whatever instruments of argumentation of the heated to white hot hue kind -- which definitely I do not; for being a skeptic I have questions but no answers except guesses or suspicions or opinions.
The definition of skeptic is not - uninformed without any answers, but it may be the definition of Pachomius/Yrreg/Gorgon.
quote:
Next, some people here then keep insisting on evidence, and start using unkind namecalling; when all I wish to engage in is to hear their opinions on the topic I bring up.
Name calling? I missed that. Opinions on a forum about skepticism should be phrased as such. Even when not, you could simply clarify it in another post. What you seem to be missing is that opinions can still have reasons behind them, even "no reason in particular" would be a helpful response. In text context and tone can be misread or absent.
quote:
Well, if these people here want to see in me a dodger, then it's their privilege. I will not argue with them.
These forums are primarily about argument. Argument in the debate sense. I personally appreciate a little adherence to formality in definitions and etc. when reading posts. BTW note how I said it is my opinion, no one else's, and not a fact nor requirement.
quote:
Let me just ask this question again in re skeptics, etc., are soft on Buddhism, since you ask me to produce evidence:
What kind of evidence will be acceptable to you?
For the third time. Facts - which are, things that can be verified as true independently. No opinions, anecdotes, or false analogies.
quote:
In the meantime I will start a new thread in that section of this SNF forum on anything, about anal wipe, where the atmosphere is more relaxed and people don't put on armors and strap on their big guns to do combat of evidence and namecalling.
We do if you makes unfounded statements of fact repeatedly despite an abundance of contrary evidence.
quote:
Thanks, McQ Skeptic Friend, for your kind words, I really appreciate how you get my mind and heart very correctly. What do you say? if we all here act like friends first and then combative skeptics never, we would be enjoying a most cordial environment together in the pleasure of exchange, where we try out our hypothetical musings on a host of subjects.
I have yet to get on the bad side (I hope) of anyone here and I may very well be decribed as a combative skeptic. You are not on my bad side, per se, Pachomius, and I forgive between forums and days etc. but you must start acting like a skeptic and take some of my previous suggestions. Skeptic forum courtesy says that you should acknowledge your fellow skeptics when they reply and clarify your positions if misunderstood by a member.
Ok, this is what I'm talking about! This is uncalled for. It is unduly hostile, with the emphasis on unduly. Does anyone else not see what the hell I'm talking about here?!!!
Neurosis, an opinion is just that...an opinion. It is not an absolute. And the original post was entered as two questions, asking if anyone else agreed and if so, why. It was his impression that skeptics were soft on Buddhism, and he was looking to see if others agreed.
I still say that other members here jumped all over this in a shameful and irresponsible manner, and if they are not big enough to admit it, then they should re-examine their motives and sense of fair play.
I said it before, it's a little embarrassing to see this |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
| Edited by - McQ on 12/27/2006 18:03:34 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 18:07:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
Ok, I said I wouldn't do this, but I feel compelled, since kil, who I have great respect and admiration for, replied to my post on this. I can show that in the OP, Pachomius didn't claim anything. He simply asked if his impressions were also shared by others. I will repost the OP right here. Please show me where there is a statement of fact or any other claim that needs to be verified. Read it again, below (bolding is mine):
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
I have been getting the impression from skeptics' websites that all kinds of people who are supposedly intellectuals or rationalists or skeptics or atheists or against religions are treating Buddhism with kids' gloves.
Is that true? is that a fact?
Use the search links of the CSICOP and the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation [dedicated to atheistic skepticism] for Buddhism and see if you can come up with more than the fingers of one hand findings of writings critical of Buddhism.
I asked once Pigliucci by email why? He said that it's because Buddhism and Buddhists don't antagonize the atheistic communities and their analogue groups.
Well, that is interesting, and as a matter of fact I have seen many who are out and out against theism and religion in general take up Buddhism, saying that it is not contrary if not in consonance with secular atheistic philosophies, including scientific skepticism.
