 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Who are the editors here?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Apr 13 - 02:01 PM If I wanted to subtly request an edit to a post title, who would I contact? Is it possible to have an "inbox" or thread that only the editors could read where such good-natured requests could be made? Thanks |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Apr 13 - 02:48 PM I'm still the contact person, Jack. I just don't do "disciplinary" moderation any more. That way, I get to go back to being Mr. Nice Guy, which is what I really am. I've been waiting for you to ask me to change the title of the "spiritualism" thread. -Joe- joe@mudcat.org |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Ed T Date: 12 Apr 13 - 05:37 PM ""Who are the editors here?"" I expected to see a different question or thought it may be a tongue-in-cheek statement. Oh well! :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Apr 13 - 06:23 PM the title of the "spiritualism" thread. That would be Gnus's call. The error was point out pretty early and politely I thought. It didn't hurt the conversation as much as other factors. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: gnu Date: 12 Apr 13 - 08:00 PM Error? There was no error. The only error was in people's minds who couldn't understand my title EVEN after they read the OP. I am right, The rest of youse are wrong. Deal with it. If anyone hasn't noticed, I haven't posted much on that thread because of the bullshit. Tell me that the word in the title is incorrect? Tell me *I* meant something else? WTF are youse to tell me what I think or mean? Rather snotty of you all, I think. Especially those that call themselves spiritual or religious or whatever else makes them think their shit don't stink but like to shit on me. Like I said... been a lotta that shit gonna on lately. I, and I know of others, are not amused. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Apr 13 - 08:30 PM Gnu, If you meant to say religion vs séances and such, I am truly sorry. I guess people were giving you the benefit of a doubt. Honest mistake right? Spiritualism is a belief system or religion, postulating the belief that spirits of the dead residing in the spirit world have both the ability and the inclination to communicate with the living. Anyone may receive spirit messages, but formal communication sessions (séances) are held by "mediums," who can then provide information about the afterlife.[1] Spiritualism, a religious movement that began in the United States and which has flourished internationally from the 1840s to the present Spiritualism (beliefs), the belief that spirits of the dead can communicate with the living Spiritualism (philosophy), the idea, in any system of thought, that there exists an immaterial reality that is beyond the reach of the senses |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Apr 13 - 08:33 PM Hmmmm....I guess that means gnu doesn't want "spiritualism" changed to "spirituality," huh? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: gnu Date: 12 Apr 13 - 08:34 PM Robert... what do you not understand about "FUCK OFF!!!"???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: gnu Date: 12 Apr 13 - 08:37 PM Damn straight I don't want it changed, Joe. Only idiots don't understand what I meant to say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Ed T Date: 12 Apr 13 - 09:05 PM So, a horse goes into a bar, and the bartender saye "why such a long face :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Apr 13 - 09:20 PM So, what did the horse say to THAT, Ed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: michaelr Date: 12 Apr 13 - 09:39 PM "Nobody understands me." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Apr 13 - 10:01 PM I asked my question got my answer. this thread can go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: MGM·Lion Date: 13 Apr 13 - 01:36 AM I have replayed gnu's OP on his GROSSLY MISNAMED thread. The Dalai Lama makes use there of neither word, so I can't see why gnu, in his defensive bluster, should cite his OP as if it confirmed his usage. He is plainly guilty of an appalling catchresis. He meant 'spirituality', not 'spiritualism', whatever he says. Why, Mrs Malaprop herself, if she knew the antonomasia formed from her name, might protest, as he does, that she knew, and said, what she meant, and the world has no right to tell her different. But she would just be silly to do so. And so is gnu. Ignore him and go on thinking 'spirituality'; even if he goes on saying table-rapping by mediums when he means admiring the beauty of the universe or whevs! LoL! ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 13 Apr 13 - 02:13 AM Often I would visit a thread, that deals with topics of this nature. I haven't even been to that one yet, because I figured that he didn't know what he was talking about, and therefore have to wade through 276 posts, just to point that out...because you have to assume, he doesn't know the difference, anyway!....When It's named accurately to the topic I'll pop in maybe.....then ....aw, never mind. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 13 Apr 13 - 02:48 AM "This thread can go." Why ask who the editors are when this is yet another example of you trying to dictate editorial policy? Someone seems to be all at sea.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Apr 13 - 04:31 AM Very impressive words there, M! But isn't it catachresis? I've never understood the notion that starting a thread gives one any kind of ownership or control about what happens to it. I've no idea whether that's how most people see it. It doesn't work that way in normal conversation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: MGM·Lion Date: 13 Apr 13 - 06:04 AM Thanks, McGrath ~~ 'catachresis' indeed: not a typo, just a mistake! Peccavi! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: gnu Date: 13 Apr 13 - 07:20 AM spir·it·u·al /ˈspiriCHo͞oəl/ Adjective Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things. ism [ˈɪzəm] n Informal, often derogatory an unspecified doctrine, system, or practice No, I don't own the thread. So WTF do all of you think YOU own it? Why do all of you want to tell me what I think? Give your heads a shake and see if they rattle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 13 Apr 13 - 07:27 AM Those of us, including myself, who do not have the time to read all threads - not even the OPs -, rely on well-chosen thread titles. Therefore I would like to encourage Joe and the other elves to change the titles more liberally, and without waiting for the creator's request or consent. For example, someone asked for sheet music in ABC format, and used the "Tech" prefix - certainly not conducive to her purpose. If there is a risk that posters cannot rediscover the thread, a little mark may narrow down the search, e.g. an "R" for "retitled". It may also help the creator to note down the "threadid" number, but should rarely be necessary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Apr 13 - 07:59 AM "just a mistake" Now that is remarkably honest of you M - I suspect most of us would have let it pass as an assumed typo. I'm very impressed. The English language would of course have allowed the word spiritualism to acquire the meaning ascribed to t in the thread title - but it hasn't. Still that's hardly a matter of too much importance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Ed T Date: 13 Apr 13 - 08:15 AM Rather than a "R", Put a "P" for posessed, (spurred or moved by a strong feeling, madness or a supernatural power) - as I suspect some 'cat heads have rotated near 360 degrees. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Ed T Date: 13 Apr 13 - 08:18 AM That is "possessed" My head rotated as I typed:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket Date: 13 Apr 13 - 08:26 AM Spiritualism is a belief system or religion, postulating the belief that spirits of the dead residing in the spirit world have both the ability and the inclination to communicate with the living. Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 13 Apr 13 - 10:25 AM Ed, I would like to decide for myself whether I risk being exposed to "possession". If I insisted on being surrounded only by reasonable persons, I would certainly avoid all public forums - and I may in fact become very lonely indeed. If a thread is titled either "Spiritualism vs. religion" or "Spirituality vs. religion", seasoned Mudcatters know pretty well what to expect in it (- the "P" is implied -), and that is all we can expect. In contrast, if a title says "Would you believe that?" and the OP only consists of a link, we feel abused. Threads being "hijacked" are a different problem. In some forums, the admin takes the liberty to split off any side drift to an extra thread - which may result in confusion or even unreadable threads. I think there is no other solution than to discourage seriously thread drifts that amount to hijacking or "possession". For instance: Jack Sprocket, you clearly meant to contribute to that other thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Ed T Date: 13 Apr 13 - 10:34 AM "No matter how thin you slice it, there will always be two sides." ― Baruch Spinoza |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Ed T Date: 13 Apr 13 - 11:06 AM GUEST,Grishka I expect one cause of "serious thread drift" (if there is such a beast) is disinterest in the OP and more interest in another (closely related or not) aspect - as seen by the drifter, and other participants. Personally, I see no harm in that, but recognize that it may annoy more structured type folks than I am. I also suspect, at times, the OP related matters are dealt with, in one manner or another, and people move on to other areas. Additionally, like with conversations, topics frequently move into varied directions, stimulated by items arising in the discussion. As to thread "hijacking", I suspect there are similar issues, (and possibly similar people hijacking) as some folks may be cautious or lazy on opening new threads. But,I have noted that some threads stay open very long, which encourages this to occur. If you open a thread, it seems reasonable that you also have the option to ask it be closed, if that concerns you. However, none of this stuff actually concerns me at all (though I recognize it does some others). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket Date: 13 Apr 13 - 11:36 AM Not at all Comrade Grishka, the question was "spirituality" vs "spiritualism". Someone volunteered a definition of spiritualism as a religion; I merely attempted to point out that at least one other major religious sect shares the belief that we can communicate with the dead. And the prayer continues.. "pray for us Shinners now, and at the hour of Ard Fheis" so it's not only on topic but topical. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 13 Apr 13 - 12:22 PM Ed, my concern in this thread is not to criticize anybody, but to find procedures so that the contents of a thread can be more safely guessed from its title. If an elf happens to see a misleading thread title, she or he can earn my gratitude, and presumably other readers' as well, by correcting it immediately. This instrument will of course be powerless against substantial thread drifts. (An example of a thread drift is a message about the relation between religion and spiritualism, found in a thread about admins editing thread titles.) Certainly most thread drifts and asides are harmless, and I may well be guilty of a couple as well. The problem will become bigger if a non-"possessed" thread drifts to a "possessed" topic in the sense of Ed T 08:15 AM. The admins do a good job; thanks once more to all of them! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 13 Apr 13 - 12:47 PM Jack Sprocket, if your message of 08:26 AM was meant as an argument that gnu's title is adequate, it is in fact on topic, but neither comprehensible in that sense nor convincing. I am not sure whether that particular title should be changed withoud gnu's consent. Most readers will know what to expect alright. For really enlightening and/or enlightened discussions about religion and philosophy, neither possessed nor possessive, there are other forums than MudcatBS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Apr 13 - 01:07 PM One thing I've learned from the last month's output. Never disagree with Gnu. He is RIGHT! Whether it makes sense or not. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Ed T Date: 13 Apr 13 - 02:08 PM ""Never disagree with Gnu. He is RIGHT! Whether it makes sense or not."" That would surely define alot of "somewhat stunborn mudcatters". Defining "right and wrong" is a very difficult topic on itself, outside the personal attachement some folks seem to have on being on the right side of an issue). However, I have debated gnu on a variety of topics. My experience has been that, when faced with reason and courtesy, he has clearly and openly (with no strings attached) indicated he felt he was in error. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Ed T Date: 13 Apr 13 - 02:15 PM ""For really enlightening and/or enlightened discussions about religion and philosophy, neither possessed nor possessive, there are other forums than MudcatBS". I suspect some posting on Mudcat do just that, as I observe that quite a few of the arguments closely mirror others I have seen on some of those sites. IMO, those topics have been "debated to death", and rarely is anything unique or enlightening posted here (outside the insults,that is, as some of those do seem spirited and unique:) . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 13 Apr 13 - 02:57 PM Ed, if on "those sites" you find arguments for debates to death, you are not talking of the same sites as I did. But we agree that Mudcat's strong points are elsewhere, so we must be content to have thread titles that help us to find the threads we like to read. Because of this function, a thread title should describe the topic so that it is roughly recognizable at first sight, without reading the contents. Thus, if gnu's argument were "The word spiritualism has been viciously captured by persons who should correctly be called spiritists, so I want to recapture it to its prevopis meaning", he may say so in his posts, but should not "beg the question" in the thread title. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Apr 13 - 04:10 PM " If you open a thread, it seems reasonable that you also have the option to ask it be closed," Anyone should and does, of course have the option to ask that a thread be closed. I can't see why the person who opened it shoud have any special position as regards that. And whether it gets closed or not is decided by our benevolent guardians. It seems to work out well enough. Thread drift I can't see as much of a problem. Occasionaly you get an effort to interrupt a discussion by energetically trying to hijak a thread, but it rarely works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Apr 13 - 04:24 PM "I observe that quite a few of the arguments closely mirror others I have seen." Like the mirroring the arguments of Richard Dawkins? LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: gnu Date: 13 Apr 13 - 06:57 PM Some reasonable discussion. It is truly welcome. I would like to encourage Joe and the other elves to change the titles more liberally,.... they do as they see fit. If you open a thread, it seems reasonable that you also have the option to ask it be closed... certainly, but it still is the mods' call. the question was "spirituality" vs "spiritualism"... no, it was NOT. THAT is another thread. Read this thread first. Never disagree with Gnu. He is RIGHT!... bullshit! Just once, prove me wrong and don't get a heartfelt apology when I understand I am in error. It would behoove many of you to become a gentleman in this regard and, more imprortantly, to respect the discussion at hand as it was intended and post what OBVIOUSLY belongs on a different thread to THAT thread or start a new one and not toatally fuck up someone else's thread. My goodness you blood thirsty holier than thou fuckers are simply apalling! Especially when you join the other chickens in the flock pecking at the chicken that appears weak. Ever watch chickens? Every now and then one will peck another one in the back of the head for no good reason. If it gets stunned and falters, the rest of the chickens will join in and peck it to death and eat it. Flock off ya birds of a feather. I am a gnu. A gentle, dumb animal. And I am a Wildebeeste when attacked. Wildebeestes kill lions. They merely get annoyed by fowl. And youse are foul. In closing, I'd just like to recap what I have tried to impart herein and on a number of threads lately... flock off ya bunch chickenshits. Does this really consume you that much? Ya got fuck all better ta do? Or fuck all better ta say? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Apr 13 - 12:47 AM We are much more methodical about changing titled of music threads, because we are trying to build an easily-accessible collection of music information - so we cross-index, combine threads, correct spellings, standardize format, and move messages to try to make our collection of information as useful as possible. Our non-music/BS section is different. It's an open discussion about whatever is on anybody's mind, so we try to stay out of the way as much as possible. If somebody wants to talk about atheism vs. spiritualism, who am I to interfere? If things get nasty, our Anonymous Moderation Team takes a look at it, and they decide if and how to calm things down. I don't deal with that any more. Personally, though, all these atheist threads are getting me nervous. Too much nastiness on both sides. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Apr 13 - 01:54 AM Joe Offer: "Personally, though, all these atheist threads are getting me nervous. Too much nastiness on both sides." I John 4:8: 'God is Love'....Explains it all! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: MGM·Lion Date: 14 Apr 13 - 02:04 AM Oh? Define "God"; define "love"; define "explains"; define "all". ('is' & 'it' will do for the moment.) ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Apr 13 - 02:20 AM I have a lot of respect and affection for many people here at Mudcat. Some of them bitterly disagree with me on matters of religion, even though I often have a fair level of agreement with their perspective (I'm speaking especially of Jim Carroll, a man for whom I have a lot of respect - but also of Steve Shaw, Bonnie Shaljean, Frank Hamilton, Peter K (Fionn) and a number of others). No, I don't want to relinquish my religious perspective - it's a major part of who I am. But on the other hand, I don't want to fight with people I respect so deeply. So, yeah, most of these religion/atheist threads make me nervous. I wish there were a way to exchange ideas in a nondestructive, mutually respectful way, but I haven't found that way yet. