Moderation

[atypican]

e_space: several of my posts have been rejected. could you tell me
why?

This forum is about attacking ideas not people.

I would rather not have you on moderation. It means I have to read
every one of your posts. It usually hurts a persons pride too much to
be put on moderation, or even be confronted about their manners, and
they leave.

The truth is I think you have a valuable perspective to share and I
hope you stick around but.....

what say you? I cop to it. I put you on moderation and rejected some
of your posts.

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:05 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> e_space: several of my posts have been rejected. could you tell me
> why?
>
> This forum is about attacking ideas not people.
>
> I would rather not have you on moderation. It means I have to read
> every one of your posts. It usually hurts a persons pride too much to
> be put on moderation, or even be confronted about their manners, and
> they leave.

Agreed. This is not something atypican appears to have done lightly,
or maliciously. I can't say the same for some of the content in
e_space's posts.

> what say you? I cop to it. I put you on moderation and rejected some
> of your posts.

I don't think your action was out of order, atypican, nor something to
be ashamed of. Moderation is a great tool, and can be a constructive
and positive process to share feedback with a user who forgets that
there are specific and proper boundaries on interactions between
persons and that one's words have consequences.

> The truth is I think you have a valuable perspective to share and I
> hope you stick around but.....

I agree with this, atypican: Graciously put.

Regards,

Brock

[e_space]

i guess ive been a bit harsh, but i dont feel like i am attacking
anyone more than they are attacking me, or others ... i dont really
care to reiterate the adjectives that have been aimed at me, but for
your reference how about "pugnacious, contentious, belligerent, close
minded, just to name a few. ... yes, i do respond to commentary in a
direct way sometimes, especially when a person is making abusive
comments, or claims of fact that they cannot support ...

for example, brock said "someone has boundary issues" in response to
S&M referring to me as belligerent [without giving an example of how i
was belligerent] ... but somehow you feel that i should not respond to
that? ... or that his comment was not attacking a person, but their
ideas?

S&M attacks billions of people by claiming that all muslims worship a
false idol, but in your judgment i am not supposed to refer to this as
arrogant, biased or ignorant [meaning "spoken without knowledge"]? ...
in response to S&M's claim that i am contentious, i asked if he
thought it was a good idea to paint "Muslims Worship A False Idol" on
a placard and parade in front of a mosque, but you put that comment on
moderation? ...

do you feel his comment is contentious? what do you think the reaction
would be if he actually did what i suggested? do you feel his comment
is attacking people, or their ideas? how about a billion people with a
single brush stroke? islam is not muslims "ideas", it is their
religion, and in case S&M has missed the news in the last several
decades, muslims in general are very offended, on a personal level, if
one insults their religion ... can you think of a worse insult that
what he is saying?

what i have found is that people can attack and abuse others openly,
but when i stand up to it, im the one that gets in crap ... funny that
you put me on moderation for responding to these types of comments,
but have nothing to say to those who post them ...

[SM]

Concur with the comments from both.

Brock I'm glad that you pointed out that atyp was circumspect in his decision.  At least, I can only say that I've see no reason to perceive it differently, so I default to believing the best about atyp's intentions.

[SM]

e, I acknowledge that in the past two weeks I have intentionally taken a more direct approach with you.  I've stated as much, making clear my recent conclusion that if I wanted to engage you in conversation I realized that I had to do so on your terms since you were either incapable or unwilling to respond to my repeated pleas (between December and February) for more tempered discourse.  So I began to treat you more in keeping with the manner that you've treated me and others in this forum.

I haven't used all of the opportunities available to me to inflict verbal jabs (i.e., I don't misuse your name every time I address you; only in response to when you disrespect me in that way - as you have again above) because I'd much rather converse with you civilly and respectfully about ideas.  It's my sincere hope that you'll respond favorably to this confrontation from the moderators and we can continue dialogue on more respectful and charitable terms.

