BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 02:33 PM

Addendum: I guess it would involve all of us noticing the similar characteristics of these two identities.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 02:31 PM

But aren't all 'proofs' really based on probabilities that increase as we get more and more evidence?   So that we can prove that something is false, but we can only keep obtaining more evidence to support a 'truth'. (sorry if I'm off base, but my scientific methods courses are way in the past).

Can we potentially prove that it's false that Steve Shaw and Guest from Sanity are the same person?

And evidence for it's truth? Well, we all know about the 'dark side'........and the surprising ways that that side of ourselves comes out.   So here we have Guest from Shaw (or is it Steve from Sanity?) wrestling with those two parts of him/her self.   

Let's watch all their further posts to see if we can gather some further evidence to support this hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 02:06 PM

There is in fact a real distinction between "falsifiable" and "false". All kinds of things are not realistically falsifiable but at the same time reasonably considered false. For example it is not possible to prove that Elvis Presley is not well and living in the Andromeda Galaxy.

Again it would be pretty hard to prove false the claim that Steve Shaw and Guest from Sanity are the same person...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 01:42 PM

Heheh. If that post was respectful then I'm the bloody Queen of Sheba. Congratulations, Guffers, on being the first to remould God to your own predilection since I predicted it. It's a slow start but I hope there'll be more to come. A force blowing through everything, perhaps, or the invisible intelligent energy driving the universe. Maybe even an old bloke with a beard with Jesus sitting on his right hand! Sounds like fun...

Oh well, that's me consigned... :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 01:04 PM

Steve Shaw: "If I'm wrong I'm wrong. That was a brain fart. But, I mean, what made me think you'd pounce on it?"

Well, if it was a 'little brain fart' that would be one thing..but you keep running for shelter every time your 'little brain farts' are discovered to be more like a series of overwhelming flatulence.

You ought not dismiss such a long 'run' of 'inconsistencies', that prove to be poking holes in your main premise....but then, if you decided to move on, what's next?...dysentery??

Perhaps your 'concept' of 'God', is nothing more than a rejection of how or what it was portrayed to you, in your youth, by a bogus 'religion'. You may consider that within 'God' are all the properties of physics, both seen and unseen by the naked eye...a whole new realm of existence might open up to you as well...because your rejection, of what you term as 'God', might be the first step in the right direction!.....
..and that is meant, respectfully.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:49 AM

Additionally Don, you cannot infect anyone else if you suffer from diabetes.
I think it may be in another realm Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:44 AM

Don...I was having a little ironical joke, but if you have to explain these things, they dont work.

Read it over a few times and it will come to you.
(clue, its not really about the musket)
Dont know why you are so upset, we dont argue very much these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:27 AM

If I'm wrong I'm wrong. That was a brain fart. But, I mean, what made me think you'd pounce on it? Do try to move on. As for falsifiability, very interesting. Not relevant to this chit-chat, but do continue. By constantly raising heady philosophical points in front of creationist idiots you're simply encouraging them. They'll end up thinking they're on your level. I much prefer to tell 'em what I really think. And I think you think the same as me really, don't you? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:11 AM

Steve Shaw

That post would read much better without the first sentence. :-(

Indeed it would and it's to your credit to acknowledge the fact. The second sentence is a bit strange as well but you'll have to take that up with Professor Coyne. Do you still reject the concept of falsifiability?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket not smooth nor a bore
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:07 AM

Dream on suckers...

Be buggered if I know where the nickname came from, except I've had it since I was at junior school and am now old enough to be a bore, hence trying desperately not to be so.

Except when questioning absurd and hateful positions. I'll happily be boring then cos I won't give up. Not for a minute.

Smooth bore? No. Well honed with a decent helix. Like peering up James Bond's arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 09:10 AM

All these posters saying "you" to a range of different unnamed people must make this thread extremely confusing to readers who aren't obsessive thread and post analysers... more especially where a number of other posts from different people have intervened.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:47 AM

""Well personally, I dont see how anyone could confuse Ian with an obsolete smoothbore firearm?.... :0)""

Well, my half asleep friend, you may be the only person on Mudcat too inattentive to have noticed Ian posting as Musket!

