28 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Forgive me for repeating something I posted a few minutes ago,
It doesn't matter. It seems you have taken over for divegeester and if that is true there will never be an answer that will satisfy, right?
So....... yes, no, maybe, could be, maybe so, maybe not, probably, probably not? Pick what you want.....
You said (((((I have NEVER lied to anyone at anytime on this forum, EVER.)))))) on this thread.
You were asked if you still maintain this to be true?
Now you're saying "It doesn't matter."
The topic is not divegeester, the topic is "Forum etiquette".
When it comes to fibbing and not fibbing in a debate, perhaps you subscribe to robbie carrobie's philosophy:
robbie: "Anyone who enters a mele thinking that they will come away clean I think is seriously deluded. I wont say that I am completely unprincipled but certainly I use what may be expedient at the time, its a much more reactionary stance rather than a calculating one."
Do you share this belief/approach?
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by FMFAgain "I have never lied to anyone here at RHP"....
Forgive me for repeating something I posted a few minutes ago,
You said [b](((((I have NEVER lied to anyone at anytime on this forum, EVER.)))))) on this thread.
You were asked if you still maintain this to be true?
Now you're saying "It doesn't matter."
The topic is not divegeester, the topic is "Forum etiquette".
When it comes to fibb ...[text shortened]... ore reactionary stance rather than a calculating one."[/b]
Do you share this belief/approach?[/b]
Good night as I have better things to do.
28 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Let's see if I respond with respect? Well, the post [on page 53] in which you apologized for a "mistake" here and now on this thread [as opposed to apologizing for actually saying something you knew to be untrue at the time you said it on a previous thread] was in fact a self-pitying post about an alleged "serious witch hunt going on" and how people who come into conflict with you "should be ashamed". Pardon me for thinking it is a bit rich of you to lecture members of this community on "decency".
Now lets see if you respond with respect and accept my answer as I did just publicly apologize to you, as it is the truth....
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitA great portion of this tread seems to center on the question whether certain other participants are tendentious or not. I see nothing useful or even amusing in that; it appears to be just a couple of chinwags venting their spleens.
Debates rarely change the opponent's mind, dogmatic or otherwise. But the struggle can be useful, both for the participants and the audience.
The struggle can be useful for what? Maybe for each contestant to hone his debating skills for some other debate where a genuine meeting of minds would be possible.
What I see again and again at this forum is that the dogmatists assume from the outset that any question regarding their faith can only be answered in the form of clarifying what the sacred knowledge IS (e.g. miles and miles of copy-pasted Scripture); whereas the non-dogmatists challenge WHETHER such claims are a) knowledge at all (as opposed to 'mere' opinion) and b) sacred. Not much chance of a meeting of minds here, I'm afraid.
When Galileo looked through his telescope, he saw a Copernican system of circular orbits. When the bishops looked through telescopes, they saw a Ptolemaic system of retrogressions and spirals. There was no meeting of minds and no impartial weighing of evidence: there was immovable dogma against rational evidence-based inquiry. And so it remains.
It wasn't until John Paul II that Galileo was finally rehabilitated and the Vatican conceded that Galileo was right. That took about 350 years. If that is anything to go by, it'll be 2250 before evolution is generally acknowledged by the larger Christian community really to have happened. And even then, there may still be a Flat Earth Society in merry olde England!
The main improvement I see in the 350 years since Galileo is that the dogmatists no longer have the authority to torture unbelievers and burn them at the stake. For that freedom, I am willing to tolerate almost any amount of harmless spleen-venting at such a forum as this. Ok, so they should be more polite and show at least as much respect for each other as Senators and Congressmen do: "The honorable gentleman is a scurvy dog and a liar!"
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by moonbusI thought this thread was much more amusing before it became the usual JW feuding. We basically kicked Duchess64 out of this forum. I never read much of the JW feuds.
A great portion of this tread seems to center on the question whether certain other participants are tendentious or not. I see nothing useful or even amusing in that; it appears to be just a couple of chinwags venting their spleens.
The struggle can be useful for what? Maybe for each contestant to hone his debating skills for some other debate where a gen ...[text shortened]... each other as Senators and Congressmen do: "The honorable gentleman is a scurvy dog and a liar!"
There have been other threads that were interesting. They are not as common, but worth some waiting and skimming over the rest.
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by galveston75Were you also "mistaken" when you accused me of "trolling you in PMs", when you accused me of revealing the information about your sick relative (when in fact you had done it yourself), when you accused me of lying about it etc?
Well not that anyone will accept this as there is a serious witch hunt going on now which all of you should be ashamed especially of you so called christians, but I was mistaken and was thinking of another situation.
So sorry to FMF for this mistake in my memory
Ps "witch hunt" LOL
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by moonbusYour comments are interesting. There are some hardcore religionists in this community, like ~ let's take one of the prominent participants in this particular discussion, robbie carrobie ~ who like to browbeat fellow posters incessantly for their supposed lack of morality.
The struggle can be useful for what? Maybe for each contestant to hone his debating skills for some other debate where a genuine meeting of minds would be possible.
But on this thread robbie has ended up making himself look mean spirited and unprincipled.
The "struggle" that has resulted in this happening can be said to have been useful because it has demonstrated robbie's spiritual mind map in action: in how he interacts with people, how "truth" is manipulated in his hands, if and how he is willing to establish any personal credibility in his dealings with others etc.
There HAS been a "meeting of minds" with robbie on this thread, so to speak. It may well have been dealing in small matters in terms of the big picture, but we have had a revealing glimpse of what makes him tick.
People can bear all this in mind next time he is expressing his contempt for others here on theological, spiritual and personal grounds.
