|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
 Posted - 12/30/2006 : 22:29:01 [Permalink]
|
So, let's try to figure out what kind of evidence would be appropriate to prove that "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
The law people tell us that evidence are of three kinds: documentary, testimonial, material. From stock knowledge I understand the following of each kind of evidence:
Documentary, that which is found in texts which are accepted by litigating parties to be binding on both, for example, the US Constitution.
Testimonial, that which is spoken by persons accepted by litigating parties to be binding on both, for example, a physician declaring a person he had attended to as a patient that the latter had died.
Material, that which is perceptible to the senses of litigating parties to be existing, for example, a knife used in the assault on a victim.
What about scientific evidence and evidence from logic or whatever any kind of evidence people demand? In my estimation they can all be subsidiary to the three kinds of evidence. You see, people of the law are concerned with conflicts of all sorts among people, and therefore they have to arrive at the ultimate grounds for deciding which party is right which is wrong; and at the end of the day or in the bottom line all evidence can be documentary, testimonial, or material, or either two or all three.
People who have other kinds of ultimate evidence aside from these three kinds, perhaps they can offer them here and we or I will see if they can stand on their own or they can be and are reducible to either of the three: documentary, testimonial, material.
Next, we will try to figure out what exactly is being asserted in the sentence: "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
-------------------------
During this festive season I have to participate in a lot of social and family gatherings; though I am a nonconformist and tell my wife and my two kids very clearly, but among ourselves only -- at the risk of incurring some shade of hypocrisy which hypocrisy is really if we analyze carefully not in re here -- tell my wife and kids that it is the season of general insanity of eating, drinking, buying, giving, visiting, noisiness, etc., I will be the moderator in my home and family; so I always most judiciously limit them to the absolutely indispensable decent and decorous minimum.
Nonetheless, all these functions still take a lot of time from my fun in forums, and in surfing the net for all kinds of curious ideas and curious people -- like the ones here in SNF, some of them, who when you broach a topic they demand evidence, definition, and call people unkind names, etc., instead of just contributing to the elucidation or expatiation of the spoken idea civilly to arrive at some concurring position or common inclination of the mind and heart.
What I want to say is that I will not have as much time for this forum as during normal circumstances.
In succeeding posts I will write about how I understand the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism;" so that I can seek evidence to satisfy the people here, some that is, who demand evidence otherwise they can't sleep peacefully for having to witness the presence of someone saying that he feels skeptics are soft on Buddhism, as though the utterance is a massive attack on their cherished knowledge and their what? attachment to Buddhism as to what we might call a fair-hair child of theirs?
What's that you say, more dodging? Try this word, ducking.
All in the spirit of the season of peace and good will, hahaha!
Pachomius |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2006 : 22:48:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
So, let's try to figure out what kind of evidence would be appropriate to prove that "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
No "let's," it's entirely up to you, since you're the one with the hypothesis to test. What sort of evidence would support your hypothesis? How would you go about gathering it?quote:
What's that you say, more dodging? Try this word, ducking.
How about "lying?"quote:
All in the spirit of the season of peace and good will, hahaha!
Yes, the maniacal laughter is completely appropriate right after the whopper you just laid out. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 00:15:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
So, let's try to figure out what kind of evidence would be appropriate to prove that "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
The law people tell us that evidence are of three kinds: documentary, testimonial, material. From stock knowledge I understand the following of each kind of evidence:
Documentary, that which is found in texts which are accepted by litigating parties to be binding on both, for example, the US Constitution.
Testimonial, that which is spoken by persons accepted by litigating parties to be binding on both, for example, a physician declaring a person he had attended to as a patient that the latter had died.
Material, that which is perceptible to the senses of litigating parties to be existing, for example, a knife used in the assault on a victim.
What about scientific evidence and evidence from logic or whatever any kind of evidence people demand? In my estimation they can all be subsidiary to the three kinds of evidence. You see, people of the law are concerned with conflicts of all sorts among people, and therefore they have to arrive at the ultimate grounds for deciding which party is right which is wrong; and at the end of the day or in the bottom line all evidence can be documentary, testimonial, or material, or either two or all three.