First, is it true that the atheists communities and kindred groups treat Buddhism with kids' gloves?
Second, why? is it because Skepticism and Buddhism are compatible or not incompatible?
Pachomius
This is what I am astonished by. This is a totally reasonable post. The answers to it started off ok, but quickly became adversarial and confrontational. I submit that the members of this forum take a careful inventory of the way they react. This needs to be more than just a place where people simply try to be right. Exchange of information, ideas, and observations does not have to be rancorous.
Yes there are times when it gets that way, appropriately, with trolls, or those who truly refuse to discuss things rationally. We've seen plenty of them. This has not been the case here. I am asking you guys again, kil, Dave, Neurosis included (among others), to try and look at this more objectively.
I was particularly surprised to find kil accusing Pachomius of "making claims of fact, and then refusing to support those claims.". Kil, look at the OP here, as I posted it. He really did no such thing. You are one of the sharpest, most even-handed people I've seen in here, kil. Perhaps you were referring to another post. If so, accept my apology.
Again, my reference to the unduly hostile nature of this thread comes from what is a completely reasonable set of questions, based on observation. I agree with starting from the position of friends first, in order to share musing, ideas, etc. Please guys, rethink this.
Thanks.
(edited for crappy typing, dyslexia, and general dissatisfaction with my post!)
McQ you may be served to look at my response to his first post and my second response and so forth. I think you will notice a progression. His first post was very reasonable. But he did recieve feedback on those questions and he did not acknowledge those responses. He still has not, for most of his responses. When a person does not acknowledge the responses to his queries and all the while claims to want to hold a conversation, it erks me. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 18:33:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
blah...
Ok, this is what I'm talking about! This is uncalled for. It is unduly hostile, with the emphasis on unduly. Does anyone else not see what the hell I'm talking about here?!!!
How! I was nice there! I was only stating what has already happened and is verifiable.
quote:
Neurosis, an opinion is just that...an opinion. It is not an absolute.
I know an opinion is an opinion. I am not against stating an opinion, I am against stating opinions as facts, or common knowledge. I admit that he is bringing back Egoman memories, with opinions as dodges (as Kil alluded to), but when one states an opinion that is false and then is shown how it is false, and yet continues to assert it as a fact, that is a problem for me.
He stated that the hindu ideas are central to Buddhism, everyone told him he was wrong, but he continued to pretend it wasn't. Same thing with Nirvana, happyness and attachment, etc.
He has yet to acknowledge when he is wrong or defend anything he has said with any evidence. He even tried to dodge that by asking what evidence would be sufficient.... He asked it three times and I answered three times without recieving any acknowledgment. I should not have to continually type the same responses to a question without it being acknowledged.
quote:
And the original post was entered as two questions, asking if anyone else agreed and if so, why. It was his impression that skeptics were soft on Buddhism, and he was looking to see if others agreed.
Yep. I agree. I answered him, so did Dave and others. Did he answer us? Did he acknowledge us in the next three posts? NO. He continued on as though his opinions were validated.
quote:
I still say that other members here jumped all over this in a shameful and irresponsible manner, and if they are not big enough to admit it, then they should re-examine their motives and sense of fair play.
Pathos aside...
quote:
I said it before, it's a little embarrassing to see this. It is even more so now.
Sorry you feel that way.
Maybe I have been a little harsh. I don't know. Pachomius has been very unclear in his motives to me. Pachomius has an opinion that skeptics are soft on Buddhism. That's fine. I asked him why he thought that and he has no evidence to support his opinion, it, apparently, just makes him feel better. If he would have admitted this on page one we would not be here. In fact, he still has not admitted it. And we are still here. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 18:38:44 [Permalink]
|
Ok, I'm just going to back out of this thread. It's not my place to continue to try and defend someone against what I consider unjust treatment.
Everyone has stated their positions on this, and it serves no purpose to continue to debate it further.