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 14 Apr 13 - 03:07 AM Problem is Joe, both "sides" see the issues from their perspective. The idea that something is or isn't cannot be worked out by debate as I doubt pete will ssy that he is no longer a creationist as a result of these threads and I am no nearer my God either. You are then left with either earnest views put forward which fall on deaf ears or abuse which has about the same effect. I for one cannot see how middle ground can be reached because whilst always accepting and appreciating how much some people's religion means to them personally, the idea that it is more than that nor indeed should be more than that frankly isn't an idea that grabs me. The problem with a rose such as yourself is the pricks hiding behind your petals. Similarly, by pointing out lack of religion, I and others are lumped by association with those who make a living out of questioning the role of faith beyond the personal. I am apparently a follower of Dawkins. I hope the after service tea is better than our local church. .. (I may not attend service but being married to a bell ringer, we are in the building most weeks.) Sorry but mutual abuse is the inevitable end game. Also, cultural differences occur as here in the UK such banter is a normal method of friendly debate whereas most American posters seem to be more serious and analyse the wording of posts far more. Separated by a common language. Separated by an uncommon God. You tell me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Megan L Date: 14 Apr 13 - 03:22 AM As a child I remember being shown a picture of Budapest my dad pointed out that the river divided the city in two and my mum pointed out that all the bridges joined the city together. To often we use words and ideas to build walls dividing us of into ideological ghettos. How much better to build bridges for in the middle of a bridge is a place of respect where we might not entirely agree with each other but have enough common ground where we no longer wish to kill each other. If only we built more bridges If only we let our walls fall Then together we onwards could travel To a world that was safer for all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Apr 13 - 03:52 AM Thanks, Megan. I walked those bridges in Budapest, so what you said meant a lot to me. You know what? It's beautiful on both sides of the river. Why can't people understand that? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 14 Apr 13 - 07:05 AM The river is beautiful and the bridges hopeful. Far better than when barriers and sentry boxes failed to reach the artist's brush. But when the glorious but vain cathedrals are on one side of the river and the dowdy but exciting academy of science is on the other, you have to shout to communicate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Apr 13 - 07:56 AM " Similarly, by pointing out lack of religion, I and others are lumped by association with those who make a living out of questioning the role of faith beyond the personal. I am apparently a follower of Dawkins." So it is just innocent banter. All you are trying to do is communicate respectfully pointing out your lack of religion. If that is true then you have solved the problem right there. It means you don't have to mock peoples beliefs, you don't have to talk about delusions. It means you don't have to spend page after page defending Dawkins and spouting his arguments because you are not his follower. You can just say what you just said every time a religious topic comes up. Seems pretty simple to me. But what do I know, I am just one of the "pricks" behind the rose right? One can't take a Dawkins like stance without being disrespectful. You can't say things like "its a delusion" and Godbotherers say this and religions are fantasy and "there are no such thing as Christian children." Without being disrespectful. If you are not following Dawkins and trying to beat the religion out of us, I really don't see the point of all the mockery. That is what Olddude has been getting at I think. Joe would like to let all of that pass, because he respects some of you for other reasons not specified. I respect that. But I am not convinced that you and Steve and Frank realize just how disrespectful you are. You and Steve are quite a bit different in style from Frank but the message you carry to the forum is the same "look how I use my superior brain to put these superstitious believers in their place." pete has some far out ideas imho, perhaps he is not as enlightened ad you and Steve, in your opinion. But he can be treated with respect and Rob Naylor does. The childish mockery of him does nothing but entertain yourselves. It really is not necessary. None of it is necessary. You are bright enough to express your beliefs without insulting people. You insult people because you think it is fun. If you want to banter. Banter with people who want to banter with you. don't spread it all over the forum. And don't think you are clever even when you are trying to look reasonable sneaking in those little hidden insults. Everyone here knows that the rose is surrounded by thorns, THORNS, NOT PRICKS and "prick" is when the thorn sticks you and causes pain or draws some blood. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Musket Date: 14 Apr 13 - 09:44 AM Of course I'm being disrespectful Jack. Whatever makes you question? "One can't take a Dawkins like stance without being disrespectful." Oh, and taking a religious stance is to be all embracing, seeing the other person's view and respecting their right to exist eh? zzzzz I am not sure whether you are a prick behind the rose if you must know. Reasonable people try to make reasonable debate, and therefore Joe Offer tries to put forward his take on his faith as being reasonable. You don't exactly do that, do you Jack? In fact, although Joe sounds reasonable, his continued faith perpetuates the club he is a member of, and by association, you can end up, if you aren't careful, of judging all by the reasonableness of others. The "pricks" hide nicely behind. If you are one, then I hope the cap fits but believe it or believe it not, you were nowhere in my thoughts when I wrote it. You may be a prick for all I know, but as the invite to Carolina seems to have dried up, I guess I will not know you any more than you will know me. I don't spread it all over the forum, I reserve it for the BULLSHIT section, or BS to give it its Sunday name. My music posting is about music funnily enough. My posting on religion is to tease out hypocrisy, because in the final analysis I see lots of it. It ain't pretty. If you insist on provoking people from a smug "look at me, I can pray" stance, don't be upset when you get the piss ripped out of you mercilessly. You ask me to respect pete. Fine. When pete respects reality, I will reciprocate. In the meantime, I think dismissing him is less respectful than patronising him or making him think he may have a point. Young earth creationism is slowly gaining respectability and that is dangerous. Dangerous because children are being taught an alternative to reality. Here in England, two schools, according to "Local Government Today" have been investigated by their local safeguarding childrens boards for this. "This" being what pete wants us to respect.. No. What you call mockery I call debate. To say anything other than delusion would be to accept there is substance in the superstition. There isn't. Full stop. It may be a nice comfort blanket but I cannot bring myself to move from the point of it has no no more chance of existing than the infamous orbiting teapot. I have consistently said I can understand a personal faith and live & let live. You never seem to acknowledge that. But you insist that Christians are being persecuted when people make the rational observation that it is a load of old bollocks. Two thousand years of bollocks but round & hairy all the same. How can you start the threads you do, and make the points you do without expecting someone to point out we are discussing fantasy here? You may take it serious but as there is nothing to take serious other than destroying myth, I appear to be on the side of your angels. Which is interesting, because whenever I see people scarred by mea culpa, afraid to enjoy themselves, asking others for permission to a view.. You know what? I get angry. I don't get angry about many things, because there are pros and cons to all views. But if everybody is to get on, whether in the world or on this website even, putting faith where it belongs, where it can do most good, in the hearts of those who either want or need it, would be a good start. Trying to label those who have no use for it isn't big, isn't good and isn't worth a prayer. Stirring people with a stick so you can feel persecuted isn' worthy of you. Mind you, just for you and only for you. I have done this with my cookie in place. After all, we wouldn't want to upset you now, would we. (You might get upset if you insist on perpetuating religion / atheism threads and throwing a tantrum when people laugh at you though.