People who have other kinds of ultimate evidence aside from these three kinds, perhaps they can offer them here and we or I will see if they can stand on their own or they can be and are reducible to either of the three: documentary, testimonial, material.
Unimportant bullshit, no need to repond.
quote:
Next, we will try to figure out what exactly is being asserted in the sentence: "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
How about..."Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
quote:
During this festive season I have to participate in a lot of social and family gatherings; though I am a nonconformist and tell my wife and my two kids very clearly, but among ourselves only -- at the risk of incurring some shade of hypocrisy which hypocrisy is really if we analyze carefully not in re here -- tell my wife and kids that it is the season of general insanity of eating, drinking, buying, giving, visiting, noisiness, etc., I will be the moderator in my home and family; so I always most judiciously limit them to the absolutely indispensable decent and decorous minimum.
You?!? A hypocrite? NO... not true... really?
quote:
Nonetheless, all these functions still take a lot of time from my fun in forums, and in surfing the net for all kinds of curious ideas and curious people -- like the ones here in SNF, some of them, who when you broach a topic they demand evidence, definition, and call people unkind names, etc., instead of just contributing to the elucidation or expatiation of the spoken idea civilly to arrive at some concurring position or common inclination of the mind and heart.
How terrible of us! We should have just accepted your statements blindly. How dare we expect evidence? Its not like we are Skeptics or anything.
quote:
What I want to say is that I will not have as much time for this forum as during normal circumstances.
boo hoo.
quote:
In succeeding posts I will write about how I understand the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism;" so that I can seek evidence to satisfy the people here, some that is, who demand evidence otherwise they can't sleep peacefully for having to witness the presence of someone saying that he feels skeptics are soft on Buddhism, as though the utterance is a massive attack on their cherished knowledge and their what? attachment to Buddhism as to what we might call a fair-hair child of theirs?
Actually, It appears that Buddhism is your red-headed step child. Personally, I don't even think about Buddhism once a year. You obviously think about twice per hour, and certainly at least once every other thread post, no matter what the topic. Exploring what is meant by the phrase "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism" is like exploring exploring the meaning of the word 'is'. And only liars and ex-presidents (who happen to be liars) use that excuse. Of course Insert Alias Here] your not a liar.
Sure, I demand evidence. I am a skeptic, this is a skeptic forum. What two plus two here [Insert Alias Here], do you really expect otherwise?
quote:
What's that you say, more dodging? Try this word, ducking.
Try these words:
Disingenious, liar, troll, unrepentant, prick, etc.
quote:
All in the spirit of the season of peace and good will, hahaha!
Pachomius
Was that a bit of the dark side in you? A little of the true motives seeping out again?
Well, are you gonna give me the most sacastic poster award next? |
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 - 01/01/2007 : 21:07:39 [Permalink]
|
So, it's accepted that we will seek what kind of evidence, documentary, testimonial, or material, should apply to the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
I am inclined to hold that documentary evidence should apply; you see, if we can, okay I, can get words from people in the net which can be understood as at least not antagonistic to Buddhism if not conspicuously in support of Buddhism, then those words can count as evidence, documentary that is, documents in the net, indicating that they are soft on Buddhism. But what is it to be soft, on Buddhism?
However first, is the sentence to be proven on the basis of evidence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," is it accepted to you guys who are demanding evidence to substantiate the sentence?
Tell me in your next communication here; I will in the meantime not talk about what it is to be soft on Buddhism.
----------------------
Finally, some quiet and peace, back to normalcy. Now, before you know it, Valentine Day again, and so forth and so on.
A lot of family reunions, and you know what I have observed again and again during this festive season? It is an unwritten law that the richest in the family is the one to host the biggest reunion and it is the one where everyone has to go to, otherwise [shades of hypocrisy(?) perhaps more correctly, cynicism] don't feel so comfortable next time you approach this big brother or cousin or uncle or aunt or grandparent for some service of even just some good word or some tidbit funding for smoothing the way to an objective you want or need to achieve.