If anyone feels the need to beat a dead horse, please just PM me. I've already derailed this thread enough, and I apologize. This is my last word on the matter here, in the open forum. Thanks in advance for understanding the wish to drop this in the open forums.
(edit: this response was typed before I saw Neurosis' last post. Thank you for your understanding and your comments in that post. )
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
| Edited by - McQ on 12/27/2006 18:40:43 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 18:45:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
Looks like we're both sneaking 'em in at the same time!
I don't know, Dave. Maybe I'm getting soft, or becoming too warm and fuzzy with age.
I do see what you mean in the other threads. I just thought that the "why" he asked here was justified, because it was clear that he was stating an opinion only in the OP in the thread. Sort of like when Andy Rooney says, "Didja ever notice...?"
That's how I saw it, at least. I do that too. I think about something and wonder if anyone else thinks the same thing. Maybe because of that, I'm not seeing a bigger picture here. It just came across to me that way.
The problem was not asking the question. It was refusal to acknowledge his recieved answers. I can see Daves logic here.
Rhetorical questions do not require answers. Pachomius asks a question get ten answers and yet acknowledges none of them, therefore, Pachomius must not have wanted an answer and was most probably rhetorical.
Again, no problem with the question, opinions, or whatever. I have a problem with disregarding what the other posters post.
Not to be overly dramatic, but if Pachomius' opinion was that the earth was the center of the universe, would that be an opinion? When things can be shown false, they are facts or fictions. The opinion dodge does not work any more. He can think skeptics are soft in Buddhist, but he cannot think that the hindu ideas are central to Buddhism. Not any more than he can think that Apollo is central to Christianity.
Opinions are fine when acknowledged as opinions and not used in any way as evidence. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 18:07:33 [Permalink]
|
I have not yet fully read most carefully the postings coming after my last preceding one.
But, good people here, good no matter you are getting all riled up with my words in the original OP or somewhere along the thread, you are some of you that is disturbed that I made a reference to another message of mine in another forum of another website without telling people that I am the author of that other message referred to.
You are angered because you see in that incident some kind of dishonesty from my part, seemingly the way I may allow myself this musing also, namely, that you are unhappy owing to your perceived on my part some dishonesty.
As a matter of fact I do that regularly in other websites and forum, and this is the first time that I am accused of dishonesty when people realize that I was referring to my own writings elsewhere, and even in the same website. And often I even assume another name, like Aesop Jr., or the guy facing me in the mirror when I look into the mirror.
For me that is a literary device, speaking of oneself and referring to oneself in the third person.
Right his moment I feel that I am like the elderly lady in the bus just casually saying out in an audible voice: "I dare say it's going to rain, the sky looks dark," and so many fellow passengers in the bus demand from her evidence, accuse her of lying, calling here all kinds of unsavory names -- and all she did was just to say out loud with the idea of picking up a social conversation of the most harmless kind and for filling up the otherwise empty verbal space in the bus.
Please, lighten up everyone, this is the season of peace and good will -- someone will also find my statement that it is the season of peace and good will also a provocation that is not welcome to him -- again, why would people be like that, always seeing provocations when none is intended?
Pachomius |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 18:45:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Pachomius:
As a matter of fact I do that regularly in other websites and forum, and this is the first time that I am accused of dishonesty when people realize that I was referring to my own writings elsewhere, and even in the same website. And often I even assume another name, like Aesop Jr., or the guy facing me in the mirror when I look into the mirror.
For me that is a literary device, speaking of oneself and referring to oneself in the third person.
The above is as funny as it is pathetic. Perhaps I will have more to say about bad sourcing, something I take seriously, when I get done laughing…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 18:59:30 [Permalink]
|
I am also happy to see people enjoying a good laugh from my words.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 19:06:30 [Permalink]
|
And look, Pachomius still refuses to engage in a discussion relevant to his own stated objectives in this thread.
More evidence that he isn't interested in anything anyone here might have to say. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