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Megan L Date: 14 Apr 13 - 10:19 AM My dad for many years had his own dance band and MC'd at weddings and dances. A lot of folk in here remind me of a story he frequently told. A young couple decided the wanted to get married and went to see the minister to arrange the calling of the bans. Well things went along fine in their little chat till the fell to quarrelling and Bob jumped up "Forget it we're no getting married ahm scunnered." And of he stomped. A few weeks later the minister opened the door once more to the same young couple once more they fell a quarrelling during the discussion and this time it was Jean who jumped up. "Whit did ah ever see in ye? Ahm jist scunnered." Another few weeks passed and once more the minister opened the door to find the quarrelsome couple standing there asking if he would marry them "NAW" Shouted the minister "Ahm jist fair scunnered wie the pair o ye." And with that he closed the door |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Apr 13 - 10:24 AM "I am not sure whether you are a prick behind the rose if you must know." Here you are being a jackass, being vulgar, VIOLATING THE TERMS OF USE by hiding it behind pretty words and metaphors because you are SO MUCH better and smarter than the rest of us. Grow up. Don't use a pejorative like "prick" when the proper word is THORN. If you don't think that is true, try being civil on this forum. See if I try to stir you! " To say anything other than delusion would be to accept there is substance in the superstition." And you say that you are NOT a Dawkins follower. You know that there is no standard definition of delusion that encompasses religion. YOU ALSO KNOW THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO DESCRIBE SOMEONE AS HAVING A DELUSION WITHOUT IT BEING EITHER A DIAGNOSES OR A PERSONAL PUT DOWN. Are you saying that you can't talk to a religious person about religion without starting with a put down? You are very intelligent and well spoken. I think you can do better. You also know that that is far from the only example of your mockery. But we have been over this so many times it just is not funny any more. "Stirring people with a stick so you can feel persecuted isn't worthy of you." What is worthy of you? Name calling? Baiting? Mocking? You have said on one of the Atheist threads that you feel freer to "speak my mind here" than elsewhere. That says to me that you show more respect to people elsewhere than here. I am sorry that you feel we have not earn a minimum of respect and good manners from you. I don't feel persecuted at all Mr. Musket. I was trying to housebreak you by rubbing your nose in your own leavings. Now I am trying reason. Please how some respect. Choose your words more carefully. Don't do it for me. Do it for Olddude, or Joe or someone else that you respect. Do it for yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Apr 13 - 10:40 AM To all. That was conversation between Musket and me about the approach of "the new Atheists." I believe that their strategy is basically to insult believers, pick a fight and trade insults with religious leaders for entertainment and profit. I think that most atheists do not like this approach because it tends to polarize. But for someone who likes to argue, it is very very attractive. You can buy the books, go to the seminars and gain a whole range of prepackaged arguments with which to attack people. I think that debate is OK, discussion is OK but words like delusional are no way to describe a debate opponent. When an "accomplished scientist" like Richard Dawkins starts a debate with an insult. He is saying that it is OK to do that. I disagree. I am tired of people on the Mudcat calling me and my friends "delusional" just because Dawkins did it. There was a thread about dwindling participation. One reason that people might come here, look around and leave is the basic lack of respect. Maybe we can think of ways to show more respect and to not be deliberately and tauntingly insulting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 14 Apr 13 - 10:59 AM We'll have to settle for diagnosis then. Ok. Let's be grown up. Been here before and you were the one reverting to form first. However.. As you think nobody can express a view similar to Dawkins without being his acolyte, we will stick to his headlines, just for you. The God delusion. Delusion because he states there is no evidence either way in principle. When you start ascribing a God to a particular thesis, the evidence for gets thinner. Thinner because the God concept is man made and whilst we cannot be sure of a sentient purposeful force, we can be sure those living 2000 years ago hadn't better information than us. Ergo putting flesh on the bones of a God concept can be no more than delusion. Shaping the delusion for a reason is how we got religion in the first place. If it isn't any more than a delusion, it needs evidence. To date that has been a combination of claims of supernatural events such as miracles and giving a God credit for good things combined with glossing over the bad. Sorry, can't convince myself beyond delusion. And in reaching that I haven't taken the piss, called you seaman stains or shouted Hello Sailor! More importantly I haven't dismissed faith, just the silly unnecessary rationale used over the years to convince people to sign up. If faith is good and strong, if it deserves a future, surely it doesn't need the angels, virgin births, conjuring tricks or physically impossible stories? What I see is theologians saying it is all metaphor but on the other hand, keep telling the masses it is all true. Seems rather lame to me. So to answer your question regarding whether I am just saying I am not religious, I think that is self evident. To adk why I dismiss it in others, I don't. I dismiss it when it is put forward as an alternative to reality. You said in introducing a thread recently that you have a "thesis" regarding anti religion being based on bad experience. That is an insult to the vast majority of people in your country and mine. It doesn't occur to you that many people would like to see shut of the malign influence of dogma and the effect it has on society? By saying it is based on scarring rather than reason you are insulting in a league I could never begin to join. I take my hat off to you. I can only insult through having a laugh. You manage it by your actual views. Oh. If you enjoy debate, why do you keep crying over violating terms, asking for censorship and telling people how to behave? it would sound better if you were reasonable but you can't even manage that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Apr 13 - 11:07 AM Have you ever been to Hibbing? Not too remarkable a place but a sort of pleasant Minnesota town supported almost entirely by the Messabi Iron Ore pit. I was there several times as a kid and got a big kick out of the pit and all that equipment. Now a legitimate question might be, "Why would you have been there a few times as a kid?" It was because my Dad had a WWII buddy there and they had been through a lot in the war and stayed pretty closely in touch in the years after. They had a daughter about my age and we'd visit back and forth. Just think.....I was in Hibbing while Dylan was growing up and running away from the place. Rather than run away, we liked to circle around Lake Superior and come down at the Soo. One year, we just went to the Soo and the UP for vacation and I had my 9th birthday at the Locks and going across the new Mackinac Bridge. Years later I found out the Edmund Fitzgerald was launched on that day as well. Ties together huh? Yeah, well.............. Hibbing and reasoning go together don't they? They seem to be lost on the thread though........just trying to help........... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Apr 13 - 11:11 AM Again, spirituality is different from 'religion'...and unless you've had a substantial spiritual experience, it would be like trying to 'explain' an orgasm to a virgin...and in like manner, listening to a virgin say there is no such thing as an orgasm, and therefore saying they don't exist is just silly to those who know differently! Now there might be different reasons for a person NOT experiencing and orgasm, such as fear and insecurity about having one, and those people, often women, may group together and 'discuss' every aspect of being 'fulfilled' and coming to a consensus of how they are above it all..but the fact remains, they haven't had one, and for them to tell other women, who have had one, that having an orgasm with their husband doesn't really exist is just them explaining that they have missed out on something, that they have no idea about. Those who have had one can remember, what it was like before they had one...likewise, those who are frigid, can only 'play down' any 'need' for one. Some women will 'fake' them...some people will also act like they are as good as experienced, but never had one. It's one of those things, that if you're willing not to 'fake it', and willing to be vulnerable, that all you have to do, is explain it to your husband, and ask him. It's not a matter of 'believing things ABOUT' an orgasm, like belonging to a 'church', but rather, having the actual experience...and there isn't a way around it in this life. Having a spiritual experience or having an orgasm is something that is available to everyone in this lifetime, and your husband would LOVE to accommodate your request...much like God regards his people as his Bride!! ..you'd just have to be there! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Apr 13 - 11:23 AM "We'll have to settle for diagnosis then. " But neither you or Dawkins are not qualified to diagnose "delusion" especially for people you have not met so you are intentionally using a pejorative. