18 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNone of that tells me if he is responsive to the ideas of others in real-time, which is needed for a worthwhile discussion.
Human beings think with words. Thought is dependent on the words in our vocabularies. Our communications in an online forum are the sum and substance of our individual styles of expression, thought, conscience, decisions and character. My net impression: Herb14 come across as honest, thoughtful, informed, relaxed in his own skin and at home with any topic.
Originally posted by SwissGambit"Herb14 come across as honest, thoughtful, informed, relaxed in his own skin and at home with any topic." These qualities seem to suggest that "he is responsive to the ideas of others in real-time, which is needed for a worthwhile discussion."
None of that tells me if he is responsive to the ideas of others in real-time, which is needed for a worthwhile discussion.
Note: "About Herb Silverman is founder and President Emeritus of the Secular Coalition for America, author of “Candidate Without a Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt,” and Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the College of Charleston." Certainly has the academic credentials and appears to be intellectually honest.
18 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyPfft, he had you with the Distinguinshments and Academic Credentials. You don't actually care whether he's responsive to the ideas of others because you do not care about responsiveness to ideas in general.
"Herb14 come across as honest, thoughtful, informed, relaxed in his own skin and at home with any topic." These qualities seem to suggest that "he is responsive to the ideas of others in real-time, which is needed for a worthwhile discussion."
Note: "About Herb Silverman is founder and President Emeritus of the Secular Coalition for America, a ...[text shortened]... of Charleston." Certainly has the academic credentials and appears to be intellectually honest.
To you, it's only the credentials that matter.
18 Apr 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitHardly. Character qualities were suggested: you rejected them. Academic credentials were suggested: you rejected them. Please spell out the actual criteria you view yourself as measuring up to and would like to see in others. Thanks.
Pfft, he had you with the Distinguinshments and Academic Credentials. You don't actually care whether he's responsive to the ideas of others because you do not care about responsiveness to ideas in general.
To you, it's only the credentials that matter.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyOh, look, now it's suddenly about me. Where'd Herb go? 😵
Hardly. Character qualities were suggested: you rejected them. Academic credentials were suggested: you rejected them. Please spell out the actual criteria you view yourself as measuring up to and would like to see in others. Thanks.
The criteria for being good at debate is simple: an example or two of holding one's own in a debate.
18 Apr 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitOriginally posted by Grampy Bobby
Oh, look, now it's suddenly about me. Where'd Herb go? 😵
The criteria for being good at debate is simple: an example or two of holding one's own in a debate.
SG, do you think Red Hot Pawn's new member, Herb14, would focus on topics objectively and pose thoughtful questions in search of answers in sync with truth or would the Noobie rant with a rehearsed agenda of questions he was dying to refute?
SG, why does a simple question concerning a fictional site member's probable behaviour on this forum elicit such evasive personal reaction from you? Are you that insecure? Is peer approval the online food you live for since your recantation? If so, please accept my apology for pursuing a definitive reply. If not, is "being good at debate" the only acid criteria?
19 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFWhy don't you try another run at that and see if you can come up with a cogent question which relates to the topic at hand.
Do you think a copy pasted text that is text from people who are theists talking straw manly about what they claim atheists think is exactly the same as a text by atheists talking about what atheists think, is offered in 'good faith' debating terms? It seems unlikely to me.
19 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFIt is not I who avoids, but you.
Avoidance? The question I asked [on the previous page] was completely on-topic. Somehow, I think you're just not going to answer it. 🙂
I pointed out an obviously true observation, one which is easily verified using the slightest of effort.
Namely, when GB cuts and pastes articles in support of his position, he is denounced for the activity of cutting and pasting--- all the more egregious because he (allegedly) isn't contributing any analysis of his own.
Here, however, he follows his exact same MO of cutting and pasting, with the only difference being the content.
Miracle of miracles, instead of denouncing the effort, someone actually admits to not only reading the content but shows they considered it enough to agree with the content.
What you have added is superfluous and distracting to that point, which demonstrates your decision to avoid addressing the topic at hand.
19 Apr 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think Grampy Bobby's long copy pastes and then his characteristic refusal to discuss them properly is ineffective, and I have mentioned it to him several times, as have others. His Modus Operandi more often than not is to post clumsy 'confirmation bias' material that is written by theists who claim atheists actually believe in God, or fear God, or hate God, blah blah etc. etc. and a whole host of other silly self-boosting straw men superimpositions, and this 'trolling' element of his Modus Operandi has been pointed out to him. While I am nonplussed by yet another copy paste OP from him, on this occasion he seems to have dropped the 'trolling' element'. I suppose it's welcome in a way. But I am not yet convinced that Grampy Bobby's professed interest in 'understanding atheists' is sincere.
It is not I who avoids, but you.
I pointed out an obviously true observation, one which is easily verified using the slightest of effort.
Namely, when GB cuts and pastes articles in support of his position, he is denounced for the activity of cutting and pasting--- all the more egregious because he (allegedly) isn't contributing any analysis of his own. ...[text shortened]... stracting to that point, which demonstrates your decision to avoid addressing the topic at hand.
19 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFI, too, noticed the price of tea in China today.
I think Grampy Bobby's long copy pastes and then his characteristic refusal to discuss them properly is ineffective, and I have mentioned it to him several times, as have others. His Modus Operandi more often than not is to post clumsy 'confirmation bias' material that is written by theists who claim atheists actually believe in God, or fear God, or hate God, bl ...[text shortened]... not yet convinced that Grampy Bobby's professed interest in 'understanding atheists' is sincere.
Hard to believe simple leaves, spice and paper can yield such demand.
But let's get back to the subject at hand, shall we?
The only point that is making this thread partially interesting is the disingenuous dissenting postings of those opposed to GB when his c-p is of a certain leaning.
When the wind shifts their way, no mention is made of the format; instead, discussion goes to the topic cut and pasted.
As I said earlier: interesting...