|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 11/04/2007 : 15:22:34 [Permalink]
|
His only purpose here was to incite abuse.
|
There's another keeper from Dude. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2007 : 16:50:09 [Permalink]
|
If you have something to say Gorgo, say it. You shouldn't repress all that hostility, it will make you crazy(er).
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2007 : 18:40:36 [Permalink]
|
Not hostile, because you're a bright guy, and you were obviously joking to say that someone, on a discussion forum, can "incite abuse."
Abuse:
mistreat: treat badly; "This boss abuses his workers"; "She is always stepping on others to get ahead"
pervert: change the inherent purpose or function of something; "Don't abuse the system"; "The director of the factory misused the funds intended for the health care of his workers"
maltreatment: cruel or inhumane treatment
use foul or abusive language towards; "The actress abused the policeman who gave her a parking ticket"; "The angry mother shouted at the teacher"
a rude expression intended to offend or hurt; "when a student made a stupid mistake he spared them no abuse"; "they yelled insults at the visiting team"
misuse: improper or excessive use
use wrongly or improperly or excessively; "Her husband often abuses alcohol"; "while she was pregnant, she abused drugs" |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2007 : 19:51:20 [Permalink]
|
Dude and Kil......
To quote J. Randi, who was quoting the good Reverend Dodgson; Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! Oh joy! The jabberwock has succumbed to the jabberjock!
Thank you, my liege! I now feel free to unleash the Kraken, and, as Our Beloved Leader has famously stated, "bring 'em on" (in Texlish)
Dude, sounds to me like you may have gotten a pass too, as long as you can confine your withering rhetoric to posts directed to Kil or Dave! Note that Kil left the door ajar for the Red Ink Monster if your incredible incivilty was overly used against a mere citizen of the realm, instead of one of the ruling caste! I am certain that you will continue to use proper restraint when dealing with half-wits and senile old men, however!
OK, Dude, let's rumble!| Jerome contributed nothing of substance (in anyone's judgement) to this forum. He was given every opportunity, even had his initial ban reversed. His only purpose here was to incite abuse. |
I, at least, was a member of the Forum when Jerome was banned. I'm not sure how long Jerome had been 'abusing' you poor folks when I joined. With several thousand posts, it must have been some time.
In the relatively few (1-2 hundred) posts of Jerome that I have read, I can see many examples of substantive material that he brought to the forum; where he failed was in the way he handled the give and take that ensued after his intoduction of a subject. He was often incoherent, quarrelsome, and not effective in his criticism of what he perceived as some of the shibboleths of Skepticism.
He was banned for "trolling", a subject we all are rather confused about. He also had been given more than adequate warning, and had directed apparently abusive invective at a long-time member, H. Humbert. Dave lost his temper, but he was about as justified in doing so as a Judge, Jury, and Executioner can be! This is a membership club, the Rules are clear, and repeated violation of them will cause expulsion! What constitutes violation changes from case to case, but remains extremely difficult to define! Ideally, all participating members should have a say, but this just isn't practical. You can't have a referendum every time a suspect is tried for a crime!
My personal feeling is that Jerome should not have been permanently banned. Because he is an adolescent growing into an intellectual adult! But Dave and Kil and others of TPTB had had a bellyful, and they exercised their inalienable right.
My "intentions" (as in a glass, darkly) have been questioned here, as I am sure yours and many others have. You, Marf, many others (in my early posts) detected a troll. As I read more and more contrived definitions of the creature, it appears to me that a troll is what the trollcatcher knows it is when he sees one! No one's opinions are of any value on that subject except the trollcatchers'!| Well, when you stubbornly cling to a ridiculous definition for a debate term, one so ridiculous as to render the term meaningless, it is trollish. It is not unreasonable to insist on specific definitions so the words will have a useful function in the discussion that follows. What possible reason could a person have for this behavior? So I asked you to clarify your intent, to reassure me by making some honest concession to reason on a single definition. |
Well, you and Marf might as well stop making statements about trolls, because, as we have seen above, no one's opinion really counts except that of the owner/manager, and possibly others acting as moderators. ("Staff")
Now, as to your problem of the definition of "religion"| This little strawman construct is easily dealt with. Do you consider my motorcycle club a religion? Do you consider professions to be religions? If so I'm afraid you are going to be flying solo with that definition of religion. |
I guess what you are saying is that when I use a word like "religion", I must refer to something that fits all of the definitions given in Webster's bible. Neither I, nor you, nor anyone can do that and engage in meaningful discourse.