[ornamentalmind]

For the record, David (atypican) notified the rest of the moderators
about the moderation and left room for disagreement. There was
none...disagreement that is.

e-space...it is very easy to take this personally. My hope is that you
will be able to transcend the defensiveness and return to sober (and
humorous if you wish) interesting posting!

On May 3, 5:35 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

can you point out where i have been malicious, instead of just stating
that i am? is calling me malicious, without offering an example, an
attack on my person, or my ideas? ... is referring to other people's
posts that don't meet your standard of civility as an "e_space" style
of comment, an attack on me? do you look at your own actions, and
badly disguised lack of civility, with different standards than you do
with mine?

On May 3, 8:19 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[atypican]

I will argue this w/you in a bit

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:57 AM, ornamentalmind
<ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For the record, David (atypican) notified the rest of the moderators
> about the moderation and left room for disagreement. There was
> none...disagreement that is.

Agreed, atypican followed a reasonable process, solicited input, and
based on that input (or lack thereof) has acted reasonably.

Regards,

Brock

[e_space]

my "pride", or taking things "personally" is not really an issue ...
what people think about me is not an especially important to me, and i
realize im a tad controversial, although i consider myself mostly
harmless ... believe me, i am used to being put on moderation for
giving abusers a bit of a hard time ... meanwhile, their demeaning
posts are mostly not addressed by moderators at all it seems ...

sticking up for muslims is not something i take on because i agree
with their belief ... especially since i am not the least bit
religious ... but i find the negative commentary regarding false idols
to be an insulting and contentious issue, and i spoke out against it
using words like "arrogant" and "ignorant", and i stick to that
assessment ... i guess the moderators here consider this commentary
acceptable because S&M didnt get any comments from moderators about
it ... yet here he is calling me contentious? i have NO idea of
anything i have said that comes close to being as contentious as that
comment ... if you could point something out it would help me
understand the moderation issue ...

hey, i was almost kicked out of AvsC if you can believe that!
meanwhile, the most vile and abusive posts imaginable were raging
through the place like a plague, with no comment or action taken by
the moderators ... i guess i have this uncanny knack to get under
peoples skin ... how? beats me ... the best i can come up with is that
other peoples comments about me do not bother me, but everything i say
back seems to bother them ...

if you see all of brock and S&M's posts as civil, i think their sugar-
coated words are making you look through rose colored glasses ... i
see through their vaguely disguised insults and insinuations very
clearly ... although i do not want to sound factual here, i would put
a large wager on the likelihood of brock using his proselytizing type
of "god bless" commentary with the single goal of eliciting negative
feelings with atheists, at least on some occasions ...

i guess i should do a better job of disguising my comments with a
cloak of civility ... but personally, i prefer straight shooters to
those who wink at your face while inserting a knife in your back ... ;-
^)

irl, i am a fun loving person who seldom gets into arguments with
people, unless of course they are abusing or bullying someone ... i
have NO problems with the beliefs of others, but do make commentary
when these beliefs are portrayed as facts ...

[e_space]

dont take this personally brock, but anyone who cannot keep the job of
moderator in AvsC, is likely not a good candidate to be a moderator
anywhere ... i seem to remember asking for your support in AvsC when i
was getting shafted by the "moderation" there (or lack thereof) ...
from what i recall, you commiserated with me privately, and did
nothing in the forum, shortly after which you were given the heave
ho ... since then, i have had no appreciation for your ability to
function reasonably in such a position ...

On May 3, 10:05 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:57 AM, ornamentalmind
>

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:17 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dont take this personally brock,

I don't. :)

Regards,

Brock

[e_space]

sorta funny that you take other stuff i say so personally then, isnt
it? ;-^)

On May 3, 10:21 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:23 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> sorta funny that you take other stuff i say so personally then, isnt
> it? ;-^)

Nope, my decision to not object to atypican's request to moderate you
wasn't based on a personal reason. I thought he made a good point and
a reasonable request, and I supported him in that.

