|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 16:36:40 [Permalink]
|
Dude (#2)......
Well, well, well! Out from under a hitherto unnoticed rock, emerges a nude...whoops, make that new dude, suddenly possessed of rhetorical skills, rudimentary dialectical methodology, and enough coherence to permit a true exchange of ideas!
Welcome! I thought you'd never unmask! Let's get to work.| 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... |
Dude, anyone in the flower of their youth and energy with decent intelligence and the benefit of a college education (perhaps more?) could dance a compositional jig around Jerome. He comes into this reasonably intense forum without the intellectual discipline that comes with an extended formal education and extensive experience in debate.
As far as your intent to confound Kil, that was indeed sophomoric! You should be grateful that your neanderthal temper finally subsided before you got into it with Dave and Kil! Aside from the certainty that you would indeed be banned, the combined skills of those two would certainly have been more than a match for your rough young insolence! Your belated understanding of the nature of this beast saved your ass here!| 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. |
Did the Forum as a whole ever seriously attempt to simply ignore him? The Marfian dialectic? It obviously doesn't work when just one or two members collaborate, but it appears to me that there is considerable cameraderie between the "regulars" - would it not have been possible to simply shut him out?| 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. |
Your personal feeling, in addition to being irrelevant, is a manifestation of your immaturity and insecurity. The necessity to use such invective and your inability to restrain a primal need to attack the provocation of a teenager (in developmental terms) is a poor reflection upon your maturity. In jousting with, (or attacking) me (or Filthy, Mooner, Cune etc.) you are dealing with folks who have more than adequate offensive and defensive armament! But why not simply ignore most of what Jerome trollishly wrote?| You may be confused about it, but very few others are. |
I have it on the highest authority (an unnamed White House source) that the definition of a troll is vague, a troll's purpose is to "inflame" (no statement of what that incendiary term is supposed to mean) and that my definition of the trollcatcher is pretty close to All We Can Know about this subject! So at least the Others here in the house we are currently in, are none too sure of your authoritative proclamations as to the nature of a troll!| 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. |
"intolerably rude" strikes me as pretentious posturing by a bunch of kids whose hypocrisy is exceeded only by their insecurity and sensitivity to perceived insult. "Entirely inappropriate behavior" is properly applicable to D&K's decision.| 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. |
No, you are wrong, at least in this Forum. See above. And don't wear your chalk stick out. From what I have seen (very little, which is way too much) of many of the Internet's "chat" and "board" formats, you can add an exponent of ten to my above comment. The Skeptical forums, this being one of the best by far, have relatively little of the schoolyard juvenility of much of the Internet crap out there, with your mewling whines of "insult", "rudeness", and "inappropriate behavior". These same juveniles are frequently the ones who extravagantly use four-letter word and street jargon attack phrases (you motherfucking butt-sniff) while whining about "rudeness"| I do believe that you were the one to introduce argumentum ad websterium into this thread. |
Yes I was, and it was fun for a while. I am tiring of it now for the reasons I have already stated. If you are totally devoted to a continuation of this endless citing of various word authorities, you will have to do it "solo", exercise your Dude-given power of self rationalization, declare yourself a winner, whack yourself on the back a few times and go join Don Q. in hot pursuit of Nebraska water pumps.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.
|
I appreciate your recognition of my gifts. We can dispense with the whole fucking thing if you want! This thread has strayed so far from it's origins and has significantly turned into a two-person
exchange to the extent that we have to tamp this damn fool definition thing soon. Your 'cherry picking' comment clearly indicated that you did not wish me to use a single definition of religion. In a moment I shall "cherry-pick" ONE definition for you. I sincerely hope I don't hear any more of this kind of bullshit after that!| 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. |
Oh crap! You want yin and yang conflated! In the first place neither I nor you are talking about a church of anything. The Church of Skepticism is strictly allegorical! I definitely think that a very careful, conscientious driver religiously follows the rules! You define the adverb. I feel it is not colloquial.| 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. |
Colloquial use of words frequently outpaces other uses. What the hell do you think "commonly used" means? Talk about confusion about definition!
Tempus fugit and as we speak, the colloquial becomes the accepted! And you want to stick exclusively to classical definitions? This language not only changes rapidly, it's usage is continuously being redefined by those changes!
| 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. |
Well, I'm sure I have the time to provide aid and support to a pilgrim like you! I'm sure you would prefer Webster's second definition of "patronize" and agree that the third definition doesn't apply at all! Cherry-picking?