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Musket Date: 14 Apr 13 - 11:58 AM "I believe their strategy is ...." Says it all really. Sorry but you just cannot educate pork. (Funnily enough, the guy I learned that from was a Methodist preacher.) Why did you ask me to be respectful then add the next post before my answer? Come on, admit it. You love a knock about every bit as much as the next person who doesn't take themselves seriously . You wouldn't write what you do if it were otherwise. If you don't like insults, why use parenthesis when describing Dawkins credentials? Yeah, religious people can have a pop at the rest of us all they wish, use words such as atheist as inferred insult, tell children there are fairies at the bottom of the garden then screw their min ds when they grow up by forgetting to tell them its a metaphor... But if a single person asks them why?...... Then call them aggressive atheists. Accuse them of secret worship in priest holes to the altar of Dawkins and his mate Hitchens who dies for our sins... Fight for the right to call gay people wrong, women not worthy of the top jobs in their club, get a qualification in hand wringing over the ills of the world whilst coining in the funds. But don't forget to attack anybody who questions it... You don't need to be qualified to notice delusion, you just need to judge it against the facts. To be fair, when applied to a single person, as you are trying to do to muddy the waters, I can accept it can be misconception, sincere belief or plain view. Taken as a whole, it is peddling a delusion. Don't take my word for it, just listen to the British Anglican clergy, from vicars to bishops who bemoan those who misrepresent what they are trying to achieve by insisting on literal adoption of stories. You will find a past Bishop of Durham used the term whilst in office before Dawkins had published a single book. Oh, Goofus. Wrong thread mate. The spirituality thread is a back click away. Don't confuse the sanctimonious sailor any more than is necessary. Using words such as orgasm can be dangerous at this stage in his sermon... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Apr 13 - 12:06 PM Wrong, Musket...that thread is about a different topic....if you weren't so 'frigid' you'd know the difference! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Musket Date: 14 Apr 13 - 12:09 PM OK. Fair game. A virgin can have an orgasm. Discuss. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Apr 13 - 12:19 PM Why discuss it? Just send her here and I'll take her to motel in the outskirts of Hibbing......... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 14 Apr 13 - 12:44 PM Joe, of course the music threads are most important. While in wishing mode: I sometimes would like an indication in the thread title whether a request or question is still urgently waiting for its first answer. Helpful people with little time can then concentrate on those. Markings could be "U" = "urgently waiting", "W" = "still waiting for additional answers or comments", "S" = "answered to the satisfaction of the creator (but additional comments are welcome)", "N" = "the creator is no more interested", "O" = "old enough so that the creator is no longer likely to be interested". BS threads can be intresting as well, for those who are interested in other musicians as persons. (Musicians who reveal their real-life identity should be aware that any nastiness here can be noticed by anybody in the world, including your (potential) audience! Nastiness against those who are wrong, unreasonable, or nasty themselves still counts for nastiness. As Jack puts it: "Do it" (- being civilized -) "for yourself.") Strict systematics are neither possible nor required in the BS section, but it will be the more attractive the better the thread titles tell us what to expect inside.
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Apr 13 - 12:57 PM Mr Musket. You said the following to me. "You said in introducing a thread recently that you have a "thesis" regarding anti religion being based on bad experience. That is an insult to the vast majority of people in your country and mine" You mean this? "I like this analysis better than the usual approach to secularization, which just counts how many people believe and how many don't. It may one day help to test my thesis that activist atheism reflects trauma. The stricter one's religious background, the greater the need to go against it and to replace old securities with new ones." Did you notice the quotes? It is a direct quote from the article. Frans de Waal said that not me. Though I guess it is a bit of a compliment. I would not have thought I would get credit for writing that well. I don't think was was meant as an insult. The man is a behavioral scientist and his ideas and observation about primate behavior are adding real data, reinforcing on the atheist side about whether religion is required for ethics. It is too bad you didn't read the article. You may have learned something about your own interests and you might not have blamed me as much. It certainly does not refer to "the vast majority" in any country. It is referring to the very very small majority of atheists in any country who are activists. I would think that he knows of what he speaks when talking about the behavior of activist atheists. He is a behaviorist and as one of the world's most prominent atheists he is sure to have met plenty of people wishing to use his research as part of their activism. I point this as one more example of this on your part. >>Dogmatists have one advantage: they are poor listeners. This ensures sparkling conversations when different kinds of them get together the way male birds gather at "leks" to display splendid plumage for visiting females. It almost makes one believe in the "argumentative theory," according to which human reasoning didn't evolve for the sake of truth, but rather to shine in discussion. << You did not read the quote carefully enough to know who said it or to comprehend what was said. Yet on basis of your reading you say I am insulting nearly two whole countries? If you won't stop deliberately insulting us would you consider reading more carefully so that you don't do it by accident so much? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Ed T Date: 14 Apr 13 - 01:02 PM ""it will be the more attractive the better the thread titles tell us what to expect inside"" From the recent discussions, I guess this thread title wouldn't give you a good feel of what to expect inside? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Apr 13 - 01:04 PM "Strict systematics are neither possible nor required in the BS section, but it will be the more attractive the better the thread titles tell us what to expect inside. " I agree 100%. Also, in wish list mode, with the nature of some of our members here I would like to see the Original Poster's name with the title I'd skip more threads altogether and not be drawn into the drama. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Apr 13 - 01:11 PM What is 'spirit', is spirit..what is flesh or material is material. Of the two, the spiritual experience is FAR more...umm..'awakening' than a physical orgasm...and actually lights up more areas of the brain, than a physical orgasm...the frontal lobe of the brain lights up, and more neurons are activated, than those who don't have that experience. Now the brain can access different sensations of awareness, that unless you have experienced that, is really hard to explain...but one thing for sure, is that during a spiritual experience both 'time' and 'matter' take on a completely different sense of properties...and the experience is said to give the 'participant' a different view of what is considered to be the 'known reality'...so much, that often their 'reality' cannot be explained within the parameters of what we know, from this dimension....but rather this dimension has similar 'manifestations' that are indicative of ,as Crosby Still and Nash, described as, "...what is going on, down under you". A lot of people, clergy especially, interpret 'spirituality' as 'another place in another time'...it's not. If it excluded 'now' it would not be 'eternal' or infinite...but to those who only count the physical experience as the 'ultimate', are limiting what they actually have access to. I cannot 'give' you that experience by explaining anything..nor can people give it to themselves, no matter how much they study the dogmas of 'religion', or adhere to the tenets of a particular sect of religion....or obey the 'rules' set forth by any 'religious' order....but your awareness, of things much larger and fuller, not subject to time fuses into your consciousness...and it's impossible, as far as I know, to discount it....as time goes on, there are reminders all along the way...that just keeps proving itself. Things fall into order...not an order that you can figure out, nor can you configure them out....but they make sense, as they unfold. That's one reason, people outside the experience can clamor all they want about a subject, that SEEMS to make sense to them...but it is only temporary, and in a short time is obsolete. All I can say, respectfully, is it is like stepping into another dimension where your brain(for lack of a better analogy), sends and receives input far different than we do normally...and during one of these experiences, you have NO control, as to what is coming to you...hence the analogy of an orgasm is perfect! Another thing to remember, is the experience is not just physical, nor mental...and is FAR greater than an orgasm. It is both 'great and terrible'!...and if there wasn't anything else attached to it, you wouldn't want one....only problem is, there is. If you want to talk about it more, all I can do, respectfully is share what I know...but on this subject, I have no doubt. When I went through mine, more than 40 years ago, and some subsequent to that, the things I saw and experienced, I have watched unfold as time went by up to the present, and as far as I can tell, beyond. It caused me to search out different writings to find consistencies,and lo and behold, they are there. Without going into a lot of details, I will say that in music, for those who can compose, there is a wealth of info to process into sound!! Originally, I was steered to the Mudcat Forum, by a world renown musician who, in her experience, shared a similar experience, and a common denominator that blew our minds...considering that we came from different cultures, almost half way around the planet. Of course, I know I've been seen as somewhat of an oddball...but then, you should see it from my point of viewing!! Anyway, I've answered you honestly and respectfully (this time..