28 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75I've repeated several times in this witch hunt, err sorry, this thread that I have not once been contacted privately or publicly by either a member of this forum expressing their disapproval, a forum moderator cautioning me on my general posting content or a specific post, nor the site administration.
From yesterday.....
Originally posted by divegeester
I asked you over and over to respond to my questions in your threads. Got your attention now though right?
Bad move dude..........It's done.
Robbie carrobie and yourself seem to be inundated with private supporters who are for personal reasons unwilling to express that support outside of the confines of a private message to you two.
28 Mar 14
SG: "I thought this thread was much more amusing before it became the usual JW feuding. ... I never read much of the JW feuds. There have been other threads that were interesting. They are not as common, but worth some waiting and skimming over the rest."
Ah, so we should be speed reading for the juicy bits. I recommend spritz for all yuz running android:
http://www.spritzinc.com/
FMF: "There HAS been a "meeting of minds" with robbie on this thread, so to speak. It may well have been dealing in small matters ... but we have had a revealing glimpse of what makes him tick."
Hmmm, I'm not sure that finding out how robbie ticks constitutes a meeting of minds. It seems to me more like "broken record meets brick wall."
If there is one generic breach of forum etiquette to be disparaged here, I would say it is this: getting personal (punching below the belt).
Maybe we should have a separate forum for DIY psychiatry. We could diagnose each other's 'ticks' to our heart's content and leave the spirituality forum free to debate real issues (such as whether there is a dog).
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by moonbusYour apparent efforts to remain neutral mean that what you might mean or might not mean by "getting personal" is unclear.
If there is one generic breach of forum etiquette to be disparaged here, I would say it is this: getting personal (punching below the belt).
I'm not sure that finding out how robbie ticks constitutes a meeting of minds.
This is a forum ~ by definition a venue for interaction. People can of course proselytise whilst blanking out much of the reaction but people also interact here.
If a poster's professed position on the spiritual high ground cannot save them from behaving in an unkind and deceitful way, then what are we to make of the mind map they are peddling?
Perhaps you are a bit new to the internet. Online communities like this are pretty much all about what makes each of its motley members "tick". Spirituality Forums as diverse as this one are by their very nature part "DIY psychiatry" and part recitation of internalized ideas.
Drawing attention to how you see yourself as being above the fray whilst trying to say as little as possible ~ at least based on the evidence of your words on this thread ~ seems to be one of the things that makes you "tick". 🙂
28 Mar 14
3 edits
"Perhaps you are a bit new to the internet."
Off by 4 decades. I learned BASIC/FORTRAN/COBOL on punch cards when most of the people at this forum (I'll wager) were still twinkies in the sky. I had an email account and played correspondence chess with a command line interface (anybody here old enough to remember Compuserve?) when most of the people at this forum (I'll wager) were in diapers. I am by profession a CCSI, if that means anything to you (think "Cisco" ).
"Drawing attention to how you see yourself as being above the fray whilst trying to say as little as possible ... seems to be one of the things that makes you "tick"."
I am an observer of human nature. I claim to be in possession of a normal compliment of common sense (or where I can get it on 24 hour's notice); I don't profess to be in sole possession of Absolute Truth, and I don't call people morons because they disagree with me.
"Those are my principles; if you don't like them, well, I have others." Marx (Groucho, of course, not Karl!)
Originally posted by moonbusand therein lies the rub, hailed by its architect the author claims that its the greatest thing to have happened to the spirituality forum in aeon's.
SG: "I thought this thread was much more amusing before it became the usual JW feuding. ... I never read much of the JW feuds. There have been other threads that were interesting. They are not as common, but worth some waiting and skimming over the rest."
Ah, so we should be speed reading for the juicy bits. I recommend spritz for all yuz running android: ...[text shortened]... nt and leave the spirituality forum free to debate real issues (such as whether there is a dog).
The thread itself was started under a guise, that of forum etiquette. The proposer seething from being ignored sought to propagandize his case by taking it to others who dutifully fell into line like a pack of hungry wolves. The result being that what transpired was retrospective trolling, bringing matters up from the past that have little bearing on the present, amateur psychoanalysis which resulted in one participant being labeled a psychopath, Machiavellian twists and cunning slights of hand and an unwillingness on the part of several individuals to recognize the very traits they reprimand others for may be evident within themselves.
All in all it reflects a preoccupation with personality that has perhaps marred the forum and like the gelid tentacles of some monster from the deep threatens to slowly strangulate the spirituality from it and yet i am persuaded that just as in the most CGI dependent films, it is the human element that is most appealing and even quality newspapers have sections on useless and largely quite banal celebrities.
28 Mar 14
FMF: "Perhaps you are a bit new to the internet."It was just an ironic comment replying to your comment: "...Maybe we should have a separate forum for DIY psychiatry. We could diagnose each other's 'ticks' to our heart's content and leave the spirituality forum free to debate real issues" which struck me as ~ surely ~ tongue in cheek.
Originally posted by moonbus
Off by 4 decades.
...leave the spirituality forum free to debate real issues
"Real" issues? Different strokes/folks, I suppose.
While I am happy to discuss pretty much anything, I am personally much more interested in how spiritual maps make people behave ~ in reality ~ than in what their spiritual maps make them imagine ~.about reality.
28 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusI studied Cobol in College but not on punch cards, yes it really was that long ago, flip sake, Cobol and Pascal! gulp!
"Perhaps you are a bit new to the internet."
Off by 4 decades. I learned BASIC/FORTRAN/COBOL on punch cards when most of the people at this forum (I'll wager) were still twinkies in the sky. I had an email account and played correspondence chess with a command line interface (anybody here old enough to remember Compuserve?) when most of the people at thi ...[text shortened]... y principles; if you don't like them, well, I have others." Marx (Groucho, of course, not Karl!)