|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 01/02/2007 : 19:27:03 [Permalink]
|
I'm sorry you feel the way you do McQ. I do hope you don't leave our forums over this.
But here is the thing. Pachomius has been banned from Straightdope, the JREF forum, Internet Infidels and probably some other skeptic forums. So reaction to his posts is not unique to this forum. What is unique to this forum is that he probably won't be banned from SFN because so far he hasn't broken any of our rules. And we don't ban people simply because we don't agree with them or because they appear to have trollish behaviors.
And frankly, I don't even know what conversation Pachomius wants to have. There have been efforts to try and figure out if this is just a communication problem. He took those as an insult.
It is very clear that he has frustrated more than a few of us. But I don't think anyone came into this conversation ( I use the term loosely) in order get him. This thread started out with polite answers and questions along with the usual welcome. It degenerated quickly.
One problem. If Pachomius is an innocent in all of this, why does he defend his style? Rather than try and figure out what it is that gets him banned or gets people so angry, he just continues and comments that he pretty much doesn't care enough to alter how he plans to post. The problem with that position is it shows an unwillingness to learn from past mistakes. It's trollish behaviour even if Pachomius isn't aware of it. Since he has been told that it is, he should take some time to figure out what that means if he really cares about how people are likely to respond to him.
I have read over this thread a few times now. I am sorry that I answered his lame excuse for why he sourced himself without mentioning that it was he who he was sourcing, with sarcasm. To me bad sourcing or no sourcing is a cardinal sin. And more so for dishonest sourcing.
If you were he, would you stay here and continue posting even though you know that your style pisses people off? Who does that? Again, trollish behavior.
You shouldn't feel sorry for him because he is getting not only what he deserves, but what he wants. Attention is the main thing. Negative or positive, it doesn't really matter to him. That is why I only have a few posts in this thread…
McQ, I really hope we don't loose you over this. You are obviously a very decent guy. And for reasons I have already stated, descent is a good thing. And it has been noted and not brushed off. I just don't happen to agree with you on this…
|
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 - 01/02/2007 : 20:18:29 [Permalink]
|
I want to apologize for not keeping my word and subsequently posting my frustrations about this thread in the open forum. I said I would not, yet I did. I was wrong to do it.
I am sorry.
I'll respond to those who have kindly answered my last angry post in PMs.
I need to think about what everyone has said, including myself.
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Mojo
New Member
10 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 01:02:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Pachomius has been banned from Straightdope, the JREF forum, Internet Infidels and probably some other skeptic forums.
Actually, he hasn't been banned from JREF. He received a three day suspension for repeatedly reposting content that the mods had moved, after receiving a clear warning (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2119346#post2119346) that this would be the result of his doing so. |
"You got to use your brain" - McKinley Morganfield |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 08:05:47 [Permalink]
|
I stand corrected.
And yet, testing the limits of the mods would be another trollish behavior.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 08:29:19 [Permalink]
|
As this Forum Moderator, I feel I should add my impressions here.
Pachomius has not behaved in a manner deserving any official warning; however, neither has any other poster this topic. I can see that some people have become frustrated with Pachomius's style; and some, like Neurosis, have clearly stated why.
McQ feels that many here have been unnecessarily aggressive, which may be true.
I will ask, for the sake of civility, that the tone be brought a little further away from hostile ("moderated," if you were), but issue no direct warning at anybody.
It would be a shame if we lose as valuable member as McQ over this. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 14:01:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
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.
I did not over react to his initial post. I responded to it and all others he made. He has never ever ever addressed anything I have ever ever posted ever on this whole thread. He has replied directly a few times, but has yet to stop stating the same things over and over, even though he is wrong and has been shown to be wrong.
I am not going to attack you, and I have no problem with you at all. We have had a conversation in this forum and others. You respond to what I say and I to what you say. I accept your aguments and rebut if I have one, if not I admit when I am wrong.
His initial post is not what I have a problem with. His initial statements (made as statements with no other qualifiers) were shown to be in error by the other members and yet he refused to even acknowledge what they had to say.
I hope you do not decide to leave the forum over this. If you do, it is your decision to make. I apologize that my actions upset you.
Edited to add:
I have thought about what you said McQ, and if someone thinks that I am being particularly bull-headed there must be a reason. From now forth I am going to respond with courtesy to Pachomius. That is, until he demonstrates his trollish behavior once more. I am all for second chances and welcomed him to apologize and have myself once before but shall again.
|
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 01/03/2007 14:19:58 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 14:11:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
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.