I limited attendance at reunions to only two, one on each side of my marriage: my own side and the side of my beloved spouse.
--------------------------
By the way, didn't I bestow on Neurosis the award for the most productive poster in this thread? And now for Dave, the most persevering prize for the most stubborn closeted mind, i.e., closeted against any so much as a hint to an insinuation to humor. Is that the typical mood of a skeptic? Hope not, because there is a lot of truth to be seen in humor, like as in wine -- though I don't indulge in any alcoholic drinks unless offered and I can't decline for courtesy.
Sorry, more dodging, as you will; and if you accuse me of being a troll, a liar, or what you choose to call me, that is your privilege; but I think you are inviting some cardiac or 'brainiac' incident if you continue on and on with accusing people like myself who just want to hear from other people what they think of the thought, like "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
Here is a suggestion to guys here who are obsessed with calling people unpleasant names, make a list of the unsavory labels you want to throw on me, and next time you write in this thread to answer my posting, put all that list at the top or your message, then you will be more free and creative with better ideas than namecalling, to contribute to the education of people, members here and visitors, who don't write messages but are desirous of reading something instructive, instead of hearing vituperative hollering which are not of any use except to warn folks to keep aside from you using such language.
No, no more hahaha, because then you will again throw some unkind utterance on me.
Just a smile.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2007 : 22:26:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
And now for Dave, the most persevering prize for the most stubborn closeted mind, i.e., closeted against any so much as a hint to an insinuation to humor.
Why? I saw your attempts at humor. They just weren't all that funny. I didn't see anyone else LOLing, either.quote:
Sorry, more dodging...
Indeed. You've yet to communicate anything of substance.quote:
...as you will; and if you accuse me of being a troll, a liar, or what you choose to call me, that is your privilege; but I think you are inviting some cardiac or 'brainiac' incident...
Are you so delicate that you'll infarct if people don't use more diplomatic terms when describing your actions here? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Mojo
New Member
10 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2007 : 04:35:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
And now for Dave, the most persevering prize for the most stubborn closeted mind, i.e., closeted against any so much as a hint to an insinuation to humor. Is that the typical mood of a skeptic?
No, but it's a caricature of skeptics that is often waved around.
You obviously didn't pay much attention to what gets posted over at JREF, other than your own threads, and you obviously haven't met many skeptics.
Then again, if your attempts at replicating the phenomenon are anything to go by, I don't think you would recognise humour if you saw it. |
"You got to use your brain" - McKinley Morganfield |
| Edited by - Mojo on 01/02/2007 04:38:43 |
|
|
|
Mojo
New Member
10 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2007 : 04:49:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
So, it's accepted that we will seek what kind of evidence, documentary, testimonial, or material, should apply to the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
No, it is not accepted. Posters in this thread have repeatedly requested that you provide evidence to back up your claim, not that you should indulge in a lot of pointless waffle about what kind of evidence is appropriate. You claim to be a skeptic, so presumably you came to the conclusion that skeptics are soft on Buddhism as a result of evidence of some sort. Just present that evidence, and we'll see if it is good enough to convince anyone else. |
"You got to use your brain" - McKinley Morganfield |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2007 : 11:02:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
So, it's accepted that we will seek what kind of evidence, documentary, testimonial, or material, should apply to the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
Do you read other people's posts? No, its not accepted. You
must provide evidence for your hypothesis. All evidence will be accepted.
quote:
I am inclined to hold that documentary evidence should apply; you see, if we can, okay I, can get words from people in the net which can be understood as at least not antagonistic to Buddhism if not conspicuously in support of Buddhism, then those words can count as evidence, documentary that is, documents in the net, indicating that they are soft on Buddhism. But what is it to be soft, on Buddhism?
Wrong. Words of others only speak for those people. Defining soft is a good idea.
quote:
However first, is the sentence to be proven on the basis of evidence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," is it accepted to you guys who are demanding evidence to substantiate the sentence?