I am older than dirt! And dirtier than Filthy! But what in the world does that have to do with "a handful of years older than the average for the US"? The average for the US is probably about 37 (Dave?) and I am considerably more than double that. So what's your point? Dude, sometimes you just plain mystify me!| 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. |
Yes, SIR, mon capitan! Naturally I choose number seven, and as you have, of course, anticipated that, I look forward to your already prepared attack on that choice!| 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. |
It won't be long, Brian. I am sure that you meet and know hundreds of people in their late seventies and early eighties. It would only be natural for a 37 year old kid. But as you daily associate with these old folks, try to relate to what an incomprehensible amount you have learned in your short life, and that a few of those antiquities you share your life with have learned even more about a few things than you have. Dickishness is possibly one of them. The bran muffins and the condition they address are really inconsequential when compared to lack of mobility, declining sensory apparatus, and absolutely the condition of the dick! It is deplorable. In your worst wet dreams, you cannot imagine the shame, the embarassment that a sensitive, shy, senior like myself endures when he really can't locate it any more! So, whip it out while you can, whippersnapper!| 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 |
Thank you for that kindness, my son! My rheumy old eyes tear up! I think there is hope for you! First, though, you have to acquire the skills before you can look to retaining them! | 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? |
My God (me) yes!!You do it so well, I was forced into a corner and HAD to use your despicable techniques. However, then I discovered that I could use whole alternative definitions instead of the bits and pieces that characterize your arguments, so I decided to make selections like number seven above. You have taught me so much, Brian!| 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. |
jesus, I have been over this so many times, you must have absent from those discussions for as long as they ran (and carried over into other threads) Dude, I would really prefer you go back and reread all that was written in those 27 or 28 pages, and if you still have questions about what I was doing back then, I'll try to repeat what's necessary.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.
|
Wow! That's pretty scary, all right. It would be even scarier if I knew what button I pushed there! Have you ever looked into anger management, Dude? You did say: "no, I haven't grown" did you not? I took that to mean that you had not grown. And a rock ought to grow in the stimulation soil available here at SFN!| 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. |
Of course you don't. You're too irrational! Seriously, I think it is way too sensitive to be "INSULTED" by a semantic interpretation. When your morality, ethics, essential decency is attacked unfairly, that's insult!| 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. |
No, I'm sorry, Dude, I unfortunately was being facetious. I have been fortunate in having had extensive training and practice in the manipulation of the written and spoken word. And it offends (not insults) my practiced eye when I see either careless or ignorant misuse of English! Even extremely frequent typos! I proof read every word I write. I frequently reread a post seven or eight times before submitting. And I still find errors showing up in the posting.
I feel that many people today are inordinately lazy and indifferent to the way they construct their commentary, both oral and written. But just as Critical Thinking is a skill well worth learning and using, so is the proper, understandable expression of that thinking! Your earlier comment about the use of punctuation was very well taken.
The use of spelling, grammar, syntax, tense, and all the "tools" of the art of expression is equally important in my view.
However, I cannot take on more than I already have with Jerome. And there is significant need here in the forum! Few, however, probably feel the need for or want assistance. That said, I have to say that SFN is the most literate forum that I have encountered yet.
Your need for privacy puzzles me! Are you embarassed? I have encountered this strong focus on privacy and PM's before here at SFN.
Is it the eternal embarassment of youth? Or am I just so encased in the barnacles and calluses of age, that I have lost ALL sensitivity?
I would appreciate your view on this!
It is my sincere hope that there are not more than five or six usage mistakes in the above post! |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 11/05/2007 : 17:47:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dude (#2)......
Well, well, well! Out from under a hitherto unnoticed rock, emerges a nude...whoops, make that new dude, suddenly possessed of rhetorical skills, rudimentary dialectical methodology, and enough coherence to permit a true exchange of ideas!
Welcome! I thought you'd never unmask! |
No, this is the old Dude. One that the people who have been here a while have missed arguing with of late. One that would call you on the carpet if you didn't fully support your premises and proded you to defend your assertions completely. Someone you could learn from and could learn from you if you could strongly support your premises.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 17:51:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
...the combined skills of those two would certainly have been more than a match for your rough young insolence! |
Sheesh. First you want a warning, and now you're sucking up. Would you make up your mind, please? [I guess we need an "exasperated" smilie, too.]| Did the Forum as a whole ever seriously attempt to simply ignore him? The Marfian dialectic? It obviously doesn't work when just one or two members collaborate, but it appears to me that there is considerable cameraderie between the "regulars" - would it not have been possible to simply shut him out? |
That is, of course, standard advice ("Do Not Feed The Troll," or DNFTT). It only works if everyone collaborates. And I'm one of the guiltiest when it comes to not letting things slide. But, I've never seen DNFTT work anywhere I've ever read for long, so I'm not sure that it's even worthwhile advice.| The average for the US is probably about 37 (Dave?)... |
Uh, close. It was 35.3 years for the 2000 census.| I frequently reread a post seven or eight times before submitting. |
That's it? You're a slacker. |
- 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 - 11/05/2007 : 18:10:17 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Well, you're the one with the damn sadist/masochist model. What's a poor sadomasochistic relic, insecure and grasping for any kind of attention supposed to do? I should go to work in Guantanamo? Look, I not beating around the Bush here, I need advice! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 18:56:05 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
| Did the Forum as a whole ever seriously attempt to simply ignore him? The Marfian dialectic? It obviously doesn't work when just one or two members collaborate, but it appears to me that there is considerable cameraderie between the "regulars" - would it not have been possible to simply shut him out? |
You can't ignore an average of 22.5 posts per day on this forum. Maybe an overpopulated place like JREF where a dozen posts are logged every minute or so, but not here. We have many people who lurk, registered and unregistered alike, reading what is said here. Many of the regulars feel that these are the audience and that there is an obligation to confront and correct the ignorant so those many people who just stop by to read can have a look at the many issues with some critical thinking and skepticism applied to the conclusions.