Namecalling is a schoolyard thing. We are defining you as something. There is a difference. I define anyone who hangs around threads making statements he cannot or refuses to back up with evidence a troll. You want to redeem yourself, I for one, will let you all day long. If you wanna rebut the claim that you are a troll, please provide a list of all the times you provided evidence or responded to a request a SFN member made.
quote:
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.
How about this. If it is your opinion that skeptics are soft on Buddhism it is mine that they are not. If you want to convince me, then provide evidence. If not then conversation over.
quote:
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.
Any claim made in the definition of Buddhism that specifically is ignored by skeptics.
quote:
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.
Start with one piece and go from there.
quote:
Please lighten up, okay?
Please fulfill your obligations, okay?
quote:
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.
Well then admit you have nothing to say on the matter and stop talking about it.
|
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 - 01/03/2007 : 14:29:23 [Permalink]
|
I always ask people to read the last twenty posts in the forum where I had been thrown out, to judge for themselves whether on the basis of free inquiry, free thought, and free speech I deserve to be thrown out; nobody to my mind up to the present has done such a routine to find out whether I was justly thrown out or not.
If you ask me, I have several threads in the JREF forum where I went really deep and wide on this matter of my repeated bannings in several forums of skeptics and others, non-skeptics, specially from the Internet Infidels, and my conclusion is that moderators and administrators and members do not live up to their claim to be pro free inquiry, free thought, and free speech.
I never call anyone bad names, see if I do here; all I do is write the way I do, my honest thoughts, and also adopt literary devices for which people here some consider that dishonest sourcing -- all because they don't have the habit of reading a text not only literally but also literature-wise.
Besides, am I not an authority for my own kind of thoughts and my own kind of writing and my own style? so that if you think that every sourcing has to be from someone already established in history past or present as an acknowledged authority, then that is also one impasse between people who don't like me and my thinking and writing, and myself. Sorry for that and may I just smile over it?
I am here for the fun, not for the ordeal, and I usually don't leave but the powers that be on the instigation of disgruntled members throw me out; and always the final reason they allege is because they reserve the right to throw out anyone even for no reasons whatsoever -- instead of discussing exactly what I did which should earn me an expulsion, on the basis of free inquiry, free thought, and free speech.
You see, in the JREF forum, a member there accused me of hate speech and moved a moderator to issue a warning on me; later the warning was changed to one not for hate speech but for extremely cruel content on a fellow member -- read my last twenty or more posts in my threads in the JREF; so I went into a discussion on both hate speech and extremely cruel content of a message of mine.
The powers there wanted me to appeal on the warning for hate speech and then to appeal on the warning on extremely cruel content; but some to me more logically pragmatic members point out that there is really no need to appeal if it is obvious that the warnings were wrongly issued, why require someone to jump the loop, something like that, when it is clear that the warnings were not called for.
Then chief honcho, Darat, put a 24 hours deadline for me to appeal; what followed is some lengthy exchange between Darat and myself and others against me that I maliciously let the 24 hours lapse, etc., etc., etc., when I was wondering all the time why Darat would force me to appeal by limiting the time to 24 hours.
Ultimately I found out one morning that I could not enter the forum anymore, but the message faced me on the screen that I had been either banned or what I can't recall anymore now. You see, there is a board there that allows you to say anything you want even against the powers there, when I started to say things I wanted to say within reasons and civilly, it eventually came to the appeal by the powers there in the person of chief honcho, Darat, to what I consider violence in message board, namely, that the powers can delete any message they want.
Lesson to be learned from that JREF episode with Yrreg: moderators and administrators should not give undue attention to members who have become undeservedly influential as to exercise some kind of unconscious-to-subjects but real control over them; next, moderators and administrators should watch out lest they get overly personalistic against members, and attached to their own views or even entrenched positions on issues.
So, you see, in every banning in any forum, powers there always resort to this stratagem to throw out people like myself, and there is no further appeal unlike in real life where there are people officially constituted to be impartial to rule on who is to be excluded from society and who not, without resorting to violence like just grabbing you and throwing you out because they do have the physical or in message boards the digital power to do so.
Smile, everyone, I am here for the fun. If the powers here don't think that I am contributing anything at all, even just exercise in patience for fellow members and guests here, they can always throw me out, with the resort to the violence which I am sure is written somewhere or even unwritten but supposedly possessed by owners of private forums dedicated though to free inquiry, free thought, and free speech.
