Sheshbazzar

Yes Chili, but it was for the writing of EL that Bingo the Clown-o wished to me banned,
so the Is-ra-el simply would not have worked.

Still waiting to see if I will get banned for not spelling here the way that the Clown-o wants me too.

TedM

I agree. Keep the 'out of box' theories coming! But, the issue is how do we allow such open discussion without them dominating the threads so much that those with great knowledge just can't take it anymore, and leave or severely limit their own postings? Creative thinking does not equal quality thinking.

The fact is that agenda-driven posters are also inclined to post repeatedly and frequently. This is why I favor limits on posting frequency. The ignore button has failed and will always fail for the forum as a whole. I threw out the idea of a limit of '5' a day, but any number can be chosen. 10 or 20..

Iskander

You are right .They want to be admired for their repetitive rambling about kurios, useless pedantic attempts to teach history, incoherent nothings about marcion,... while insulting other posters like drunken cardinals.

joedad

I'm not a huge fan of splitting out new forums but BCH might be a place to do that. Maybe Academic and non academic. This doesn't mean non academics couldn't post along with the academics of course, but the distinction between forums would make the intent of the discussion obvious.

And I remember the old days as wonderful. But then I used to think Mod Squad was a decent show back in the day too.

I'm a lurker here these days. And thumbs up to Toto!

stephan huller

You know Toto I rarely ask you to remove a post. I think you are a great moderator. I hate being a crybaby. But if I might have asked to split one post there comes the next stupid comment and then the next. Maybe it starts with one poster. Then another and another. The problem is that it is simply relentless. Wave after wave of repetitious comments and familiar statements. It just seems unmanly to complain that 'people are being unfair.' Maybe it is my Canadian upbringing but that British 'stiff upper lip' thing is still there.

Let's be honest here. I think there are less than ten posters (and that's being generous) who are familiar with enough material to say anything worthwhile here. Then there are about ten or twenty posters (and that's even being more generous) whose comments are generally tolerable and then the rest who should be locked in the basement [Edit].

stephan huller

The point is that too many people have inflexible opinions about what is true. This comes from insecurity and the secret knowledge that they really have not reading enough material to justify having an opinion that stands a million miles from acknowledged experts who have read a lot of source material. I am only inflexible about what can't possibly work. I am actually quite open to any suggestion. It is when people who haven't read enough material to justify a claim argue against the evidence by pretending to find some justification for ignoring it. That's extremely annoying. It's also irrational and seemingly against the spirit of a forum that has 'ratio' in its name.

Sheshbazzar

On Thankfully I never employ the term "horseshit".


As I am much more particular with my translation of the words that I am drawing from the Hebrew texts.
Which in every case where you have ever seen me write "horse shit" were an English translation and expression of the TWO separate Hebrew words סוס and דמן being in Hebrew construct הסוס דמן׃. "h'sooce domen" (sound that out )
Now סוס 'sooce' is the Hebrew singular for 'horse'. It is used frequently in Hebrew prophecy and poetry where it takes on a metaphorical sense. (you may look it up and confirm these things for yourself)
And דמן 'domen' is one of the Hebrew words signifying 'dung' -but it is a very particular kind of 'dung' not just any old cattle or human 'dung'. (you may look this up and confirm it for yourself)

So I am putting the Hebrew phrase הסוס דמן׃ into present everyday common English.
As such it is not simply a Tourette's ejaculation but rather an acute assessment of where the forgoing material originated, and of its quality.
The archaic word 'dung' now hardly being employed by English speakers outside of the mealy-mouthed when on the inside of a church reading from old King James's Book. They step outside and shit replaces the dung.

The word 'dung' has many English synonyms, I won't list them all, but not one of them is really any better than any other in spite of the circumlocutions and gymnatics people employ to say 'shit' in a less 'offensive' way.

A shovel is a shovel and shit is shit no matter what else you may choose to call it. I still have to shovel through shit.

Some people are entirely too full of themselves, and are hence full of הסוס דמן׃

tanya

As usual, Shesh hits the nail on the head. Well written, sir. I salute you.

:notworthy:

I will endeavor to be honest, though my natural tendency is hyperbolic.

Let me begin then, since I must be honest, by correcting this egregious error of English:

My doctorates are not in English, so anyone who wishes to offer criticism of this supposed correction is welcome to repudiate me. I find Stephan's submissions to the forum to be:

a. juvenile

b. inadequately documented;

c. invariably linked to some nonsensical sexual innuendo;

d. often completely illogical.

Why in the world would he then be placed on some sort of "supercomittee", in order to determine eligibility, to submit thoughts to the newly established, rigorous, authentic forum?

I invite forum members to investigate, for example, the last twenty threads started by Stephan Huller (or the first twenty, as you wish). You will learn the following:

a. MOST, not all, but most of the submissions to a Stephan Huller thread, originate from the quill of Stephan Huller, himself;

b. IN GENERAL, not always, one will find off topic comments, frequently directed to one or another forum member, inappropriately;

c. In GENERAL, one will observe that Stephan IGNORES comments critical of his methods, his sources, or his conclusions. He generally replies to a handful of forum members only, even when the comment/criticism is focused, meaningful, and relevant to the topic of his thread.

d. In General, not every time, but usually, Stephan ignores the person's name, when quoting the individual. This gives rise to needless confusion.

I am opposed to creating the new superforum, for special folks, with special skills, and special talents, people like Stephan Huller.

I have no objection to Stephan's suggestion that the author of a thread, in this case, Stephan, ought to have the right to prevent me, or anyone else, from replying to his/her thread.

If I find time to finish my investigation, and thus submit to the forum my own research, I will most certainly welcome comments by Stephan, or anyone else, without reservation. I sympathize with Toto's plight, it is not easy to distinguish unorthodox commentary/criticism from simple rudeness, but I think she has done a great job, and I tip my hat to her. I doubt that the forum could be improved by limiting access to comments on particular threads, but, I am willing to volunteer to cease writing to this forum, temporarily, or permanently, as the forum wishes, if in the opinion of a simple majority, my comments are viewed as unproductive, unwelcome, or a simple waste of bandwidth....

I will cease writing anything further, until such time as my status as accepted forum member has been openly acknowledged. It may well be, that my departure from the forum will suffice to elevate the stature of this forum. You know what they say, about folks emigrating from Texas to Oklahoma: raises the IQ in both states.

:wave:

stephan huller

bye vid. see you back in another incarnation soon

Horatio Parker

Aside from the quality of Stephan's posts, on which I reserve judgement, this is a very good point.

It seems problematic to me to have posters also acting as moderators.