| Your personal feeling, in addition to being irrelevant, is a manifestation of your immaturity and insecurity. The necessity to use such invective and your inability to restrain a primal need to attack the provocation of a teenager (in developmental terms) is a poor reflection upon your maturity. In jousting with, (or attacking) me (or Filthy, Mooner, Cune etc.) you are dealing with folks who have more than adequate offensive and defensive armament! But why not simply ignore most of what Jerome trollishly wrote? |
Calling jerome names is irrelevant and immature I'll grant you. But representative of insecurity? No. I'm far from insecure. I am, however, fairly intolerant of people who willfully choose to be ignorant. Jerome was not immediately attacked here. He was given ample opportunity. What is the appropriate response to one of Socrates' cave dwellers who refuses to acknowledge the wider world after he repeatedly ventures into it?
| intolerably rude" strikes me as pretentious posturing by a bunch of kids whose hypocrisy is exceeded only by their insecurity and sensitivity to perceived insult. "Entirely inappropriate behavior" is properly applicable to D&K's decision. |
Of course its a subjective statement. How could it be anything else? Can you name a rule or law that isn't? (yes, this could devolve into an extended argument about base philosophy and epistemology, but lets not. I'm not sure I'd be able to adequately participate in such a discussion with you.)
| Oh crap! You want yin and yang conflated! In the first place neither I nor you are talking about a church of anything. The Church of Skepticism is strictly allegorical! I definitely think that a very careful, conscientious driver religiously follows the rules! You define the adverb. I feel it is not colloquial. |
Ah... now we come full circle. The yin and yang are not conflated, but clearly separated. To say that some people practice critical thinking and skepticism religiously is a far cry from saying skepticism is a religion. I have no quarrel with you using "religiously" to describe how the practice is applied.
I am older than dirt! And dirtier than Filthy! But what in the world does that have to do with "a handful of years older than the average for the US"? The average for the US is probably about 37 (Dave?) and I am considerably more than double that. So what's your point? Dude, sometimes you just plain mystify me!
|
My apologies. I was referring to average lifespan. In the US that number is 77. I thought I had left enough of a context clue to indicate that, but apparently not.
| Yes, SIR, mon capitan! Naturally I choose number seven, and as you have, of course, anticipated that, I look forward to your already prepared attack on that choice! |
The problem with #7 is the inclusion of "and faith". It modifies the rest(which would be an accurate description otherwise). I do not accept anything on "faith" (excepting what is needed to avoid solipsism, and even those assumptions are not immune to critical examination), even the practice of skepticism and the use of critical thinking.
| It won't be long, Brian. I am sure that you meet and know hundreds of people in their late seventies and early eighties. It would only be natural for a 37 year old kid. |
and:
| The bran muffins and the condition they address are really inconsequential when compared to lack of mobility, declining sensory apparatus, and absolutely the condition of the dick! It is deplorable. In your worst wet dreams, you cannot imagine the shame, the embarassment that a sensitive, shy, senior like myself endures when he really can't locate it any more! So, whip it out while you can, whippersnapper! |
I am a medical professional who currently lives and works in Florida. So yes, I do have contact with (not quite hundreds) dozens of people in your age category on a regular basis. Try explaining diffusion, dialysis, hormone production, renal failure, heart failure, and infectious disease to your typical 80y/o person. On a daily basis. I do indeed get it.
| jesus, I have been over this so many times, you must have absent from those discussions for as long as they ran (and carried over into other threads) Dude, I would really prefer you go back and reread all that was written in those 27 or 28 pages, and if you still have questions about what I was doing back then, I'll try to repeat what's necessary. |
I did say I skipped that time, from mid/late September to the end of October. I'll go back and read them at some point when I have a little free time.
| Wow! That's pretty scary, all right. It would be even scarier if I knew what button I pushed there! Have you ever looked into anger management, Dude? You did say: "no, I haven't grown" did you not? I took that to mean that you had not grown. And a rock ought to grow in the stimulation soil available here at SFN! |
Context context context. Within the specific context of tolerating the billscotts and jeromes of the world. You implied that tolerating them would be "growth". Staying within your construct I just stated that I have not grown, meaning that I do not have more tolerance for these fools. If we abandon your construct, then I'd argue that true growth with regard to this topic is in the opposite direction. To tolerate the mentality that jerome and billscott exhibit is a limiting factor. We cannot grow intellectually if we are complicit to the spread of ignorance, can we?
| You're too irrational! Seriously, I think it is way too sensitive to be "INSULTED" by a semantic interpretation. When your morality, ethics, essential decency is attacked unfairly, that's insult! |
You have hit the nail on the head! This is EXACTLY what is under attack when people accuse atheists, evolutionists, skeptics, and critical thinkers of being members of a religion. They are accusing us of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Go read the fish fin evolution thread, ceolacanth and billscott take the position that human evolution is an article of faith and a claim made without evidence! They do it so they can cast doubt upon our morality, ethics, honesty, and essential decency. So yes, its gdamn insulting.
| No, I'm sorry, Dude, I unfortunately was being facetious. |
No, really? It was rather obvious.
But I do remain sincere in my statement on grammatical corrections. I'm not asking for lessons or a tutor! Just that if you are not clear on something I have said, and that clarity could be improved by more appropriate usage, punctuation, or grammar, that I would not be offended by honest correction.
Your need for privacy puzzles me! Are you embarassed? I have encountered this strong focus on privacy and PM's before here at SFN.