I said that I don't leave any forum unless and until the powers there employ violence, by appealing to the absolute power to do anything they want in their privately owned forums; however, there is always an exception and for the relief of the people here some who don't like me for whatever reasons or unreasons, I might consider doing a first, because I learn also even though it takes time, namely, that as I said if a forum is no longer fun but an ordeal it is better to just walk away.
But I have this habit or stubborn mind as I said elsewhere here in this website in some thread (only so far I have started three threads and joined one on Q and A which got closed down because of my contributions there -- and why close it down when you can let it continue but direct it more to the ends the powers here want to direct it, I just contributed messages there as I thought they are pertinent there) I just have this habit or stubborn mind that in nowhere can one be immune to a good extent -- because people who insanely want to get at you physically can also locate your geographical residence... -- immune to physical violence except in a web forum: they can only use words against you and at most prevent you from further communication by closing or slamming their web door on you.
Well, yes, someone is not happy with my invitation to a soft hahaha or hehehe or smile, but just the same in the spirit of free speech...
Let's (no, that's not allowed for someone here, either, to use let's), okay, so let me just say a soft hahaha, hehehe, or just a sweet smile.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 15:13:31 [Permalink]
|
Shall we all who are interested return to the discussation of the issue, namely, whether the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," represents a fact or not, and whether documentary evidence is good enough to support the fact basis of the sentence.
When we can all agree on the above then we can all proceed to on my part bring up the documentary evidence and on your part bring up the documentary evidence also that the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," represents respectively a fact or not a fact.
Because all I wanted was just to express an opinion but what I met with from some people here is shrill demand for evidence.
If I were not the author of this thread but someone else who wrote the PO:
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7220&whichpage=1
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
I would adopt the mind of 'granting but not conceding' and say something like the following:
You bring up a useful question for everyone to see whether with their exposure to skeptics and to Buddhism skeptics are soft on Buddhism; but if we presume that they are indeed soft on Buddhism, or at least some are, then we might learn more about why skeptics find Buddhism of benefit to themselves, whereas we might imagine that they are a hardy lot who don't go for anything at all but question everything and seem to always argue against any established system of religion, philosophy, politics, etc., so that at the end of the day they give one the impression that nothing is certain or everyone who does cultivate any system with so many others are into swindle or charlatanry or are hopelessly ignorant or dangerously credulous.
That is how I would react if I were not the author of the OP but a member here who loves to discuss an observation offered by a fellow member.
Anyway, let me (no more let's because someone here objects to the conventional use of let's) just again and at the risk of over-repetition seek to obtain your agreement to the following two proposals:
1. The issue is "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
2. The evidence to employ is documentary evidence.
Let me just say that I feel it is conducive to savings of time and words to specify exactly and briefly the sentence at issue and the evidence to establish it or to belie it, and also most important that we might arrive at some concurring position one way or the other -- for it is most exasperating that a discussion goes on and on and on and on and on...
Pachomius |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 15:16:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
Lesson to be learned from that JREF episode with Yrreg: moderators and administrators should not give undue attention to members who have become undeservedly influential as to exercise some kind of unconscious-to-subjects but real control over them; next, moderators and administrators should watch out lest they get overly personalistic against members, and attached to their own views or even entrenched positions on issues.
I don't see anything in here about any lesson learned about altering your behavior. You know, after being booted from several fora, you might consider the possibility that you play some role in the incidents yourself.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 15:46:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius:
Shall we all who are interested return to the discussation of the issue, namely, whether the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," represents a fact or not, and whether documentary evidence is good enough to support the fact basis of the sentence.
When we can all agree on the above then we can all proceed to on my part bring up the documentary evidence and on your part bring up the documentary evidence also that the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," represents respectively a fact or not a fact.
Because all I wanted was just to express an opinion but what I met with from some people here is shrill demand for evidence.
If I were not the author of this thread but someone else who wrote the PO:
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius:
...
I would adopt the mind of 'granting but not conceding' and say something like the following:
You bring up a useful question for everyone to see whether with their exposure to skeptics and to Buddhism skeptics are soft on Buddhism; but if we presume that they are indeed soft on Buddhism, or at least some are, then we might learn more about why skeptics find Buddhism of benefit to themselves, whereas we might imagine that they are a hardy lot who don't go for anything at all but question everything and seem to always argue against any established system of religion, philosophy, politics, etc., so that at the end of the day they give one the impression that nothing is certain or everyone who does cultivate any system with so many others are into swindle or charlatanry or are hopelessly ignorant or dangerously credulous.