Wrong again. First comes the definition. What do you intend to prove? That skeptics accept or don't challenge Buddhist ideas?
quote:
Tell me in your next communication here; I will in the meantime not talk about what it is to be soft on Buddhism.
Why not? That is the first step of a debate, the definition. Frankly, I don't think you even know what you are talking about. If you have not yet even amassed evidence for your assertion you constantly assert.
quote:
Finally, some quiet and peace, back to normalcy. Now, before you know it, Valentine Day again, and so forth and so on.
A lot of family reunions, and you know what I have observed again and again during this festive season? It is an unwritten law that the richest in the family is the one to host the biggest reunion and it is the one where everyone has to go to, otherwise [shades of hypocrisy(?) perhaps more correctly, cynicism] don't feel so comfortable next time you approach this big brother or cousin or uncle or aunt or grandparent for some service of even just some good word or some tidbit funding for smoothing the way to an objective you want or need to achieve.I limited attendance at reunions to only two, one on each side of my marriage: my own side and the side of my beloved spouse.
Why don't you post these in the water cooler???
quote:
By the way, didn't I bestow on Neurosis the award for the most productive poster in this thread? And now for Dave, the most persevering prize for the most stubborn closeted mind, i.e., closeted against any so much as a hint to an insinuation to humor. Is that the typical mood of a skeptic? Hope not, because there is a lot of truth to be seen in humor, like as in wine -- though I don't indulge in any alcoholic drinks unless offered and I can't decline for courtesy.
Yes Dave and I are the most closet minded in the whole forum community. We are also the best dressed, as one may imagine.
quote:
Sorry, more dodging, as you will; and if you accuse me of being a troll, a liar, or what you choose to call me, that is your privilege; but I think you are inviting some cardiac or 'brainiac' incident if you continue on and on with accusing people like myself who just want to hear from other people what they think of the thought, like "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
Accuse? No, define. We answered your opinions. You have yet to prove they have validity. You just happen to be a troll.
quote:
Here is a suggestion to guys here who are obsessed with calling people unpleasant names, make a list of the unsavory labels you want to throw on me, and next time you write in this thread to answer my posting, put all that list at the top or your message, then you will be more free and creative with better ideas than namecalling, to contribute to the education of people, members here and visitors, who don't write messages but are desirous of reading something instructive, instead of hearing vituperative hollering which are not of any use except to warn folks to keep aside from you using such language.
I am not gonna call you anything you are not. You also are not gonna answer others requests or further the knowledge of anyone. How can someone so ignorant of a subject inform others about it?
quote:
No, no more hahaha, because then you will again throw some unkind utterance on me.
Just a smile.
Pachomius
I'm glad your happy, blissfully ignorant maybe? I don't know. I don't care. For the last several posts you have posted the same drivel, addressed no one, and posted no evidence. Still think your not a troll? |
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 - 01/02/2007 : 11:05:29 [Permalink]
|
| Suggestion to all other members. I think that maybe we should abandon hope of having a descent discussion with [Insert Alias Here]. I think perhaps not replying in protest until he fronts evidence and addresses the other members here would remedy this tom-foolery. |
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 - 01/02/2007 : 14:29:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Suggestion to all other members. I think that maybe we should abandon hope of having a descent discussion with [Insert Alias Here]. I think perhaps not replying in protest until he fronts evidence and addresses the other members here would remedy this tom-foolery.
I know I stand pretty much alone here in my opinion, but a couple of points. One is that you can create a troll by continually attacking someone the way that has happened here. Any one of you would respond in a negative way to most of the unfair posts here. I sure as hell would. I am, and they're not even directed at me.
And since when does a hypothesis need evidence?
(definition from Wiki): A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena.
(continued definition): In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit needs evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself. Normally, scientific hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, one can also formulate them as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon being studied has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic.