Is it the eternal embarrassment of youth? Or am I just so encased in the barnacles and calluses of age, that I have lost ALL sensitivity?
I would appreciate your view on this!
|
Yeah, embarrassment plays a part. Also, as you yourself have noted, threads tend to wander pretty damn far off topic sometimes. This may be just me but I also have an admittedly arbitrary aversion to being corrected on grammar in the public arena. Yes, its an odd idiosyncrasy. I have no problems with being openly corrected on things like factual errors. So maybe its just me.
(stupid spelling edit)(maybe some day I can remember to hit my spellchecker before hitting "post") |
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 |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 11/05/2007 19:04:39 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 19:24:41 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer.....
I hardly know how to begin when I talk to programmers! Being somewhat of an ignoramous in matters of computer science, programming almost appears to me to be a Black Art. Oh, I learned early Basic back in my forties, but by the time I got to Fortran (which was the real buzz, back then) my illogical, non-scientific-thinking brain was way over it's competence level. Thus, it became comforting to think of programming as magic and it also comforted my Christian beliefs! (Joke) Anyway, it is nice to have a chat with you. V.Dancer! You say:| No, this is the old Dude. One that the people who have been here a while have missed arguing with of late. One that would call you on the carpet if you didn't fully support your premises and proded[sic] you to defend your assertions completely. Someone you could learn from and could learn from you if you could strongly support your premises. |
Being a neophyte, I was not aware that Dude had been missing in (the) action! Did he fulfil a function such as silencing audacious interlopers like me that other members could not fulfil? I have missed the big picture, due to the fact that I only joined the club in August of this year, and I have been careful not to cause controversy!
I have already learned from Dude; whether he has learned from me, only he can answer. Not much, I would wager, due to the fact that the substance of the thread has been abandoned because of his and my desire to 'showboat", as Marf has so exactly defined it elsewhere!
I gather from your somewhat trenchant remark, that you feel that I am not properly "supporting my premises" What would those premises be, VD? I yearn to learn. From Dude, from you, from anyone. I learned a great deal from Marfknox before she decided I was a "troll" and not to be noticed any longer. Well, my feelings were hurt, but I guess I'll survive. So how can I placate you, VD, with regard to the missing evidence. I certainly hope you're not talking about the matter of the UFO examples are you? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 21:26:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I have missed the big picture... |
In my opinion, the big picture is probably that Valiant Dancer's post was really directed at Dude. And I certainly can't say that I disagree with the sentiment expressed therein. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 21:28:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Valiant Dancer.....
I hardly know how to begin when I talk to programmers! Being somewhat of an ignoramous in matters of computer science, programming almost appears to me to be a Black Art. Oh, I learned early Basic back in my forties, but by the time I got to Fortran (which was the real buzz, back then) my illogical, non-scientific-thinking brain was way over it's competence level. Thus, it became comforting to think of programming as magic and it also comforted my Christian beliefs! (Joke) Anyway, it is nice to have a chat with you. V.Dancer! You say:| No, this is the old Dude. One that the people who have been here a while have missed arguing with of late. One that would call you on the carpet if you didn't fully support your premises and proded[sic] you to defend your assertions completely. Someone you could learn from and could learn from you if you could strongly support your premises. |
Being a neophyte, I was not aware that Dude had been missing in (the) action! Did he fulfil a function such as silencing audacious interlopers like me that other members could not fulfil? I have missed the big picture, due to the fact that I only joined the club in August of this year, and I have been careful not to cause controversy!
I have already learned from Dude; whether he has learned from me, only he can answer. Not much, I would wager, due to the fact that the substance of the thread has been abandoned because of his and my desire to 'showboat", as Marf has so exactly defined it elsewhere!
I gather from your somewhat trenchant remark, that you feel that I am not properly "supporting my premises" What would those premises be, VD? I yearn to learn. From Dude, from you, from anyone. I learned a great deal from Marfknox before she decided I was a "troll" and not to be noticed any longer. Well, my feelings were hurt, but I guess I'll survive. So how can I placate you, VD, with regard to the missing evidence. I certainly hope you're not talking about the matter of the UFO examples are you?
|
So many red herrings, so little time.
1) Point posited was that the argumentation style of Dude was that of someone who had done extensive research into most of the conversations he joined.
2) Dude did not target new posters, he targeted unevidenced assertions made by any person. No such focus on "interlopers". (whatever that might mean. I sense a disturbance in the Force. One I have not felt since latinijral self-martyred.)
3) The focus of my remarks was that Dude would press anyone on lack of support. Snarky remarks aren't evidence. And, no, the comment was describing Dude's argumentation style, not any trenchant commentary on your ability to support your premise. Perhaps it's because I didn't particularly pay attention to the conversation about UFO examples.
4) Your age and computer programming is irrelevant to this conversation.
Your tone suggests that you believe others are picking on you because you're the new kid. I disagree with that assessment. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 23:55:30 [Permalink]
|
Dude #3.....
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 18:56:05 [Permalink]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bngbuck said:
Did the Forum as a whole ever seriously attempt to simply ignore him? The Marfian dialectic? It obviously doesn't work when just one or two members collaborate, but it appears to me that there is considerable cameraderie between the "regulars" - would it not have been possible to simply shut him out?