And what is a musket?.......An obsolete smoothbore......need I go on?

Mind you, inattention would seem to explain much of your input.

e.g. your overlooking the latest position on HIV according to specialists who have spent years researching and devising treatments, eventually reducing it to ""a manageable condition which should not significantly reduce life expectancy"", which puts it within the realms of incurables like diabetes, cirrhosis and COPD.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:34 AM

""(or making things up Don)""

Acording to you who have been known to be terminologically inexact on numerous occasions, especially when slagging of the ethnic minorities you despise (and Irish Republicans).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 07:53 AM

That post would read much better without the first sentence. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 07:46 AM

Unfortunately, falsifiable does not mean false. Putting that argument is simply leaving the issue open to creationists to claim some credibility. They're experts when it comes to that: God is always placed deliberately beyond science so that his existence cannot be refuted by evidence and reason. The case against intelligent design is that, in the 21st century, it is an argument from a position of deliberate, eyes-shut ignorance. Classic God of the Gaps stuff (though its supporters never actually see the gaps closing fast). In 1859 Darwin anticipated intelligent design (a move that was sine qua non for his theory) and refuted it beautifully in Chapter 6. We have far more evidence today, much of it in the fields of genetics and biochemistry, than Darwin couldn't even dream of having, and there is no excuse for putting an argument that ignores it, let alone ignoring all the excellent work done which comprehensively debunks the notion of a designer. What a shame that supporters of intelligent design deliberately display a lack of the main attribute of their proposed designer: intelligence. You can't argue with idiots. Well, it can be fun to try.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 06:10 AM

SJL, you might find this Wikipedia article useful - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

One particular sentence stands out -

Some critics, such as Jerry Coyne (professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago) and Eugenie Scott (a physical anthropologist and executive director of the National Center for Science Education) have argued that the concept of irreducible complexity, and more generally, intelligent design is not falsifiable, and therefore, not scientific.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:52 AM

And, if you want a true example of irreducible complexity, there's always God! He must have had the biggest and most complex brain ever in order to create absolutely everything just like that, sort out all the laws of nature, and, on top of it, be all-seeing and all-knowing and have time to listen to billions of prayers a day and judge millions of souls a day.

He must have had - wait for it - one hell of an intelligent designer!

(Steve, expecting to be told how many different kinds of God there are...)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:43 AM

I do not have to explain irreducible complexity to you, because, in the world of living things, there is no such phenomenon. Again, you betray a complete (and possibly deliberate) misunderstanding of evolution. The bogus notion of irreducible complexity is no more than a facile attempt to run evolution backwards. Well you can't do that because evolution has no forwards. No goals, no acme of perfection to seek. Any example of irreducible complexity you wish to claim can be refuted by recourse to many examples of "simpler" structures representing a whole range of evolutionary steps. They all work perfectly well for the organism in question and in no way represent faltering steps along the way to some kind of finished article. What you're utterly failing, possibly disingenuously, to get your head round is the vast length of time natural selection has had to accumulate changes. Not only that, there is plenty of evidence that components which have one function can not only be adapted for other functions but can also be combined with other components to provide an improved or a novel function (the oft-quoted example of the flagellum, for example, a famous bogus example of irreducible complexity). Once again, I can suggest a good book, published in 1859. I especially refer you to Chapter 6, in which Darwin deals, frankly and elegantly, with the alleged irreducible complexity of the eye. He ends with a diplomatic little dig at irreducible complexity merchants' rather presumptious attitude toward their own alleged Creator. Nice one, Charles. But being nice didn't work. There are still clods around, even in 2013, who are so obsessed with religion and the idea that it's impossible for God not have created absolutely everything that they just won't listen to evidence. And they wonder why some of us get so annoyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:04 AM

Devotees? them?

Even your shorter contributions make the good professor sigh wistfully for the return of what you speak.

Keep banging the rocks together Goofus. ....

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 02:15 AM

SJL, I just brought that up less than a week ago, that natural selection, and 'evolution' as Darwinian devotees put forth, are not compatible. Thank you, for broaching the subject, again, in your way.

