Step in to assist? LOL. Must be tough love!

Moderator:

Next Moderator:

Next Moderator:

Next Moderator:

(Charge never substantiated).

This is SecWeb Moderator assistance? Please master, may I have another beating?

Now Mike, why is it a reading problem if I don't frequent discussion boards that are of no interest to me? Isn't this just another personal insult that James Still has recently spoken out against?

But you say some corrections have been made recently. Just this week, eh? That would place it after Nomad posted this question and a week after the initial rebuke of Nomad. In other forums you say? But not in this one?

Well, I must say that the facts that atheists are being called on it in some other forums, while the atheists in this forum can hint at physical violence and throw out disparaging comments and generally say "fuck em" to us theists without a word of rebuke, is of some comfort.

Not much. But some.

Thanks Michael. I happen to agree that some were overstating their concern about my being rough on them. At the same time, I did want to point out to them that there is a tradition within apologetics that is less than gentle on the sceptics. They might not have known this.

Umm... what exactly has rodahi done on this board to fix things up again?

And I keep asking you what the standard is on this board, and keep hearing deafening silence. Will you address this question or not? After all, it was the original question on the thread.

By this you mean that you do not understand his argument, of course (since he hasn't offered one beyond a bold appeal to authority). At the same time, I am making a note of the new acceptance of this tactic by the sceptical community on this board, and will pursue this question further on another thread.

Nomad

On the contrary, I understand both Rodahi's argument and yours, and have concluded that Rodahi does not need me.

Michael

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me get this straight. Nomad asks a question to one moderator, he's on vacation, other moderators step in to assist, and you complain?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step in to assist? LOL. Must be tough love!

Moderator:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comment is the epitome of unintended irony.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is my quote. I stick by it completely.

rodahi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by turtonm:
Nomad: P.S. If the sceptics think that I am too rough on them, they should read St. Jerome and St. Augustine. They weren't big on suffering fools gladly (or easily) either.

Michael: This is rough? LOL!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Thanks Michael. I happen to agree that some were overstating their concern about my being rough on them. At the same time, I did want to point out to them that there is a tradition within apologetics that is less than gentle on the sceptics. They might not have known this.

So, Nomad, are your snide remarks, name-calling, and other equally obnoxious tactics inspired by Yahweh?

rodahi

Rod,

I wasn't criticizing you. I just didn't think it was fair to characterize it as "stepping in to assist" Nomad.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for Kim, Rodahi is doing a fine job. I'll defer to him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: By this you mean that you do not understand his argument, of course (since he hasn't offered one beyond a bold appeal to authority).

No, Nomad, he DOES understand my argument. He can see the absurdity of yours. What have you offered as evidence besides a rehashing of Daniel Wallace's (a person who REJECTS Kim's dating of P46) commentary on Kim's dating? ANSWER: Nothing.

Nomad: At the same time, I am making a note of the new acceptance of this tactic by the sceptical community on this board, and will pursue this question further on another thread.

You admit to using "apologetic" tactics to inflame those who don't agree with you, Nomad. You have no grounds for complaining.

rodahi

I am going to clear the air, from my perspective.

Layman, I have no quarrel with you. Nor do I bear any animosity. You and I simply disagree on many issues. That is not a problem for me, and I think it is not a problem for you. (Just about my whole family are Southern Baptists, so I know how to get along with, and love, people I don't agree with.) As far as I am concerned, you have been fair and civil in OUR discussions for a good while now. I appreciate and respect that. I would like to think we can continue to treat each other with some degree of mutual respect in our discussions and debate.

Also, I wish to state publicly that I consider Michael a friend. He has been of great help to me since I have been here. I know him to be a gentleman and a scholar.

John the Atheist (a fellow Texan) is another friend. I wish he would come back and contribute to this board again. I miss him.

rodahi

I agree that we have maintained a civil tone to our discussions. I especially appreciated your handling of SecWebLurker's inadvertant "banning." I believe that we can maintain a civil tone to our discussions.

And, for the record, Brian (Nomad), is my friend and I have a rather high opinion of him.

Doubtless from time to time we may defend our friends if we perceive them to be mistreated or misrepresented. Nevertheless, barring extreme situations, the maintenance of a civil tone between the two of us should not be, and in my mind is not, contingent on the maintenance of such a tone with each other's friends.

Fair enough.

Ron