You can't ignore an average of 22.5 posts per day on this forum. Maybe an overpopulated place like JREF where a dozen posts are logged every minute or so, but not here. We have many people who lurk, registered and unregistered alike, reading what is said here. Many of the regulars feel that these are the audience and that there is an obligation to confront and correct the ignorant so those many people who just stop by to read can have a look at the many issues with some critical thinking and skepticism applied to the conclusions. |
What would your particular opinion (not your guess as to the group's) be of a poster who was erudite, well-informed and well-spoken, and spoke with authority but also in a challenging manner, introducing controversial subjects, and proceeding to defend his views with skill and passion; a poster who played the game fairly, with respect for his opponents personas and positions. A poster, who was the diametric opposite of Jerome in every way except who posted an average of 22-23 posts a day for months on end?| Calling jerome names is irrelevant and immature I'll grant you. But representative of insecurity? No. I'm far from insecure. I am, however, fairly intolerant of people who willfully choose to be ignorant. Jerome was not immediately attacked here. He was given ample opportunity. What is the appropriate response to one of Socrates' cave dwellers who refuses to acknowledge the wider world after he repeatedly ventures into it? |
I clearly side with Plato, sharing the ontological view. But Jerome is a far cry from Plato's version of Socrates' allegorical prisoners in the cave. He has indeed had exposure to the world of thought and reason, he is just in way too much of a hurry to fully participate in that world! So was I in my 30's. I thought I was the smartest sunbich in the whole damn world. Well, butting my head against the world of commerce knocked that idea out of my head quickly. If I wanted money, I had to learn the rules of a whole new game. I did, and earned the time requisite for rentry into the world of ideas. Jerome wants to have his money and his time too. Don't know if it will work.| Of course its a subjective statement. How could it be anything else? Can you name a rule or law that isn't? (yes, this could devolve into an extended argument about base philosophy and epistemology, but lets not. I'm not sure I'd be able to adequately participate in such a discussion with you.) |
I wasn't thinking of the objectivity or subjectivity of the statement, I just think that the words "rude" and "insulting" and "offensive" are indicative of way too much self importance and adolescent insecurity. You succinctly sum it up with your comment about nobody giving a rat's ass. My statement stands. If you don't want to get into an epistemological discussion, that's cool with me. You would do well if you are well grounded. One does not win or lose those kinds of discussions.| Ah... now we come full circle. The yin and yang are not conflated, but clearly separated. To say that some people practice critical thinking and skepticism religiously is a far cry from saying skepticism is a religion. I have no quarrel with you using "religiously" to describe how the practice is applied. |
So to say that some people practice their Catholicism religously is a far cry from saying that Catholicism is a religion? Why is it proper to apply the adverb but not the noun? Is the noun form more descriptive of meaning, of substance, than the adjective or adverb form? I recall from my ancient studies in linguistics that the derivative from the noun carries the same meaning as the noun itself.Context context context. Within the specific context of tolerating the billscotts and jeromes of the world. You implied that tolerating them would be "growth". Staying within your construct I just stated that I have not grown, meaning that I do not have more tolerance for these fools. If we abandon your construct, then I'd argue that true growth with regard to this topic is in the opposite direction. To tolerate the mentality that jerome and billscott exhibit is a limiting factor. We cannot grow intellectually if we are complicit to the spread of ignorance, can we?
|
You originally said:| I have been the very soul of civility, or as close to it as I am capable. |
I then said:| Your restraint is admirable, I know it is difficult and you are to be commended for your growth! |
You replied:You then went on to change the subject to one involving Bill Scott. Since the context had remained one of my commending you for being the soul of civility and having shown growth in that respect and then you commented that you had not grown, going on to mention your feelings about Scott. I saw no connection between "growth" and Scott. You thought that you were using "growth" only in the context of Scott.| You implied that tolerating them would be "growth" |
I did nothing of the sort. You inferred that! It is thus that misunderstandings develop. "For the want of a nail, a shoe is lost....etc"| You have hit the nail on the head! This is EXACTLY what is under attack when people accuse atheists, evolutionists, skeptics, and critical thinkers of being members of a religion. They are accusing us of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Go read the fish fin evolution thread, ceolacanth and billscott take the position that human evolution is an article of faith and a claim made without evidence! They do it so they can cast doubt upon our morality, ethics, honesty, and essential decency. So yes, its gdamn insulting. |
Well, I can see that it is a substantial anger issue with you and I truly do not wish to aggravate you any further. I think that you truly are a little irrational here and perhaps you should take my advice seriously about anger management.| Yeah, embarrassment plays a part. Also, as you yourself have noted, threads tend to wander pretty damn far off topic sometimes. This may be just me but I also have an admittedly arbitrary aversion to being corrected on grammar in the public arena. Yes, its an odd idiosyncrasy. I have no problems with being openly corrected on things like factual errors. So maybe its just me. |
Yes. Don't worry about it Dude, it's okay!
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 11/06/2007 00:44:05 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2007 : 00:26:31 [Permalink]
|
Dave and Valiant dancer.....
VD's response coming minutes after Dave's suggests to me that I did indeed misconstrue VD's intended subject in his post. I probably was thrown off by the quotation from me in the blue box to which VD was referring.