Regards,

Brock

[e_space]

yet you did nothing to support me in the misrepresentations thrown at
me in AvsC?

i have yet to see an example of my lack of civility, that is not
matched by you and yours ... maybe you can point one out? and why no
comment about S&M's claim that i am contentious, shortly after
referring to all muslims as false idol worshipers?

do you consider that statement contentious? potentially harmful?
biased? justified? whats your opinion on it brock? you let it pass
without comment, so a reasonable assumption is that you agree with
it ... is this true? if so, why not say so? if not, why not say so?
you seem wrapped up in my insignificant situation, yet make no
commentary on important statements like this? why is that?

On May 3, 10:37 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:09 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

hey, i was almost kicked out of AvsC if you can believe that!

I'm not familiar with that forum, but based on your conduct here I can believe it.  I say this because I've noted that you have been antagonistic with every single participant in this forum (except one who has only posted here on a couple of occasions)...I know this because a month or two ago I made a point to go back through the forum posts and investigate your interactions with others and found that my perception was actually factual.

In my observation, almost invariably, the start of your attacks on others is because you react to something that someone else says that you've misinterpreted to view somehow as an attack on you.  I've been amazed sometimes to see this.  So when I see you say this: "...other peoples comments about me do not bother me...", I can only think that perhaps you're not even aware of your own motivations.

What I really want to respond to is what you continue to make reference to regarding your issue specifically with me:

sticking up for muslims is not something i take on because i agree
with their belief ... especially since i am not the least bit
religious ... but i find the negative commentary regarding false idols
to be an insulting and contentious issue, and i spoke out against it
using words like "arrogant" and "ignorant", and i stick to that
assessment ... i guess the moderators here consider this commentary
acceptable because S&M didnt get any comments from moderators about
it ... yet here he is calling me contentious? i have NO idea of
anything i have said that comes close to being as contentious as that
comment ... if you could point something out it would help me
understand the moderation issue ...

S&M attacks billions of people by claiming that all muslims worship a
false idol, but in your judgment i am not supposed to refer to this as
arrogant, biased or ignorant [meaning "spoken without knowledge"]? ...
in response to S&M's claim that i am contentious, i asked if he
thought it was a good idea to paint "Muslims Worship A False Idol" on
a placard and parade in front of a mosque, but you put that comment on
moderation? ...

do you feel his comment is contentious? what do you think the reaction
would be if he actually did what i suggested? do you feel his comment
is attacking people, or their ideas? how about a billion people with a
single brush stroke? islam is not muslims "ideas", it is their
religion, and in case S&M has missed the news in the last several
decades, muslims in general are very offended, on a personal level, if
one insults their religion ... can you think of a worse insult that
what he is saying?

e, I acknowledge that you're offend by my statement about Allah (and other 'gods' that I've asserted to be false).  However, you would do well to see that this is not intended as an attack on anyone anymore than your assertion that Jesus is a "man-made god" is an attack on me, or Christians in general (if it was your intention to attack us, then shame on you, but I didn't perceive it as such).  It's an expression of belief, and to the extent that any belief is based on truth, it brings life.

I believe it factual that there is One True God, and Allah is not his name.  This is an expression of my belief and I can provide ample support for my belief (i.e., it's not merely my opinion).  I welcome you to demonstrate how my assertion is false and/or provide support for your assertions about Jesus.  I believe we can do so without concern for being disrespectful for those believe differently.

Since you haven't responded to my inquiries with details about why you consider this assertion to be offensive, I have to make some assumptions about what you might be thinking.  I surmise that you consider that any claim about the veracity of another religion is somehow disrespectful.  Don't you realize that Islam makes a similar claim?  Is not their claim as "arrogant, biased & ignorant"?