*grinning*..) and hope you receive it in the spirit that is intended. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Apr 13 - 01:31 PM >>the spiritual experience is FAR more...umm..'awakening' than a physical orgasm.<< I agree, I get relaxed and sleepy after the later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Apr 13 - 01:44 PM ...and lean against the headboard and light up a cigarette?? wwwwhewww...just exhaling.... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: michaelr Date: 14 Apr 13 - 01:56 PM GfS: ....but your awareness, of things much larger and fuller, not subject to time fuses into your consciousness...and it's impossible, as far as I know, to discount it....as time goes on, there are reminders all along the way...that just keeps proving itself. Things fall into order...not an order that you can figure out, nor can you configure them out....but they make sense, as they unfold. That's one reason, people outside the experience can clamor all they want about a subject, that SEEMS to make sense to them...but it is only temporary, and in a short time is obsolete. All I can say, respectfully, is it is like stepping into another dimension where your brain(for lack of a better analogy), sends and receives input far different than we do normally...and during one of these experiences, you have NO control, as to what is coming to you...hence the analogy of an orgasm is perfect! Another thing to remember, is the experience is not just physical, nor mental...and is FAR greater than an orgasm. It is both 'great and terrible'!... Seems to me that you have perfectly described the psychedelic experience provided by sacraments such as peyote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Kenny B (inactive) Date: 14 Apr 13 - 03:14 PM Peyote has a long history of ritualistic and medicinal use by indigenous Americans. It flowers from March through May, and sometimes as late as September. The flowers are pink, with thigmotactic anthers (like Opuntia). I read the BS section to improve my vocabulary and my understnading of the human psyche BTW Musket i will use your "rose " phrase at every opportunity .... a gem amongst the thorns |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Apr 13 - 03:37 PM I can understand the peyote reference...and the tests done, using MRIs on people using psychedelics, do light up the frontal lobe, much the same way I was describing in my previous post...only thing is...I hadn't taken peyote when it happened..that being said, I have a deep respect for our Native American brothers who have seen much the same thing. When we have gotten together to share 'notes', they have had no problem with me either. Yo-ho!...Tewa for both 'Hello' and 'Farewell'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:44 PM Rather interesting that this thread asks who edits. Sailor boy wants to dictate which parts of his waffle we can comment on. I wasn't passing comment on the link you gave prat, I was more interested in what you wrote. You might like that because the more I read the more I note the world seems to spin round you. if I were editing I would keep your comments in as written. Mudcat is after all entertainment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Ed T Date: 14 Apr 13 - 05:04 PM ""the spiritual experience is FAR more...umm..'awakening' than a physical orgasm."" ""What do you non-smokers do after sex, sit around and eat jellybeans?"" Redd Foxx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Stringsinger Date: 14 Apr 13 - 05:12 PM Joe, you are doing a real service here. I'm glad you are allowing different point of view to be expressed. I can't think of many places where conversations of this nature are allowed to take place. On the media, we get loud-mouthed filibusterers who don't allow rebuttals to take place (a Republican tactic). Here, we get to respond hopefully with reason and not with invective (ideally). No one can shut another person up and that's great. Kudos to you, Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jeri Date: 14 Apr 13 - 05:21 PM I'm not sure where the term "editor" came from. This place gets so shrill sometimes it sounds like a bunch of pissed off monkeys. The people crying "foul" are frequently those who want to argue and do little else. I usually can't be bothered to even read the stuff, and if the participants want to throw feces at one another, I ain't gonna try to clean it up. That said, people bitch about language often do so because that's all they have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Ed T Date: 14 Apr 13 - 05:50 PM ""Editing might be a bloody trade. But knives aren't the exclusive property of butchers. Surgeons use them too."" Blake Morrison |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:08 PM "I'm not sure where the term "editor" came from." That was me, I saw a typo and a classification error on someone else's thread title and wanted to point it out before too many mocking birds came out. I didn't want anything moderated, I didn't know if y'all still called yourself mud elfs after Joe was removed as moderator. Joe answered the question and someone fixed the problem before I got a chance to say. All was good! I was just trying to be nice and to be accurate. Sorry if there was any confusion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:10 PM ""Editing might be a bloody trade. But knives aren't the exclusive property of butchers. Surgeons use them too."" Blake Morrison And people who spread butter. Jack the Sailor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: gnu Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:18 PM Spaw... hehehehe... As usual, yer a breath of fresh air. Mods... yeah.. it must be tiresome. Downright upsetting at times listening to likes of me and the other idiots who never learn. JtS... since you continue to slag me off or allude to your recently taken up cause which you took up well after it was first mentioned (as if you actually even knew it even existed before it was (FALSELY) pointed out by your far betters), glad you won't read this post or any more of my threads. Take note, tho... I ain't gonna post my name in any thread titles just because your prissy ass can't take the heat you generate when your knickers get in a twist on accounta you just like the way it feels. Oh... now I gotta apologize to the mods again... the Jack made me do it. Hahahahaa... well, at least I made myself laff... YMMV. I realaize my post may be deleted because it is a tad nasty but when someone continues to fuck with me, I fuck them back. I don't start fights but I sure as hell finish them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Apr 13 - 01:14 AM Stringsinger: "Joe, you are doing a real service here. I'm glad you are allowing different point of view to be expressed. I can't think of many places where conversations of this nature are allowed to take place." Make that a double!...WELL said!!! Hat's off editors.... ....then off with your heads!..(grins) Thank you! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Apr 13 - 01:53 AM I only mentioned it because Joe brought it up, innocently. If you want to piss in your own bed gnu, I am not going to stop you. Curse and swear and piss and moan all you like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Apr 13 - 01:57 AM Sanity, you have a very offensive apostrophe in your post, and I'm really tempted to remove it.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Apr 13 - 02:37 AM What is it I said innocently, Jack? I think I can say for all the moderators, that we find gnu to be extremely entertaining.....even when he's grumpy. And in general, I think I can say that we have a lot more affection for "certain" individuals, than people might think we have. -Joe- ....and I didn't know that gnus and Wildebeests were the same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Apr 13 - 03:04 AM Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!...not the apostrophe!!!!....anything but THAT!!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Apr 13 - 03:16 AM It's an apostrophectomy, Sanity. Don't worry, you'll really like the anaesthetic.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Apr 13 - 04:59 AM First they cracked my sternum, and took out my heart....and you know what??...When I took an hour longer to come back, with my kids there, doing what they could....the doctor told them that I didn't want to come back..