Valiant Dancer....I apologize for misunderstanding the subject to whom your post was directed. With respect to the remarks about my earlier experience and your vocation; I did not realize that they would create a problem for you. I meant them as a conversational gambit only. I shall not repeat this mistake in any further conversations with you. Thank you for calling my attention to this sensitivity.
I do appreciate being called a "kid" in any context, on or off the block. Johnny Carson said "don't say 'old' to an old person". It's delightful to have someone see me in a "kid" aphorism!
I have never felt "picked on" by any or many since joining this forum. Only occasionally misunderstood in both intent and content. Some of that has been my fault, some the fault of others.
I find it risky to assess a person's meaning from the "tone" of their exposition. Almost like armchair psychology.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2007 : 02:51:22 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
| I gather from your somewhat trenchant remark, that you feel that I am not properly "supporting my premises" What would those premises be, VD? I yearn to learn. From Dude, from you, from anyone. I learned a great deal from Marfknox before she decided I was a "troll" and not to be noticed any longer. Well, my feelings were hurt, but I guess I'll survive. So how can I placate you, VD, with regard to the missing evidence. I certainly hope you're not talking about the matter of the UFO examples are you? |
He was aiming that remark at me, and not intending it to be a criticism of you. I think. That was how I read it anyway.
| What would your particular opinion (not your guess as to the group's) be of a poster who was erudite, well-informed and well-spoken, and spoke with authority but also in a challenging manner, introducing controversial subjects, and proceeding to defend his views with skill and passion; a poster who played the game fairly, with respect for his opponents personas and positions. A poster, who was the diametric opposite of Jerome in every way except who posted an average of 22-23 posts a day for months on end? |
Well, if that person was truly well informed and well versed in the requisite skills of logic and critical thinking, who would they be challenging on these boards? The post count/day is not as relevant as the content of those posts. The person you describe would clearly not be here spreading ignorance and misinformation.
| I clearly side with Plato, sharing the ontological view. But Jerome is a far cry from Plato's version of Socrates' allegorical prisoners in the cave. He has indeed had exposure to the world of thought and reason, he is just in way too much of a hurry to fully participate in that world! |
I'm not sure we have said different things here. I agree that jerome has had exposure to thought and reason, he appears unwilling to adapt though. In his time here he maintained a state of willful ignorance that is difficult to match. Which is not to say that it can't be matched, or even surpassed... because there have been several here who outshine even jerome in the realm of willful ignorance. Interestingly not many of them have been banned. Only the ones who combine their native stupidity with trolling, threatening, slanderous, or plagiarist behaviors (and the like) have been banned. Billscott, for example, and the venerable verlch(who has not graced us with his presence in quite some time... which means he is probably taking his meds as ordered again), still retain posting rights even though jerome looks intelligent next to them.
| So to say that some people practice their Catholicism religously is a far cry from saying that Catholicism is a religion? Why is it proper to apply the adverb but not the noun? Is the noun form more descriptive of meaning, of substance, than the adjective or adverb form? I recall from my ancient studies in linguistics that the derivative from the noun carries the same meaning as the noun itself. |
Why do you insist on doing this? There is no definition of religion that does not involve something that is incompatible with skepticism. Deities, faith, and so on. Skepticism is about evidence, religion is about the absence of evidence and belief regardless.
Religious, in addition to definitions that imply the opposite of skepticism, also has simple definitions that don't carry those things. It is also a synonym for ardent, scrupulous, conscientious, exact or devout! The etymology of the word is a description of the behavior of those who practice religion. You go to church every sunday, you attend religiously. You brush your teeth twice a day, you brush religiously.
See, what you are doing here is trying to subtly alter context. It is a rather dishonest thing to do. Some find it acceptable for political rhetoric or hyperbole, but when carried out in this type of setting it is nothing but an informal fallacy. One of the family of Ignoratio Elenchi to narrow it down. I'm sure you can pinpoint the specifics since you are its author.
This is, again, the reason I had asked you if you were just here to troll (think of another word/phrase if you don't think "troll" is precisely defined enough for this use, maybe "to be a dick" would work?). It bends probability to the point of breaking that you are not doing this intentionally.
So let me summarize this thread for you: You toss off a salted jab that you know will be taken as deeply insulting, but you meant for it to sting a bit (hence the salt). You are called on it, then you flip the discussion into one of semantics to throw the dogs off your trail. You repeat the same tactics again and again, each time a little less obviously than before, hoping to shake off the pursuit.
| I did nothing of the sort. You inferred that! It is thus that misunderstandings develop. |
It was a derived consequence of your stated premises, so yes, I inferred it. But regardless of your intent, you implied it. This happens when one resorts to allegory and simile for the purposes of argument and subtle insult. My lack of civility here in recent seasons has more to do with willful ignorance on the part of alleged skeptics (or maybe my inability to effectively communicate the obvious to them), and dealing with them when they resort to intentional argumentive fallacy in the hopes of confounding others and "winning" an argument, than anything else. I have no tolerance for those who choose to remain ignorant instead of attempting to educate themselves, and less for those who actively engage in deliberate deceit, especially those who would cry foul if others did the same to them.
| Well, I can see that it is a substantial anger issue with you and I truly do not wish to aggravate you any further. I think that you truly are a little irrational here and perhaps you should take my advice seriously about anger management. |
Buck up old timer! If the only way you can ingraciously extract yourself from the tangle you have created is by pointing at me and shouting "LOOK AT HIM! NOTHING TO SEE OVER HERE!" while you slide out the stage entrance, I'm ok with that.