Any useful hypothesis will enable predictions, by reasoning (including deductive reasoning). It might predict the outcome of an experiment in a laboratory setting or the observation of a phenomenon in nature. The prediction may also invoke statistics and only talk about probabilities. Karl Popper, following others, has argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and that a proposition or theory cannot be called scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. By this additional criterion, it must at least in principle be possible to make an observation that would disprove the proposition as false, even if one has not actually (yet) made that observation. A falsifiable hypothesis can greatly simplify the process of testing to determine whether the hypothesis has instances in which it is false.
It is essential that the outcome be currently unknown or reasonably under continuing investigation. Only in this case does the experiment, test or study potentially increase the probability of showing the truth of an hypothesis. If the researcher already knows the outcome, it is called a consequence — and the researcher should have already considered this while formulating the hypothesis. If the predictions are not assessable by observation or by experience, the hypothesis is not yet useful, and must wait for others who might come afterward to make possible the needed observations. For example, a new technology or theory might make the necessary experiments feasible.
I said it before, a couple of times. This is embarrassing to see. No one here has acted in a decent manner. I've read all of your excuses and reasons. None of you could stand up to this kind of scrutiny or criticism.
I'm just as hard on trolls, bullshitters, charlatans, liars and frauds as anyone, but THIS THREAD never deserved this level of mindless, attack-dog mentality. My opinions of a few people have changed significantly as this shameful thread has dragged on.
This is pure bullshit, and the more you create lousy excuses for your attacks, the less I believe your stated motives and sense of reason. I'm not even saying this because of any affinity to the original poster. I don't know him, and never read anything of his before this thread. I'm saying it because of the actions of those who have unfairly criticized his post, and who have murdered the definition of hypothesis.
And although this is just my opinion, there's plenty of evidence for it here.
I asked you guys before to please rethink the way this was being handled and you chose instead to make excuses for bad behavior. I'm asking you again. Try and look at this from outside of your current frame of mind. If you're honest, you will be at least embarrassed and at most ashamed.
(edited a couple of times for typos) |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
| Edited by - McQ on 01/02/2007 15:26:48 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2007 : 15:35:04 [Permalink]
|
A hypothesis needs evidence before it can be accepted (even by the proposer). Lets examine your claim McQ:
Post one Pachomius asks if skeptics are soft on Buddhism
My reply: It is not treating something with kid gloves, just because a lot of time is not spent on the issue. I was very nice about it, you can read it to check.
Post two Pachmius asserts that there are many non-facts in Buddhism. He makes a false analogy to smoking being incompatible with health. Quotes a specific websites history after which he misuses the definition of enlightenment and asserts another claim of fact, Buddism is competitive for followers.
My reply: I attempt to establish that happiness and what makes one happy is fluid. That there is a difference between testable claims and emotional well-being and what may cause it in one person or another (because this can vary between people, and certainly can't be falsified). I give Pachomius the benefit of the doubt with his claim, and ask what specifically is he critical of. Then critic the smoking analogy.
Post three Pachomius again quotes the website he has already been told is irrelevant to his claim.
Post four Pachomius uses a poor argument of geographical violence happening despite the presence of Buddhism to prove Buddhism can't make one peaceful or happy. Note he has still not addressed one thing posted by anyone other than Siberia, who he criticized for finding benefit in a philosophy she couldn't test with science.
I ask specifically for Pachomius to address what the other members post.
Post four Pachomius addresses filthy, who specifically agreed with Pachomius about Buddhism not being rational in its claims. Me, Dave, and Kil had already posted similar things and received no addressing And still did not in this post. He then questions the historical validity of Guatama, something unrelated to his claims.
People begin to get angry about Pachomius not joining a discussion and simply posting.
Post five Pachomius tries to switch the burden and bring in another topic. What contribution does Buddhism give? But of course this is irrelevant to the discussion. Pachomius still does not address the points of anyone who posted and insist he has been in conversation all along, but he has not.
I insist that he has to provide the evidence for his claims.
Post six Pachomius asserts the previous post again, even though it was shown irrelevant. He then asks us to find what is irrational and testable in Buddhism, something he has a responsibility to do as the claimant and should have already gathered before posting the fact claims he already made.
