John the Atheist

John, the use of "weasel words" that triggered this whole mess was unjustified.

If you wanted to lock the topic out without pointing the finger, fine, no problem. I realize moderators and administrators job isn’t easy by any means, that’s for sure. But if Nomad hadn’t created the strawman that Meta didn’t have enough sense to recognize, it wouldn‘t have got triggered in the first place. But nor would Nomad be to blame for Meta’s behavior any more so than I. Anyway, I didn’t spend 45 minutes making this post to Meta for nothing, so leave this one the da hell alone. Meta can respond to it if he wants, and hell, I’ll make it easy for you. He can have the last word; I‘ll make this my last post. Since this is an indicator of how much backwards we have to lean over to appease theists; and I have to be ever so careful with phrases such as “weasel words” to keep someone from having a fit; then, it wasn’t my place to begin with.

To Meta:


I wasn't concerned with any of that. I was concerned with the fack that you seemed to be mocking my views and I doubt that you know what they are (sure enough you have demonstrated that you aren't capable of understanding them anyway).

Personally, I don’t recall from what little posts I’ve read from you writing to others where you‘ve actually followed the dialogue for very long, without having temper tantrums, anyway. Does your dyslexia often cause you to not to follow the board as well too? Is the dyslexia also responsible for temper tantrums? But oh no, this inerrancy thing with you is so complex that it’s going to take an entire book just to grasp your end of it. I’m sure it’s entertaining as hell, Meta, and would just probably keep me at the edge of my seat, but I’ll pass. Besides, Polycarp already addressed you and Bede’s position, so I concentrated on Nomad. I’ll explain one part of this, but I seriously doubt it will do you any good. You can’t blame dyslexia for everything, Meta. When you didn’t follow this first part well, I kind of lost interest in much you had to say. It wrecks the board even more when one has to go back and point out the pertinent parts that everybody else followed. I asked Polycarp a question which was this:

But have you ever seen any of the apologists ever acknowledge any that were offered up without putting weasel words in? How about MetaCrock, Nomad, or Bede?

That’s the only time your name was ever brought up. I haven’t spent as much time reading your posts or Bede’s, compared to being on a handful of topics with Nomad’s, which again, was why it was formed as a question. I wanted to see if any were taking to any notion of inerrancy of any kind whatsoever. After getting a response from Polycarp, he stated and made it clear that you and Bede both were more liberal than Nomad. That ended that discussion completely especially with the quotes and links provided. So I concentrated on Nomad, but Nomad who always enjoys making a good strawman, took this one question from me and somehow managed to come out with all of this of which you gullibly took the bait:

P.S. To call Meta a fundamentalist, or an inerrantist, is simply laughable.

Does your dyslexia prevent you from seeing the strawman too? If it does, you need a new hobby. Nomad went on further on to say with that one question I asked how did I ever form these opinions about him, me, or Bede in the first place?

Since when do questions qualify about opinions being formed? I made it even more clear by stating:

I have not called Meta or Bede an inerrant. Don’t bother to come up of quotes with me stating such because I haven’t. I asked a question.

You still didn’t get it, and even stated that I was the one making the error. You never followed any of this. You took the bait, with Nomad’s post, not paying attention thus far as to me asking it as a question, and decided to run with it Seriously, what kind of phuqking crap is that? I doubt dyslexia is your main problem. Nor am I really interested in any of your personal problems when someone has a shitty disposition as yours. If your anger causes more mistakes, I guess to use a little common sense and run it through the spell-checker is out of the question too. Or does the dyslexia cause this to be a problem too, and prevent it from at least making it a little more readable. Is that broke too? Does dyslexia affect your judgment? It can‘t be responsible for all of this slop you send out.

I didn't go to an apologetic school you idiot. liberal don't do apologetics.

Okay, no apologetic school, but damn, you‘re pathetic! If you want somebody to not laugh out loud while insulting them, it would really be important to pay special then. Otherwise, it sort of loses its touch. But maybe some will feel sorry for you, and you’ll get the sympathy vote. I doubt Bede would be considered a conservative apologist after attending Oxford. I’m sure there are variations of apologists that run with conservative, moderate, liberal, just as there are over 30,000 different Protestant denominations of Christianity. So I wouldn’t agree that some apologists wouldn’t describe themselves as liberal, although I too, think it would be a rare bird, I‘m sure there are plenty out there. I made the Ezra/Neh’ pericopes topic for many reasons. One was to show that many believers, even those that don’t even identify with fundamentalist, or maybe not even inerrant; will often fight you tooth and nail over every single one of these presumed contradictions.