One of the marvels and devilish complexities of the English language is the multiplicity of meanings for various nouns, verbs, and other parts of speech. Take the word "star". There are 51 definitions given in the small M-W. In my third to last post here I was trying to construct a synonymic construction for "star chamber". None of the 51 definitions of "star" worked. I had to settle on "solar" which weakened the synonym but was the best I could come up with. A better English linguist (or comedian) could have handled this more adroitly. Dennis Miller (damn his turncoat heart) and Bill Maher's writers are good at this!
I feel that it frequently is mandatory to "cherry-pick" from multiple definitions in order to express an idea. If you would prefer that I state: "Skepticism has many similarities to religion", I would be happy to oblige your aversion to flexible semantics.
Your motorcycle club's Rules of the Road, or Manifesto of Mechanics, or Zen, might well be considered a religion. Especially if the whole doo-ragged bunch of you guys suddenly appeared in the back woods of the Outback on your Harleys and confronted a group of aborigines!
Medicine IS a religion to many medical doctors, and I have heard them say so. I know a number of Jazz musicians - I have personally heard several of them comment that Jazz is their religion! If a pursuit, or profession, or a practice by a group of highly committed adherents to a set of common principles is perceived by the members to be a religion, then for their purposes it is one! I suspect that Skeptics such as yourself simply have an irrational fear of being categorized in the same Kingdom, Phylum, and Class as "religion" And please don't tell me that a biological simile can't be applied to a construct like "religion". That gets into theoretical linguistics which is content for a thread of its own.| And really, it only takes one person to start a religion. Just ask L. Ron Hubbard. |
Thanks for eliminating any further quibbling on this. Point well taken! I fully agree! (I read Dianetics in it's first printing in 1950 when I was a senior at the University of Colorado - in my stupid 20's, preceding my ignorant 30's) I remember arguing passionately in philosophy and psychology classes for the fantastic "new" precepts put forth by my favorite science fiction author. Wow! Have I learned a lot since then!)| No, flaw is what I meant. The greatest strength of language is that it can adapt and change to include new things. The same flexibility also enables vagueness and obfuscation. Like your ridiculous game with the word religion. |
I respect your remarkable comprehension and command of one of the most subtle and complex tongues used by the civilized world. So pick one of the Webster, or Oxford, or Wikipedia, or any or many of the word authorities that you prefer, (as I have), and if I can use it in my arguments I will. If not, I will redefine (as above) and we can crest this semantic molehill and start down the other side!| No, I haven't grown. If anything I hold the billscott's of the world in more contempt now than I have in the past. I am just simply incapable of respecting stupidity and willful ignorance. |
I am pleased that that unpleasantness was directed toward Bill Scott (whom I have not yet met in the Commons) rather than myself. It is my hope that you do not find either of the above qualities in my expression. So I will refrain from suggestions that you look in a mirror. Bill Scott may well be worthy of your contempt, I don't have enough exposure to him to know. But it is alarming for you to state that you do not grow. You are currently in a high potency growth medium. At 79, I am feeling more like 109 every day I spend here! So check with your pediatrician, Dude! You may need HGH!| Much to my continued dismay, spell checkers don't correct improper usage. Is it "to" or "too", "affect" or "effect", and they don't correct my typically horrid and lazy use of punctuation. A stray comma can seriously alter what you meant to say. |
If you would like me to correct your spelling, punctuation and grammar, I would be glad to oblige! I have experience in tutoring.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2007 : 20:21:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I'm not sure how long Jerome had been 'abusing' you poor folks when I joined. |
84 days.| With several thousand posts, it must have been some time. |
Nope. He averaged about 22.5 posts per day. You, for comparison, are averaging 2.62 per day right now. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2007 : 21:13:28 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
I'll do my damndest to pick up the pace! So many projects, so little energy!
Jerome is nothing if not prolific! I had to buy additional c-capacity to just handle the private correspondence! Maybe I need my own server?
But how about a davism on the intentional provocation inherent in the above comments about SFN's policies on capital punishment? I was obviously doing an Isaak Walton on your psyche, but no davatavistic comment? I am disappointed!
[Edited because Jerome didn't make his real name public - Dave W.] |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2007 : 21:47:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
But how about a davism on the intentional provocation inherent in the above comments about SFN's policies on capital punishment? I was obviously doing an Isaak Walton on your psyche, but no davatavistic comment? I am disappointed! |
I knew you would be, but what is there for me to say that you haven't? Even the fact that there's a rather large difference between Ron Popeil and Steven James Rusteberg should be obvious. Perhaps you're bucking for the crimson box that will brand you into the rather tiny cadre of provocateurs here. We certainly don't have enough yet for an entire year-long calendar of "The Bad Boys of the SFN." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 00:22:17 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Now you're talkin', Dave! I'm all a-twitter! god!,'tis a consummation
devoutly.....you know the rest! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 00:25:43 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
Good piece by Sagan! I hadn't seen it before and it is an excellent condensation of much of you guy's core beliefs! It's a damn shame he went away before he should have! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 00:44:50 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
Note that Kil left the door ajar for the Red Ink Monster if your incredible incivilty was overly used against a mere citizen of the realm, instead of one of the ruling caste! I am certain that you will continue to use proper restraint when dealing with half-wits and senile old men, however!
|
There was a point (shortly after the reversal of jerome's first banning) where I had considered adopting jerome's posting style and method, with the intent of making Kil regret the decision to un-ban him. There is no doubt in my mind I could play that game better than jerome could have ever hoped to. But....