GfS

P.S. Then on the other hand, there is another 'evolution' aspect that makes them choke as well....We'll see if it goes there.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 01:57 AM

Steve, so how do you explain irreducible complexity? If a given irreducibly complex biological entity is absolutely nonfunctional without the full sum of its parts, how could it have evolved through natural selection? Any irreducibly complex entity, in order to be what it is, had to have manifested whole and functional.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 12:32 AM

Well, you never know....in the beginning God created man in his own image, and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 12:28 AM

Good idea, GFS.   Sort of like if the creator would just sit there and mind his/her own business. (And assuming there is a creator, that's probably what he/she is doing).   

Unless the creator is like Randy Newman's creator in God's Song.



http://youtu.be/vEKuGcmW70I

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 12:19 AM

Then maybe you should read, instead of posting....see what happens. Maybe it will evolve into a new creation!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 11:54 PM

It started out with a good premise, Larry, but I think after evolving for awhile, it shows little signs of intelligent design.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 10:13 PM

I created this thread. Look what it's evolved into. How much of this is evolution and how much is intelligent design?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:49 PM

"Intelligent design" is a sort of reverse engineering.

I recall seeing a supposed "science" program on television a few years ago. Very well produced, much like a "Nova" presentation, called "Our Privileged Planet." With "Nova"-like graphics, it talked about the place of the earth in the universe, and how conditions were perfect for the existence of humans, as opposed to many other planets with no water, atmosphere, or other necessities of life. After most of an hour, it zeroed in on its main thesis: all of these wonderful, life-sustaining conditions HAD to be evidence that there was an "Intelligence" behind it all!

It wasn't until that close to the end of the show that I realized that it was a bloody elaborate commercial for "Intelligent Design!"

Damned sneaky!

The simple fact is that if the earth didn't have an oxygen-rich atmosphere, have water, and wasn't far enough from the sun for water to be in liquid form, and for the temperature to be in the "Goldilocks zone"—not too cold, not too hot, but just right, and a whole host of other conditions conducive to the emergence of life—we wouldn't be here to speculate on how we came about.

"Intelligent Design" is merely Creationism in a lab coat.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:24 PM

Well it sure seems that Firth understands what he is talking about on his last post!!!
Now if he would only not deflect it, as if it was applying to someone else, besides himself...truth to tell..

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:19 PM

Incidentally, evolution by means of natural selection does indeed explain all of life on Earth. It might even go a long way towards explaining the origin of life. It's a good bet that it would explain life anywhere in the universe, come to think of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:13 PM

The social policy you refer to has nothing to do with Darwin. The usurping and warping of a man's honourable ideas after he's dead for nefarious causes should not be used to besmirch his name. And there is no "Theory of Intelligent Design". There is the delusion of intelligent design. Find other ways of expressing wacky notions other than in dishonestly-scientific language. Evolution has had almost four billion years to accumulate the diversity and complexity of life on this planet. That's more than enough time to create the illusion of design. Unfortunately, accommodating intelligent design goes hand-in-hand with a complete (possibly deliberate) misunderstanding of evolution. I can recommend a good book if you like, published in 1859.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:04 PM

Does anyone expect to change the views of anyone through argument? What can happen is that there is a greater understanding of where the differences are, and in some cases a recognition of areas of agreement. At the same time we can get a better appreciation of what we believe ourself, and perhaps modify that. And we can hope that other people who are undecided may find our views convincing.

But you have just described exactly how views can be changed by argument!

None of that is helped by throwing flak around, or slapping people around. And what relevance is that they might deserve it, when "it" does not in any way damage them?