Put the word "Glenmorangie" in your favorite internet search engine. Go on down to your local purveyor of spirits and purchase a bottle. I recommend the original or the 25 year old bottle (if you can find it). Amazing stuff. Pour some into the appropriate size glass, add nothing else. No ice, no water, no anything at all. (refrigerate the bottle if you like, it isn't bad chilled, better at room temp though, imo) Sit back and enjoy.
When you regain your composure please feel free to continue.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2007 : 06:56:22 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: | So to say that some people practice their Catholicism religously is a far cry from saying that Catholicism is a religion? Why is it proper to apply the adverb but not the noun? |
Because they can and are often used differently and therefore the different uses have different meanings:
Not all Catholics practice Catholicism religiously. If we take this sentence to have meaning, that is, if we interpret the meaning of "religiously" in a way that doesn't make this sentence seem totally absurd, this would describe people who aren't especially consistent or passionate in their faith and/or practice of the religion of Catholicism but who still identify as Catholic.
While skepticism is not a religion, Michael Shermer practices it religiously. Again, this sentence is not an absurdity. If the words or interpreted as they are intended, the meaning is simply that Shermer makes skepticism an integral part of his worldview and daily practice. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 11/06/2007 06:57:42 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 11/06/2007 : 08:54:26 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
So to say that some people practice their Catholicism religously is a far cry from saying that Catholicism is a religion? |
Dude:
Religious, in addition to definitions that imply the opposite of skepticism, also has simple definitions that don't carry those things. It is also a synonym for ardent, scrupulous, conscientious, exact or devout! The etymology of the word is a description of the behavior of those who practice religion. You go to church every sunday, you attend religiously. You brush your teeth twice a day, you brush religiously. |
Marf:
Because they can and are often used differently and therefore the different uses have different meanings… |
Hey Bill, what do you think this is, a high school debating class? You knew as you put fingers to keyboard that your argument was baloney. And you also knew that you would be caught. I'll give you a seven out of ten for your use of a debating tactic that just might have confounded some 11th graders. That still leaves me wondering why you would use such a transparent tactic here? Is it that it pleases you to get some pretty sharp cookies to actually rise to the occasion and point out your mistake? You threw out the bait and you got some bites. Hmmmm…
Hey Bill, I Am the Very Model of a Skeptic Evangelical. Evangelical? Have fun with that one…
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2007 : 14:02:17 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
I'm pleased to see you have calmed down a bit. When the affect level of a post begins to confound it's rationality, I do feel a time out is in order. What you wrote late last night seems largely sensible. I hope you find time occasionally for sleep.| He was aiming that remark at me, and not intending it to be a criticism of you. I think. That was how I read it anyway. |
Yes, I was distracted by his reference to my quote included in his post. Dave and VD both pointed that out to me.| Well, if that person was truly well informed and well versed in the requisite skills of logic and critical thinking, who would they be challenging on these boards? The post count/day is not as relevant as the content of those posts. The person you describe would clearly not be here spreading ignorance and misinformation. |
Whom would they be challenging? Many, I think! Do you mean that a well equipped critical thinker cannot possibly raise a response from any of the erudite here? Pardon me, but I see it every day! What am I missing? The implication of your statement is that the only purpose of controversy in the SFN forums is to shoot down the Jeromes of the world!| I'm not sure we have said different things here. I agree that jerome has had exposure to thought and reason, he appears unwilling to adapt though. In his time here he maintained a state of willful ignorance that is difficult to match. Which is not to say that it can't be matched, or even surpassed... because there have been several here who outshine even jerome in the realm of willful ignorance. Interestingly not many of them have been banned. Only the ones who combine their native stupidity with trolling, threatening, slanderous, or plagiarist behaviors (and the like) have been banned. Billscott, for example, and the venerable verlch(who has not graced us with his presence in quite some time... which means he is probably taking his meds as ordered again), still retain posting rights even though jerome looks intelligent next to them. |
Yeah, well I'm becoming surer and surer that the troll-extermination business is an extremely inexact science. Perhaps an art-form! Marf might want to comment, as I see below that I am currently being recognized! Oh frabju....oh, never mind! I am beginning that I have somehow missed a real delectation in the oft-mentioned BillScott! Bill, are you there? Let's talk some time! Anyway, Dude, I would like to engage you sometime with respect to the well-known Platonic trilogy to which you lightly alluded. I have had a lot of fun in those halls of the mountain king!So to say that some people practice their Catholicism religously is a far cry from saying that Catholicism is a religion? Why is it proper to apply the adverb but not the noun? Is the noun form more descriptive of meaning, of substance, than the adjective or adverb form? I recall from my ancient studies in linguistics that the derivative from the noun carries the same meaning as the noun itself.
Why do you insist on doing this? |
Oh Dude, come on! Why do you insist on responding? I understand your feeling that winning is not the important thing, it is the only thing, but listen up. There is literally no end possible to this part of this discussion. I see many abstract belief systems taken as "religions" by those that follow the necessary protocol of the system in question. You need to see the word "religion" in a highly specificly defined context. We have both given numerous examples of our particular biases in this regard. It is to no purpose to continue this semantic quibbling endlessly!