That is how I would react if I were not the author of the OP but a member here who loves to discuss an observation offered by a fellow member.
Anyway, let me (no more let's because someone here objects to the conventional use of let's) just again and at the risk of over-repetition seek to obtain your agreement to the following two proposals:
1. The issue is "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
2. The evidence to employ is documentary evidence.
Let me just say that I feel it is conducive to savings of time and words to specify exactly and briefly the sentence at issue and the evidence to establish it or to belie it, and also most important that we might arrive at some concurring position one way or the other -- for it is most exasperating that a discussion goes on and on and on and on and on...
Pachomius
Bolding mine.
After reading your last post, I found these bolded comment very interesting.
First, you seem surprised that people demanded evidence supporting a statement you made on a skeptic's forum.
Second, you have spent an inordinate amount of time and verbiage (contrary to your stated objective above) without furthering this conversation. Do you intend to present any "documentary evidence?" That would be a great start. So far, you have alluded to exactly one bit of evidence: an email conversation between Dr. Massimo Pigliucci and you; and that bit of evidence has been refuted.
Third, your writing style leads me to conclude you were not raised in the US. Is this correct? My only reason for asking this question is to arrive at a better understanding of your point of view. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 16:49:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius...
When we can all agree on the above then we can all proceed to on my part bring up the documentary evidence and on your part bring up the documentary evidence also that the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," represents respectively a fact or not a fact.
You don't have to wait until "we can all agree" on anything before you supply your evidence, Gerardo. You could have proceeded on your part to bring up the documentary evidence within your first posting, or at any time thereafter.
As constructive criticism, you may have avoided establishing yourself as a troll if you had supplied any evidence any of the many times you've been asked for it. And if you still avoid providing your evidence, even now after alluding to the fact that you are prepared to do so, you will have demonstrated once again that you're not interested in supporting your claim or participating in a productive conversation. You will have demonstrated your disdain and disrespect for the other members here at SFN who have made some effort to engage you in a rational discussion about an issue which you seem to consider of some importance. You will have also demonstrated, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you are a liar.
(Side issue: By the way, McQ, I'm not ashamed or embarrassed for having been insistent that Gerardo hold up his end of this conversation in a reasonable, cogent manner. So far, in all these pages, he has abandoned his civil responsibility to do that. When someone acts like a troll, it's likely that Neurosis, Dave, I, or others will publicly note the troll-like behavior. When someone lies in these forums, it's likely they'll be called on it, and "liar" seems the most succinct term to describe one who lies, don't you think? It might seem harsh, but it's not a gang attack. It's just some statements of fact.)
quote:
1. The issue is "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
2. The evidence to employ is documentary evidence.
Okay, Gerardo, you have been saying skeptics are soft on Buddhism since the beginning of this thread. You have been asked to provide evidence to support that contention, also since the beginning of this thread. You have made over 50 postings here, yet you have so far outright refused to back your claim with evidence.
In your posting above you have once again reiterated the issue. You have also defined which sort of evidence you believe should be provided to substantiate your claim. So what on Earth are you waiting for? Would you stop stalling, dodging, being dishonest, and otherwise generally acting like a troll, and provide the evidence already? And if you don't have evidence, or if you're not willing to provide evidence, will you please just admit that your statement is simply your unsubstantiated opinion.
quote:
Let me just say that I feel it is conducive to savings of time and words to specify exactly and briefly the sentence at issue and the evidence to establish it or to belie it, and also most important that we might arrive at some concurring position one way or the other -- for it is most exasperating that a discussion goes on and on and on and on and on...
It has been your option since the beginning, Gerardo, to provide that evidence, and you have done nothing but drag your feet. We have no sympathy for your exasperation, because it is no one's fault but your own that this discussion has gone on and on and on... Now if you actually have any desire for us to come to some concurring position, one way or the other, please place your evidence here in this thread so we may give it proper consideration.
I predict at least 10 more postings will be made by Pachomius without so much as an attempt to provide evidence, documentary or otherwise, of his claim, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism." I also predict he will not acknowledge, even after having been asked specifically and politely to do so, that he is unable or unwilling to support his claim. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 18:16:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
Shall we all who are interested return to the discussation of the issue, namely, whether the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," represents a fact or not, and whether documentary evidence is good enough to support the fact basis of the sentence.