Who said anything about aiming to damage them? I don't care what pete or anyone else believes in. The aim is not to "damage them" but to discredit their unpleasant, insulting and unsupportable views, as publicly expressed, especially if there is an evangelical element involved. There is no point in indulging idiots. An idiot is an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:00 PM

Steve, evolution does not explain everything. The Theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. This is not the same as Creationism. What's more, as it was the intellectual trend in Darwin's day to transfer the model for the study of the natural sciences to social science, Darwinism led to Social Darwinism. Social policies reflecting the "survival of the fittest," applied to social affairs have been a complete disaster except for those in the privileged classes and defy anthropological evidence that man survived his early trials through cooperation rather than competition within the group. How ironic is it that so many conservatives still ascribe to Darwinistic social policy while they reject science in favor of religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:56 PM

Lots of wisdom in that last post, McGrath of Harlow.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:54 PM

Ad hominem? Hmm. Undiplomatic, true, but factual as well. Care to count the number of times you've popped up out of the blue to have a pot at me when I've mentioned evolution? Now compare that with the number of times you've ever engaged me on other topics. Looks embarrassingly obsessive, eh? My position is clear and has been for ages. I've wasted a lot of time on you, frankly. Perhaps the rebuke will shake you off once and for all. I have far better things to do than indulge your gripe. So do you. It really isn't anywhere near interesting enough to keep on resurrecting.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:48 PM

Does anyone expect to change the views of anyone through argument? What can happen is that there is a greater understanding of where the differences are, and in some cases a recognition of areas of agreement. At the same time we can get a better appreciation of what we believe ourself, and perhaps modify that. And we can hope that other people who are undecided may find our views convincing.

None of that is helped by throwing flak around, or slapping people around. And what relevance is that they might deserve it, when "it" does not in any way damage them?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:34 PM

There are various characteristics of an internet troll, but three of those characteristics that appear in forums where people are trying to have a serious discussion about important issues are:

1. All of your carefully researched arguments, and the evidence that supports them, will simply be ignored.

2. Whatever you say will be reworded into something else.

3. Anything you say, especially if it happens to be of a personal nature, will be twisted and used against you, often to try to denigrate you or call your character into question.

Anonymity, or an easily discarded "internet name," makes the troll feel safe to say things that he would not dare say to someone face to face.

The internet troll is basically a coward who uses trolling as a means of inflating his own shaky ego.

The usual advice is "don't feed the troll," which is to say, don't respond to him and he'll go away. But more often than not, somebody will respond to him, and he manages to disrupt and divert discussions that otherwise might be fairly productive. But the troll is not interested in the discussion itself. He only wishes to disrupt it, or divert it to focus on himself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:24 PM

Firth: "Sorry, but I think that should be pointed out."

Not only did you point it out, your first few posts demonstrated it perfectly! You DO have a 'tendency' to accuse others of your own tactics!...and then try to pass off as 'oh so sweet, innocent, and well read'!..Which really isn't quite the case.
..and that IS the truth...and more than myself has pointed it out to you. Why not pay attention, and present a solid side to what you think you have to say, without your usual attacks?

You might find an honest exchange, is better than bickering.....
But then you also might learn something....something 'know-all-ogists' hate to do...learn something!...especially, if it as fact that goes contrary to your favorite political whim of the moment!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:22 PM

Thanks Steve, ad hominem attack and complete failure to answer the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:12 PM

I am trying to make the point that not even the most respectful, careful, restrained and considered approach has made one scrap of difference to the man in question. It's all been tried. So you have a choice. Let him keep on with it (and he will, as all evangelical types do), or slap him down. As far as I'm concerned, if he disrespects scientists without grounds or evidence he deserves every bit of flak chucked at him.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:48 PM

So you don't feel a sense of respect towards the person. So is it that you feel that it is more effective in such a case for that to be reflected in the tone of the language used to challenge his views, or is it that you would,see it as a matter of it being dishonest if you didn't?

I would see being effective as the priority in such cases, and restrained language as an important element in being effective. In any online argument the most relevant parties are the bystanders, not the adversary.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:45 PM

Well--

Excuse me for saying so, but this thread seems to have degenerated into a graphic illustration of the very problem stated in the initial post.

Sorry, but I think that should be pointed out.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM

So Steve, could you explain why you bombard me with infantile abuse when all I have ever done is to try and present modern scientific orthodoxy against your "Evolution is True" stance?

Because you're a bit of a stalker, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:35 PM

Ian and Steve have political positions and anything which runs contrary to these positions is deemed "unreasonable", "odious" or "contemptible"

This a double misrepresentation and is pretty childish as well.


Regarding the epidemic of sexually transmitted disease amongst male homosexuals, is it not "reasonable" to want that epidemic curtailed or stopped?