John

Toto

John - if you leave this Board because the other thread was closed, the terrorists will have won.

Vorkosigan

If you wanted to lock the topic out without pointing the finger, fine, no problem. I realize moderators and administrators job isn’t easy by any means, that’s for sure. But if Nomad hadn’t created the strawman that Meta didn’t have enough sense to recognize, it wouldn‘t have got triggered in the first place.

Thanks for your input. I hope you stick around.

Michael

Photocrat

Terrorists?

Toto

Oh, lighten up, Lord of Light. (I've been waiting to say that.) It was a joke.

Metacrock

Meta =>If I made statements as irresponsibly as you do, I would try to cover them up with unfair charactorizations too. you are the one who began the instuling tone. you even began by saying things that seemed to mock my views and as it turns out you even admit you didn't even know what my view was. I just said I was not concerened with the original argument. I couldn't care less about the thing is the oringinal post. Yet here you are like an adolencent haping on my not following that. I didn't follow it becuase I don't a flying you know what about it! So yea, I didn't follow it. and if I had my life to do over i still wouldn't follow it, cause I don't bloody care!


Meta =>I doubt if a book would help you follow it. I think its one of those things that would be easy if you have a background in college education and can follow some complex lines of thoguht. But it would probably take a whole college education to get you to the point where you could listen without making fun of big words you can't pronounce.


Meta =>right, now that makes of lot of sense. First you mock my spelling, when I respond on that in particular (blaming dyxlexia for everything? It's an explaination about spelling) then you pull this childish line and try to make it sound like I'm using that justify all my short comings. Just grow up. Why can't you just learn to discuss ideas like an adult?

Meta ->so if you lost interest why are you writting this? Why don't you just not include me in your little tirades and not talking about things you don't understand then I wont feel the need to get invovled in your threads?

But have you ever seen any of the apologists ever acknowledge any that were offered up without putting weasel words in? How about MetaCrock, Nomad, or Bede?


Meta =>now here's a queistion. The thing that made me respond was a statment to the effect that "yea calling Meta a fundie is a laugh" (and I said yea it is cause I'm not a fundie). Now you claim not to know anything about my views, but you knew enough to laugh at my view of inerrency, so what's the deal?


Meta =>Yes so I decided after saying I wasn't a fundie to inform you of my views, and linked to my page and that set you off. You began saying it was nothing and stupid and how idiotic they were and so forth, totally unprovoked. I said nothing in those original posts that any rational person could construe as an insult. You kept saying I used "wesal words" but wouldn't say which ones.

Meta =>I think that is a true statment, it's not exactly insulting, but it has an insulting tone given the overall context. However, I don't see why my pointing out that I am not a fundie should set you off like it did.

Meta =>I still don't see where your sense of anger is coming from, that is the anger that lead to the insuliting attacks in the response to my link.

You still didn’t get it, and even stated that I was the one making the error.


Meta =>O get it. Saying that you made an error that set you off. You don't make errors, if someone thinks you made an error then he must be no good right? you are free of errors and anyone who doesn't see that is just an evil idoit right?

Meta =>So you admit that you're just baiting people? And you think that is fair? You think that makes you look mature?


Meta =>no i never said it was my main problem. But i bet you think that spelling = intelligence right? See my main problem is intelligent and loving thought and living a world or reactionary people who are extremely ignorant and very pround of their ignorance, who hate thought.. that's my main problem.

Meta => WEll I guess you just don't have any legs because you are stupid. Or does your problem with not having legs affect you ability to think. Run dman you! Get up and run this no legs thing is just an excuse. They have go carts and electric wheel chairs for people without legs so why can't you be a track star! Run damn you! you legless people make me sick!


I didn't go to an apologetic school you idiot. liberal don't do apologetics.


Meta =>apaloia, hipotzugion. Apaloia apaloia apoloia. tre bete!


My God you are so childish. Why did you put this up here. It's clelary not going to change anything. Just more mindless insults aimed at keeping the pot boiling. What in the hell other than just to continue hostilities do you think this will accomplish. Now I agreed not call names and stuff anymore, and here you are just keeping it going. That is childish, imature, irrepsonible, and demonstrates that you have no concept of good will. you have no good will.

Muad'Dib

That's enough, people. I'm locking this thread down. Let's consider this the end of it.