Some of us haven't left that discussion, and await your entrance into it.quote:
...Because all I wanted was just to express an opinion...
Then why did you represent it as questions? Was it "literature?" Were the questions rhetorical?quote:
...but what I met with from some people here is shrill demand for evidence.
That is simply untrue, as anyone who reads page one of this thread can see.quote:
If I were not the author of this thread but someone else who wrote the PO:
...
I would adopt the mind of 'granting but not conceding' and say something like the following:
You bring up a useful question for everyone to see whether with their exposure to skeptics and to Buddhism skeptics are soft on Buddhism; but if we presume that they are indeed soft on Buddhism, or at least some are, then we might learn more about why skeptics find Buddhism of benefit to themselves, whereas we might imagine that they are a hardy lot who don't go for anything at all but question everything and seem to always argue against any established system of religion, philosophy, politics, etc., so that at the end of the day they give one the impression that nothing is certain or everyone who does cultivate any system with so many others are into swindle or charlatanry or are hopelessly ignorant or dangerously credulous.
The above response makes no sense at all. Honestly, I cannot parse it, despite reading and re-reading it. Does it say anything?
Beyond that, what was wrong with the answers your OP did receive? Except for one, they were polite and welcoming, and answered your primary question well. And the one exception wasn't a request for you to provide evidence.quote:
That is how I would react if I were not the author of the OP but a member here who loves to discuss an observation offered by a fellow member.
But how did your hypothetical response do that? With a swarm of words that are ultimately incomprehensible?quote:
...for it is most exasperating that a discussion goes on and on and on and on and on...
I knew we would agree on something, eventually. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 16:59:31 [Permalink]
|
For the people here who want evidence from me on my words that briefly: "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism." please reproduce the text below quote:
1. The issue is "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
2. The evidence to employ is documentary evidence.
in your next message here and state whether you agree to the proposals as stated, and just put your name after your statement of agreement.
--------------------------
For those of you guys here, members and guests, thanks a lot for your presence, even though you don't write any message.
Special thinks to McQ, he is one really different and most appreciated by yours truly of a skeptic; there are all kinds of skeptics, but McQ and yours truly, we make up a distinctively different kind. I hope McQ agrees with me, for I believe that I am a skeptic who do not look for or react with adversarial, confrontational, controversorial, polemical minutiae or nitpicks, every time we read an opinion or invitation to share our views on an issue or question or query or topic or guess or suspicion or just anything that comes to mind and the person having a mind simply wants to hear how others might have a similar or different or more expansive thought.
Pachomius
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 18:12:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
1. The issue is "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism." -->disagree
2. The evidence to employ is documentary evidence. --> depends
On the last issue, I can think of a number of people who are soft on buddhism. On the other hand, I myself am also "soft" on mainstream christianity, so I think the documentary evidence needs to be extensive for it to represent 'skeptics'. That is one of the problems in this, 'skeptics' is quite a diverse group. So what I want to know is what you've got.
[quote]For those of you guys here, members and guests, thanks a lot for your presence, even though you don't write any message.
Special thinks to McQ, he is one really different and most appreciated by yours truly of a skeptic; there are all kinds of skeptics, but McQ and yours truly, we make up a distinctively different kind. I hope McQ agrees with me, for I believe that I am a skeptic who do not look for or react with adversarial, confrontational, controversorial, polemical minutiae or nitpicks, every time we read an opinion or invitation to share our views on an issue or question or query or topic or guess or suspicion or just anything that comes to mind and the person having a mind simply wants to hear how others might have a similar or different or more expansive thought.
I just reread the first part of this thread. Immediately in the second post you do exactly what you claim not to do above. Your reaction to Siberia was an adversarial, confrontational, polemical nitpick reacting not to Siberia's actual post but to something entirely different. You also immediately named a number of claims that you failed to back up (claims, not opinions) and started nitpicking on some far-out buddhist site that you failed to show represented anything like mainstream buddism. On any subsequent requests for evidence you started whining on how unfriendly everyone was.
Why don't you start by backing up the claims you made in your second post, apologize to Siberian for not responding to what she actually said and start an actual discussion of buddhism. So far, you have clearly failed to do so and avoided every attempt of others to get you to do so. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