You are homophobic because you have made it some kind of mission of yours to single out homosexual men for your severe wannabe policies. You want to curtail epidemics, huh? Well where's your campaign to close down every McDonald's and pizza shop? To ban all processed convenience foods? To outlaw confectionery and sugary drinks? To force everyone to wash their hands after blowing their noses? To screen people for faecal bacteria on their hands as they emerge from public toilets? To ban alcoholic drinks? To make possession of tobacco illegal? To force everyone to take exercise? To punish obesity by law? Any one of those measures would have at least as great a benefit on public health as what you're proposing for gay men. The fact that you are obsessed by that one issue, which you claim to be your target for improving public health, can really only lead to one conclusion. It isn't really public health you're worried about at all. You just don't like gay people, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:34 PM

So Steve, could you explain why you bombard me with infantile abuse when all I have ever done is to try and present modern scientific orthodoxy against your "Evolution is True" stance?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:15 PM

You don't respect the views, fine. You look down on anyone who can hold such views, reasonable. But regardless of that, in my view, there is a duty to behave towards the person, as reflected in any communication with them, respectfully, which overides such feelings. Feelings just don't come into it.

I recognise that this is not how we are likely to behave, but I believe it is the standard towards which we should aim.

The trouble is, online abuse, however justified it can sometimes feel, is something which can easily build into something pretty damaging. I think there are rare occasions when it can indeed have a place, but they are as rare as the situations when a blow to the face is the right response.

But the views expressed by the man I was referring to are extremely abusive in themselves. He gets away with it, ironically, because his abuse is aimed at the millions of people he would, presumably, like to see following his delusion (why else does he declare such derision of science and, especially, scientists, in such evangelical terms?) rather than at named individuals. If his ilk ever fulfilled all their goals we would be back in the dark ages of magic, superstition and fear. They have already had some success in that regard. He may be a gentle and soft-spoken fellow down the pub or when he's patting his dog but his views are a threat to the advance of civilisation. Four in ten Americans not believing in evolution, so please don't tell me I'm overstating the case! He demonstrates his disrespect for people here by churning out the same nonsense again and again in spite of all the reasoned arguments ever put to him. We might as well have said nothing at all. Peddling dangerous and regressive nonsense to a lot of people is far more damaging than his being called a well-deserved name or two!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM

There are estimated to be more than 24 million people in 19 countries in Africa with HIV/Aids. The vast majority are heterosexual. I don't know whether the proportion is higher among male homosexuals, but that doesn't really seem particularly significant either way. It wouldn't make any significant difference to those figures if every male homosexual was infected, or if none of them were.
.........................................

People keep on confusing feeling respect for people and treating them in a way that is respectful.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 06:04 PM

From Don.

""Muskrat, don't assume you are defending everyone within a given category. People are individuals. Muskrat,""

Don't you think that your own credibility might be enhanced by learning the difference between an obsolete smoothbore firearm, and a rather smelly small rodent?"


Well personally, I dont see how anyone could confuse Ian with an obsolete smoothbore firearm?.... :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:54 PM

Mr McGrath....I see some posts here as unreasonable, but never "odious" or "contemptible", so long as they are stated opinions and not direct orders.
I see no racism or other hatred here just opinions on immigration, health, legislation, religion and other issues.
Exactly who are these "haters" that we keep hearing about? Who spills the bile here? Who are those who wish to suspend debate?

BTW. could you please post the names of the countries where male homosexuals by demographic, are not over represented in the hiv/aids infection statistics...I can't seem to be able to find them.

SJL.....You are very lucky to have such a person in your life, I also did....long ago.
As I am nearing the end of my life, my advice would be to listen and learn carefully, you will encounter few like her on your journey.

Slainte mhath.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:34 PM

There are no Hitlers or Pol Pots in our membership Don.
We should be able to exchange differing views without abuse.
(or making things up Don)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:28 PM

I take your point Larry, but as a therapist it's part of your job.

It isn't mine, and only the requirements of employment would persuade me to show (I could never fell) such respect.

As to your take on the treatment they received early in life, I rather think that is a grasp at a very far away straw.

Don T.