I have offered to modify my adamant position (with respect to conversations with you) to this: I see similarities in the general organization of the precepts of the disciplines known as Skepticism and Critical Thinking, to the organization of many of the concept systems collectively known as Religion. Obviously, the precepts and constucts mentioned are starkly different and sometimes directly opposed to each other! You apparently find this emotionally disturbing, offensive and insulting. I can't do anything about that. I am sorry that you do, because anger is a debilitating mind-state. However, I am nonplussed at this point.| This is, again, the reason I had asked you if you were just here to troll (think of another word/phrase if you don't think "troll" is precisely defined enough for this use, maybe "to be a dick" would work?). It bends probability to the point of breaking that you are not doing this intentionally |
Placing the word "dick" in an adjacent sentence to one concerned with "bending to the breaking point" makes it rather painful to answer, but with a little squirming, I'll try! Now that I have received at least temporary absolution from trolldom from the Illuminati, I feel confident in stating that I am not one of the dreaded creatures, even if those with either an agenda or an aggravation say that they see one! Intentionally? To the degree that my brain controls my fingers! | So let me summarize this thread for you: You toss off a salted jab that you know will be taken as deeply insulting, but you meant for it to sting a bit (hence the salt). You are called on it, then you flip the discussion into one of semantics to throw the dogs off your trail. You repeat the same tactics again and again, each time a little less obviously than before, hoping to shake off the pursuit. |
You should take time off from your medical duties to pursue scriptwriting. Fiction. '24' or the like. Lots of action and hot pursuit. I love the image of you (you sons of a bitch) gloriously and doggedly chasing the malevolent, edged-potato-chip tosser, waving his spatula, ignoring his ringing cellphone, and slowly but surely losing the chase to the valiant pursuers, you!! Well, Dude, if that's what props your self-image, you have a talent for self aggrandizement! As long as you continue to insist that your pronunciation of 'Tomato" is superior to my pronunciation of "tomato", there will be an endless chase, allright, except that it will be circular and each in opposite directions simultaneously! I flatly refuse to abandon my right to use the word "Religion" in a broader context than you care to use the word. If you wish to perceive that as a "capture" in your pursuit scenario, you are indeed welcome to do so. Bulldog or not, you're going to have to let go of this one!| My lack of civility here in recent seasons has more to do with willful ignorance on the part of alleged skeptics (or maybe my inability to effectively communicate the obvious to them), and dealing with them when they resort to intentional argumentive fallacy in the hopes of confounding others and "winning" an argument, than anything else. I have no tolerance for those who choose to remain ignorant instead of attempting to educate themselves, and less for those who actively engage in deliberate deceit, especially those who would cry foul if others did the same to them. |
Is the lack of civility that you have referred to related in some way to Valiant Dancer's (and Dave's) allusion to your absence? I have only been in the forum since August, and I am unaware of this history.| Buck up old timer! If the only way you can ingraciously extract yourself from the tangle you have created is by pointing at me and shouting "LOOK AT HIM! NOTHING TO SEE OVER HERE!" while you slide out the stage entrance, I'm ok with that. |
Would but that I could with my crude card tricks be on a stage and amaze thousands with the grand illusion of the man who hasn't got it all together, not even being there! It would be Grand Magic!
Yeh, Bucking up is what I do, just as you do dudelling! Tangle, indeed. The intricate confusion of your offering endless word authority definitions of your own special dogmatic terms, and then refusing to accept my choice of definition, even though your choice is, of course, mandatory for me; coupled with your persistent refusals to accept my substitution of "similar to" for "IS" with respect to skepticism seen as a "religion"; is not only convoluted, it is childishly bull-headed. I WILL use the the language as I have successfully for more years than you have been alive, and I am quite confident that my readers will continue to understand me well, even when I refer to Skepticism as similar to many Religions. Now stamp your foot and have a tantrum if you must, but I know the end of reason when I see it! If you can persuade more readers with your book than I can with mine, let's continue this contest into the real marketplace!| Put the word "Glenmorangie" in your favorite internet search engine. Go on down to your local purveyor of spirits and purchase a bottle. I recommend the original or the 25 year old bottle (if you can find it). Amazing stuff. Pour some into the appropriate size glass, add nothing else. No ice, no water, no anything at all. (refrigerate the bottle if you like, it isn't bad chilled, better at room temp though, imo) Sit back and enjoy. |
If you like single-malt, you should try Yoichi. I have treasured Scotch for years, and when in Tokyo a few years ago my host offered me Yoichi. I was surprised. You can probably find it in any metropolitan market in Florida. Yoichi has an excellent 20 year old! Competitor Yamakazi has a 25 - I had one bottle, good, but I prefer the Yoichi! Glenmorangie or Yoichi, they are both great composure regaining aids, if that is what you need.
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2007 : 14:34:21 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
Well, Marf's back. And Dude doesn't seem to be the Very Model of a Modern Major Hand-Grenade any more.
Oh what a tangled net we retreive, when first we practice to perceive!
Major apologies to Sir Walter Scott and:
The Trolls Handbook!
Good work on the Gilbert and Sullivan! I could listen to G&S until I had to get on a jet and go to the jolly old motherland! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Suicide Bombing - AAI