As I said before, after I cooled off a bit (only took a month or so) and considered the issue from some perspective the conclusion was simple. Everyone here is a guest of the people who pay the bill for running the server (Kil and @tomic, as far as I know). So when the forum admins make a request, we guests should at least make some attempt to abide by it if we wish to participate.
In the relatively few (1-2 hundred) posts of Jerome that I have read, I can see many examples of substantive material that he brought to the forum; where he failed was in the way he handled the give and take that ensued after his intoduction of a subject. He was often incoherent, quarrelsome, and not effective in his criticism of what he perceived as some of the shibboleths of Skepticism.
|
Jerome had a detectable style of posting. Nearly everything he ever posted was a strawman of one sort or another. In threads he started he would make some statement about the subject so absurd that the only plausible explanation was an intentional distortion (strawman) posted with the intent to incite others into flaming him. In threads he "contributed" to he would do the same thing with the posts of other people.
So I stand by my assertion that he didn't contribute anything of substance.
| He was banned for "trolling", a subject we all are rather confused about. |
You may be confused about it, but very few others are.
The first line from the wiki entry on "Troll(internet)":
| An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response. |
That is the most widely understood definition of an internet troll. It is considered intolerably rude by most, and is entirely inappropriate behavior for a forum that is supposed to be dealing with issues from a skeptical POV. The behavior is disruptive and counterproductive. Those who engage in it should be banned, imo.
bngbuck said:
| My "intentions" (as in a glass, darkly) have been questioned here, as I am sure yours and many others have. You, Marf, many others (in my early posts) detected a troll. As I read more and more contrived definitions of the creature, it appears to me that a troll is what the trollcatcher knows it is when he sees one! No one's opinions are of any value on that subject except the trollcatchers'! |
Wrong. See above. That is what nearly everyone means when they refer to an internet troll. I'll chalk up your lack of internet hip-ness to your advanced years and the several-generations-gap that separates you from me.
My personal feeling is that Jerome should not have been permanently banned. Because he is an adolescent growing into an intellectual adult! But Dave and Kil and others of TPTB had had a bellyful, and they exercised their inalienable right.
|
My personal feeling is that jerome is a useless piece of festering feces who was here just to disrupt these forums and incite others into abusing him. He did indeed deserve to be banned permanently. But why are we talking about personal feelings? No one else really gives a rats ass what any one's personal feelings are, and such things are entirely irrelevant this topic. Jerome was banned for being a disruptive troll, his posts are all available to review, so there is no question of his behavioral history.
| I guess what you are saying is that when I use a word like "religion", I must refer to something that fits all of the definitions given in Webster's bible. |
I do believe that you were the one to introduce argumentum ad websterium into this thread.
And can we dispense with the intentional misrepresentations? You are clearly more intelligent than this, so I can't conclude that you are doing this unintentionally. No one in this thread has suggested that something must meet all the definitions of a religion in order to be one.
It is you who insists on using a fragmentary definition of the word, such a small piece of the definition is what renders it useless for debate. I will not agree that my motorcycle club or profession is a religion. FFS, using your loose definition we can conclude that anyone who has a drivers license and drives a vehicle is a member of the "church of the motor vehicle"! They all follow the same general principles and rules... In other words, it is difficult to name something that is not a religion if we use your definition.
So your definition is clearly unsuited for use in any debate about what is, and is not, a religion.
| Medicine IS a religion to many medical doctors, and I have heard them say so. I know a number of Jazz musicians - I have personally heard several of them comment that Jazz is their religion! If a pursuit, or profession, or a practice by a group of highly committed adherents to a set of common principles is perceived by the members to be a religion, then for their purposes it is one! |
Back to the problem at hand... colloquial use of words often wanders far from the commonly used and understood definitions of those words, and over time can excise or expand those definitions. Bad now also means good, cool now also means a half dozen other things besides "mildly cold". Square doesn't mean "not cool" anymore, and so on.