[end transcript]
This continues on. Pachomius claims that Buddhism disdains life, requires reincarnation as a belief, and asserts Nirvana as a goal, and redefines Nirvana his own way. Insists that life is a supreme purpose. He quotes himself without admitting it was him. Receives many requests by many posters and does not address any of them nor does he address any criticisms he receives or concede any points. Every statement Pachomius made that was testable was address by a member and he was shown wrong , yet he continued to make the same claims post after post after the fact.
Eventually, everyone got fed up. Some sooner than others. I have already stated that all I want from Pachomius is an apology for ignoring the SFN members and an admission that his assertions are wrong when they are wrong.
|
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 - 01/02/2007 : 16:08:16 [Permalink]
|
McQ can you show me anywhere in the whole thread where Pachomius actually addressed another members evidence against his claim and conceded that point or provided a rebuttle? I can count at least five times where Pachomius continued to post his opinion about this or that after I, myself, corrected him several posts earlier.
Opinions are not immune to scutiny. Opinions need validity too. He does not even have the courtesy to set apart his opinions from his statements of fact. |
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 - 01/02/2007 : 17:14:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
McQ can you show me anywhere in the whole thread where Pachomius actually addressed another members evidence against his claim and conceded that point or provided a rebuttle? I can count at least five times where Pachomius continued to post his opinion about this or that after I, myself, corrected him several posts earlier.
Opinions are not immune to scutiny. Opinions need validity too. He does not even have the courtesy to set apart his opinions from his statements of fact.
Neurosis, can you show me that his initial post was even a claim? You might just be the most wrong of all the posters in this thread, despite your arguments otherwise.
You know what? It was a mistake for me to post anything further in here. Feel free to attack me as you did him, but it is my OPINION that you and others over reacted to the initial post (after your first reply).
I'm done with this thread, and quite possibly, this forum. I'm stunned at the mind-numbingly aggressive nature of this. It sure as hell wouldn't happen in a face-to-face forum, where civility and manners matter, and people don't hide behind a keyboard in order to be rude to others.
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2007 : 17:58:39 [Permalink]
|
I am reading the pages of this thread from 1 to 12, and collecting all the namecallings on me, to put them at the head of every message that I write now, so that people who do engage in namecalling will save themselves the trouble of further namecalling; because readers, members and guests, can already see them all at the very top of every post I write.
----------------------------
This request is addressed to the technicians of this forum, is there a way to make a page longer so that instead of so many pages, already 12, I can assemble them into at most four pages of more messages each?
----------------------
Well back to the question or sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
I guess as before that this sentence is agreeable to everyone who wants to see evidence to support it as a fact; if you don't find it agreeable, please reframe it or reformulate it, and I will see whether it is all right with me.
Next, I proposed that documentary evidence should be required and would be adequate for supporting the fact of the sentence; if it is not acceptable to anyone, please tell me what kind of evidence you will find acceptable.
You see, it would be overwhelming though unnecessary to adduce any and all evidence as I seem to understand from the messages of some posters here.
----------------------
Please lighten up, okay?
If you feel shortchanged that I am not addressing your questions specifically, please don't feel shortchanged; as I said earlier somewhere in this thread or in the other threads, two or three here, that is a cause for satisfaction on your part; because readers can then discern that I am either at a loss for words or worse for ideas to answer to your reactions.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2007 : 18:11:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
This request is addressed to the technicians of this forum, is there a way to make a page longer so that instead of so many pages, already 12, I can assemble them into at most four pages of more messages each?
Yes, there is a way, but we're not going to be making any such change.quote:
Well back to the question or sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
Apparently not. Are you ever going to move forward, or are you going to just offer opponunities to "reframe" the "sentence" over and over again?quote:
...because readers can then discern that I am either at a loss for words or worse for ideas to answer to your reactions.
And as I said in reply in that other thread, such conclusions are unwarranted. That you think people should reach such conclusions based upon your silence demonstrates your lack of rational, scientific skepticism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