(true story)..but now, it's the apostrophe.....how about just one of these >> . <<....I got plenty of those!!...but not the apostrophes...I don't know what I'd do without them!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:27 AM What is it I said innocently, Jack? >>I've been waiting for you to ask me to change the title of the "spiritualism" thread.<< That is what he is taking about isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:41 AM "I think I can say for all the moderators, that we find gnu to be extremely entertaining.....even when he's grumpy. And in general, I think I can say that we have a lot more affection for "certain" individuals, than people might think we have." I know that better than anyone I think. But I am not crying like a stuck pig this time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jeri Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:46 AM Joe, he said "hat's off". Presuming he's only capable of wearing one hat, his hat's off. It's more of a sentence fragment than apostrophe abuse. Seriously, I saw the complaint in the other thread and chose to ignore it. Who knew one person's problem with word usage would be worthy of a whole new thread? It's not the usage I'm accustomed to, but it's not technically wrong either. And I'd rather have a guy around who gets mad and gets over it than someone who's just snotty all the time. ("Who's", of course, being a contraction of "who is".) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jeri Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:59 AM How's "moditor"? Oh, nevermind.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Apr 13 - 10:09 AM "Seriously, I saw the complaint in the other thread and chose to ignore it. Who knew one person's problem with word usage would be worthy of a whole new thread? It's not the usage I'm accustomed to, but it's not technically wrong either. And I'd rather have a guy around who gets mad and gets over it than someone who's just snotty all the time." I opened this thread for a completely different reason. I wasn't trying to be snotty or put anyone down. I just wanted to know who to politely send a message to point out an error in a thread title that had nothing to do with Gnu. I wasn't even thinking of that thread until Joe innocently brought it up. That is the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Apr 13 - 11:48 AM Upon closer observation.....I surrender the rogue apostrophe! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: gnu Date: 15 Apr 13 - 05:59 PM Gee, JtS... that's the closest I have ever seen you come to an actual apology. I feel like a prom queen. But?... "But I am not crying like a stuck pig this time." Ya say I am pissing in my own bed? NO. I am pissing in YOUR bed. Because you deserve it after you pissed in mine. Apologize or piss off. I will not be bullied or slagged off. And I will never not finish a fight that was foisted upon me for no good reason. Never. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jeri Date: 15 Apr 13 - 06:13 PM That's the problem right there. What are you doing in JtS's bed, gnu? Would y'all stop pissing? Seriously, other folks don't deserve this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: gnu Date: 15 Apr 13 - 06:30 PM Jeri... I don't start em. I finish em. I never pissed in anyone's bed uless they pissed in mine FIRST. I got pissed on and I will not stand for it. Jeri, or anyone else, if ya can tell me what *I* did wrong in ANY of this, please do and I will apologize. I always have when I was in error in any way on any topic or in any discussion. AND, I never backed down from an attack and I have never allowed myself to be bullied... and that includes going to bat for others. I will not be bullied. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jeri Date: 15 Apr 13 - 07:00 PM The whole "finish it" thing: tell me how that happens on the internet? It doesn't. It goes on and on until whoever is the maddest pisses off, and neither one of you guys is going to do that. So what happens is you just brawl through thread and fuck up all of them. In effect, it's not you or JtS that's going to get hurt the most, it's those of us who would like some reasonable conversation. The quibble over the word was dumb, but continuing the fight for THIS long is worse. C'mon, guys... PLEASE. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: gnu Date: 15 Apr 13 - 07:21 PM Okay. Fine, IF JtS stops slagging me off I won't have to respond to such. If not, deal's off. Fair deal? I think it is. Done deal fer me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Rob Naylor Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:10 PM EdT "No matter how thin you slice it, there will always be two sides." ― Baruch Spinoza Three, actually, if it's a circular or elliptical item. More otherwise. I well remember asking my Physics teacher during a test if we should write on both sides of the paper to receive the pearl: "Naylor, you can write on all 6 sides if you like, but I can't promise to mark it all" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Rob Naylor Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:39 PM GfS: Again, spirituality is different from 'religion'...and unless you've had a substantial spiritual experience, it would be like trying to 'explain' an orgasm to a virgin...and in like manner, listening to a virgin say there is no such thing as an orgasm, and therefore saying they don't exist is just silly to those who know differently! Now there might be different reasons for a person NOT experiencing and orgasm, such as fear and insecurity about having one, and those people, often women, may group together and 'discuss' every aspect of being 'fulfilled' and coming to a consensus of how they are above it all..but the fact remains, they haven't had one, and for them to tell other women, who have had one, that having an orgasm with their husband doesn't really exist is just them explaining that they have missed out on something, that they have no idea about. Those who have had one can remember, what it was like before they had one...likewise, those who are frigid, can only 'play down' any 'need' for one. [...[ It's not a matter of 'believing things ABOUT' an orgasm, like belonging to a 'church', but rather, having the actual experience...and there isn't a way around it in this life. Having a spiritual experience or having an orgasm is something that is available to everyone in this lifetime, and your husband would LOVE to accommodate your request...much like God regards his people as his Bride!! What a ridiculous analogy! How about an alternative....One group experiencing orgasms and putting the explanation down to the idea that there's an invisible 3rd (or 2nd in the case of masturbation!) party in the room "facilitating" the orgasm and without that presence an orgasm wouldn't be possible, whilst another group may also experience orgasms but puts them down to physical and neurochemical reactions and responses to internal and external stimuli on their own bodies, rather than the need for an invisble presence during the process. I can sit on a mountaintop in the breaking dawn and feel huge awe, and deep, deep happiness, but I don't need to postulate an invisible friend to explain it. It's in me! Other people hear voices or experience visions, and we know that these come from within their own brains...Charles Bonnet Syndrome, for instance, or Schizophrenia, to take just 2 examples. So why shouldn't the experiences other people see as "spiritual" come from within their own brains, rather than being the result of a connection with an intangible external consciousness? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Rob Naylor Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:52 PM GfS: All I can say, respectfully, is it is like stepping into another dimension where your brain(for lack of a better analogy), sends and receives input far different than we do normally...and during one of these experiences, you have NO control, as to what is coming to you...hence the analogy of an orgasm is perfect! Another thing to remember, is the experience is not just physical, nor mental...and is FAR greater than an orgasm. It is both 'great and terrible'!.. I had an experience pretty much as you're describing a number of years ago. It was awesome...visions, sound, bright lights, and a feeling of euphoria DEEP within me...no control over where it was going and a huge peacefulness. If I'd been that way inclined, I could easily have ascribed it to communion with a "god" or a "universal spirit" or whatever. But as it happened at 19,000 feet, I'm pretty sure it was just brought on by hypoxia! Despite the cold I felt really hot and my partner had to stop me taking off my clothes. I know loads of people who've had visions, heard sounds etc when at high altitide, and I'm quite happy that it's down to physical processes and reactions in the brain rather than being "closer to god". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Joe at the Women's Center Date: 15 Apr 13 - 09:13 PM Well, all I can say, respectfully, is that I'm still confused. What was this thread about in the first place, and what was it I said in innocent confusion? -Joe Confused- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Apr 13 - 10:16 PM "If I wanted to subtly request an edit to a post title, who would I contact?" I wanted to know who to ask to change a thread with an obvious error in the title. You brought up Gnu's thread and seemed to assume that I would want it changed. That was the innocent error assuming that it was the the "spiritualism" thread In actual fact I did not have that thread in mind and I said so. "the title of the "spiritualism" thread. That would be Gnus's call. I was pretty agnostic about whether it should be spiritualism. I did not know what Gnu could possibly mean with either word. So I said this trying to excuse you and the others for that conclusion and trying to say I don't think any harm was done by the thread title. I said "The error was point out pretty early and politely I thought. It didn't hurt the conversation as much as other factors." Then he when wildebeest on me. I went Chongo on him. The rest seems pretty clear I think. I am getting very tired of this. I have and eye operation tomorrow. I am tired. I don't need the stress. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Apr 13 - 10:17 PM 100 ! HA! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Apr 13 - 12:46 AM Rob, stay off the drugs at high altitudes! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 Apr 13 - 05:51 AM ""What do you non-smokers do after sex, sit around and eat jellybeans?"" Redd Foxx "" Naah! They have enough breath left to start over for another go. I wish I'd joined 'em before I wound up with emphysema. I'm sure it would have been more enjoyable than a cigarette. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Ed T Date: 16 Apr 13 - 07:39 AM Survival tip: Peeing in your boots only keeps you warm for a short time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Apr 13 - 03:48 PM Joe, My apostrophe went and sought legal counsel...pointing out the he was merely replacing an "i", therefore not an 'Illegal alien', He's claiming that he was not trying to show that the 'hat' did not posses him.....Rather, that "Hat's off" could also be written "Hat IS off"...so the case is on 'appeal'. Going to comment a bit better on a couple of other posts...thought of some good shit to point out some differences...as in, though the general area of the brain lights up more, it doesn't not necessarily mean that the 'paths' traveled by them was the same....though, their could be similarities is 'euphoric' sensations....but they would all be distinctly different....and there are.....as in the difference between peyote experience, and an orgasm, as opposed to that which you get while meditating...or music...ALL light up that area, but ALL are distinct from each other. Unless you've experienced them in a way that you actually have those different 'feelings', then the thought of them all being the same, is just a wrong 'idea'....and all it is is just an idea.....arrived at using less amount of brain at that!...Nope, not the same! For what it's worth...but respectfully, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: gnu Date: 16 Apr 13 - 04:56 PM JtS... my thoughts and prayers to you re the op on accounta (as you know) I really do care about you and your dear one. Re... "Then he when wildebeest on me." Yup, and I'll do it again if you fuck with me again. Let's get that REAL clear THIS time. Jeri... again, apologies but you have known me for a while and, well, nothing has changed. Still pretty much a dumb gnu. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: ollaimh Date: 16 Apr 13 - 09:52 PM I notice that joe s pals are the instrumentally challenged and talent free old guys who sing in church basements and sagely tell them selves that those ethnic musicians who get paid aren't "real" folk. that's pretty much what anglo folk is all about. creating cliques. of course they have no relevance to anyone any other way. at least they are relavant to each other that way |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: ollaimh Date: 16 Apr 13 - 10:01 PM many of you may find gnus out bursts charming, but I liv in new Brunswick where his particular form of redneck intolerance is a constant threat to over throw our very very hard won social peace between the French and English. out province is almost half and half and our city the same. there were decades when the French were without the most basic social services that English could take for granted and decades n=before that when vigilante mobs took over acadien villages to impose "justice" in several famous cases. after much travaille now we have relative social peace. however it is constantly threatened by people like gnu who are prepared to let their anger be their belief rather than compassion or reason. furthermore, even more decades ago the French were ethnically cleansed by americans and british violent racists. but then americans never apologize for a little genocide or ethnic cleansing. can you say Guatemala? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: gnu Date: 16 Apr 13 - 10:26 PM ollaimh... your posts in the past have proven you to be what you are. This latest one is no different. I understand what you say about the past as I am half Irish and half French and live in NB too. But, I reject your claims of the present, as I have in the past. I am far more tolerant of others than you. I am a not a racist... you are. You and your ilk are the problem in Canada's only officially bilingual province. The likes of you spread hatred and divisiveness for the sake of your own gain in stirring up shit where there is none to begin with. You should be ashamed of yourself. YOU are the threat. And it makes me sad and angry. BTW... that shit really pisses off my French relatives (mother, aunts, uncles). They have to deal with with the likes of you spewing your garbage... it embarrasses them. And your posts piss me off to no end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: ollaimh Date: 16 Apr 13 - 10:32 PM well gnu pissed off is your natural state. that's part of the bigotry, or better said why you think your bigotry and ignorance are ok, because you are angry. really you are just full of hate |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: ollaimh Date: 16 Apr 13 - 10:36 PM I might add for the "folk collectors" they are the instrumentally challenged and talent free but they can be the leaders! and the cops! the real musicians need their policing and leadership eh? the folk "leader are parasites who luckily are more and more marginalized and irrelevant every day. they used to hold court and power at folk fests and clubs but they are so boring even their friends can rarely stand to listen to them. pedantry is it's own reward |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Apr 13 - 10:46 PM Wow the whole Atlantic war and ethnic cleansing thing all laid at the feet of one guy because he got pissed off because I misunderstood his comments about spiritualism? You think gnu has the power to start another exile of the French? I think he should try it, just to see if he can. I can just picture Robbie Robertson picking up his Juno award. Acadian driftwood. Mudcat tailwind Sent away, by a man named gnu When you called him a redneck racist and he is just as French as you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 17 Apr 13 - 02:51 AM Ollaimh, what is "Anglo" folk? Do you mean English folk? If so, describing it as "instrumentally challenged and talent free old guys who sing in church basements and sagely tell them selves that those ethnic musicians who get paid aren't 'real' folk" is utter nonsense, as a quick look at what is happening on the English folk scene will tell you. And over here English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh singers and musicians will happily play together. Perhaps this tribal animosity is a North American habit? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here? From: Megan L Date: 17 Apr 13 - 03:30 AM Sadly Ollaimh your may have genuine things to say but like many who are here now your vicious nastiness stops people from listening. There are times I could willingly pit Gnu ower ma knees and skelp him for bein glaikit but I know him to be one of the finest people on this site, a genuinely caring loving friend does not judge people by race creed or colour. My fault that I do not get to talk to him as often as I once did but I will not stand back and see someone who quite obviously does not know anything about him. I would remind you of the words of my National poet Robert Burns "O ye wha are sae guid yoursel', Sae pious and sae holy, Ye've nought to do but mark and tell Your neibours' fauts and folly! Whase life is like a weel-gaun mill, Supplied wi' store o' water; The heaped happer's ebbing still, An' still the clap plays clatter. Hear me, ye venerable core, As counsel for poor mortals That frequent pass douce Wisdom's door For glaikit Folly's portals: I, for their thoughtless, careless sakes, Would here propone defences- Their donsie tricks, their black mistakes, Their failings and mischances. Ye see your state wi' theirs compared, And shudder at the niffer; But cast a moment's fair regard, What maks the mighty differ; Discount what scant occasion gave, That purity ye pride in; And (what's aft mair than a' the lave), Your better art o' hidin. Think, when your castigated pulse Gies now and then a wallop! What ragings must his veins convulse, That still eternal gallop! Wi' wind and tide fair i' your tail, Right on ye scud your sea-way; But in the teeth o' baith to sail, It maks a unco lee-way. " The poem ends with this good advice " Then gently scan your brother man, Still gentler sister woman; Tho' they may gang a kennin wrang, To step aside is human: One point must still be greatly dark, - The moving Why they do it; And just as lamely can ye mark, How far perhaps they rue it." |