You illustrate my point well though. This type of colloquial usage, while acceptable in a casual conversation, can't be applied to words intended to convey a specific meaning. As this is a skeptics forum the general standard here is to insist on specific definitions when you are trying to make some point.
| I respect your remarkable comprehension and command of one of the most subtle and complex tongues used by the civilized world. |
Are you sure you have time to patronize people? I'm reasonably sure that you are already a handful of years older than the average for the US.
| So pick one of the Webster, or Oxford, or Wikipedia, or any or many of the word authorities that you prefer, (as I have), and if I can use it in my arguments I will. If not, I will redefine (as above) and we can crest this semantic molehill and start down the other side! |
How about you pick any of these from the merriam-webster unabridged. There are 7 entries, any of them will do as long as you use the entire entry, no half definitions.
1 : the personal commitment to and serving of God or a god with worshipful devotion, conduct in accord with divine commands especially as found in accepted sacred writings or declared by authoritative teachers, a way of life recognized as incumbent on true believers, and typically the relating of oneself to an organized body of believers <ministers of religion>
2 : the state of a religious <retire into religion> <the nun died in her thirtieth year of religion>
3 a : one of the systems of faith and worship : a religious faith <monotheistic religions> <tolerant of all religions> <for bidding discrimination because of race, color, or religion> b : the body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances, and social practices found within a given cultural context <the religion of this primitive people>
4 : the profession or practice of religious beliefs : religious observances <the kernel of his practical religion was that it was respectable, and beneficial to one's business, to be seen going to services -- Sinclair Lewis>
5 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, FIDELITY
6 a : a personal awareness or conviction of the existence of a supreme being or of supernatural powers or influences controlling one's own, humanity's, or all nature's destiny <only man appears to be capable of religion> b : the access of such an awareness or conviction accompanied by or arousing reverence, gratitude, humility, the will to obey and serve : religious experience or insight <in middle life he suddenly got religion>
7 a : a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith : a value held to be of supreme importance |
bngbuck said:
| I am pleased that that unpleasantness was directed toward Bill Scott (whom I have not yet met in the Commons) rather than myself. It is my hope that you do not find either of the above qualities in my expression. |
You may be a bit dickish, but then I have rarely met a person of your years who isn't. I imagine that when I get to the point where I have to eat three bran muffins a day to maintain regularity I will be fairly intolerable and more than a bit dickish myself.
Really though, I admire your adroitness with the language. You clearly (with no patronizing intent) have skills. I hope I am fortunate enough to retain mine so well when my age doubles.
It is the reason why I thought you were trolling. You can't expect me to think a person who's writing style obviously indicates education and writing experience has honest intent when they launch an intentional insult and then try to defend it by cherry-picking fragmentary definitions, do you?
I think you feel you have been poorly treated here (the SFN in general), and you may be right. People did jump your shit in your first post, but you have to accept some of the blame for that. It was very much not-clear where you yourself stood on the topic of UFOs (still isn't clear to me, but I skipped a few weeks, so I may have missed that.... topic for another thread anyway), and when asked in that first thread for some clarification you proved to be recalcitrant.
| But it is alarming for you to state that you do not grow. |
No, really, this will be better if we dispense with the deliberate misrepresentations. A little jabbing and the occasional spitball are ok but this (as in the above quote) will only prove to be counterproductive if you insist on doing it.
| I suspect that Skeptics such as yourself simply have an irrational fear of being categorized in the same Kingdom, Phylum, and Class as "religion" And please don't tell me that a biological simile can't be applied to a construct like "religion". That gets into theoretical linguistics which is content for a thread of its own. |
Your simile is fine, and I have already granted that I find the prospect of being labled religious or a member of a religion insulting. Is it irrational? I don't think so.
| If you would like me to correct your spelling, punctuation and grammar, I would be glad to oblige! I have experience in tutoring. |
I tend to be casual when posting on the few internet forums I visit. I also can't claim more than minimal formal training in writing, the bare minimum required to obtain a degree that ends in "science", not "arts". If you detect some particularly amateurish errors of grammar or punctuation by me, then (if your offer is sincere and not more patronizing) I welcome correction. I am always interested in expanding my knowledge and command of the language. I'd appreciate that it be done via private message though.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 01:13:41 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
| Good piece by Sagan! I hadn't seen it before and it is an excellent condensation of much of you guy's core beliefs! It's a damn shame he went away before he should have! |
Sagan has influenced many of us here. I know I have a great deal of respect for him and what he had to say about critical thinking.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 07:02:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Now you're talkin', Dave! I'm all a-twitter! god!,'tis a consummation
devoutly.....you know the rest! |
I'm sure you're aware of the old saying,The masochist says, "beat me! Beat me!" and the sadist says, "no." Well, guess what? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 07:18:39 [Permalink]
|
So what does the sadomasochist say?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 09:15:55 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....(#1)
Beats me! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Suicide Bombing - AAI