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:22 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> can you point out where i have been malicious, instead of just stating
> that i am? is calling me malicious, without offering an example, an
> attack on my person, or my ideas? ... is referring to other people's
> posts that don't meet your standard of civility as an "e_space" style
> of comment, an attack on me? do you look at your own actions, and
> badly disguised lack of civility, with different standards than you do
> with mine?

Hi e_space,

Curiously, your response appears to resemble:

http://cheezburger.com/BaseTwo/lolz/View/858190592

I would like to re-iterate what atypican put so graciously:

> The truth is I think you have a valuable perspective to share and I
> hope you stick around but.....

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:59 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yet you did nothing to support me in the misrepresentations thrown at
> me in AvsC?
>
> i have yet to see an example of my lack of civility, that is not
> matched by you and yours ... maybe you can point one out? and why no
> comment about S&M's claim

Who is S&M?

Regards,

Brock

[e_space]

what is curious is that you think of this as relevant ... i will take
this response as an avoidance of my direct questions ... also, i will
consider this response to lack the civility that you demand, but do
not always demonstrate, such as using my name to insult others,
another point that you have avoided on numerous occasions ... it seems
that you like to define the ballpark, but have no desire to play
within it ...

On May 3, 12:18 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

is this your attempt to respond to the issue? seems all too familiar
to me brock ...

On May 3, 12:32 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:37 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 12:32 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:59 AM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > yet you did nothing to support me in the misrepresentations thrown at
>> > me in AvsC?
>>
>> > i have yet to see an example of my lack of civility, that is not
>> > matched by you and yours ... maybe you can point one out? and why no
>> > comment about S&M's claim
>>
>> Who is S&M?
>
> is this your attempt to respond to the issue? seems all too familiar
> to me brock ...

I don't believe we have a regular poster by that name on the forum.

Regards,

Brock

[atypican]

I completely see your point. What do you suggest to help create an
environment where we can "rise above" petty bickering. Is progressive
dialog possible at all? If you had the task of moderator, how would
you decide where and when to draw the line?

[e_space]

i appreciate your words, and feel that you would not have put me on
moderation, if it hadn't been as a response to those who were/are
making complaints about me ... i suggest that those who wish to make
damaging statements, such as the ones i have described, wear thicker
armor in preparation for the anticipated response ...

i think there is always going to be minor bickering between groups and
individuals with such diverse outlooks ... this place is ultra mild
compared to AvsC ... i guess i grew weary of the circular statements
of fact coming from those who describe their belief as "truth", yet
have no appreciation or regard for those with dissimilar, or even
similar, beliefs ...

im really quite a gentle person, but bristle at abuse ... it seems
inherent and i apologize for not keeping a closer rein on it ...
however, i guarantee that anyone making these type of statements would
NEVER get a job in politics or mediation, and such comments would even
be frowned at if they were a preacher ... i suggest that we try a bit
harder to be civil, but that a certain amount of indignation be
allowed, especially in the face of such obvious bigotry ...

[14SM.jcil]

On May 3, 2011, at 14:55, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> i appreciate your words, and feel that you would not have put me on
> moderation, if it hadn't been as a response to those who were/are
> making complaints about me ...

I was aware of his choice to moderate but have no reason to believe (as you wish to assume) that it was done in response to a request from *anyone*, or based on any specific 'complaint'. Couldn't his decision have been based on his own assessments?

Assumptions lead one to erroneous conclusions. Better to ask questions and gain understanding.

> i think there is always going to be minor bickering between groups and
> individuals with such diverse outlooks ... this place is ultra mild
> compared to AvsC ... i guess i grew weary of the circular statements
> of fact coming from those who describe their belief as "truth", yet
> have no appreciation or regard for those with dissimilar, or even
> similar, beliefs ...

e, so far as I have observed, your views have always been shown regard irrespective of whether they're similar or dissimilar. If you disagree with an idea that is presented, bring a supportable argument for us to consider and leave the cursory attacks and accusations on the floor where they belong.

[Tracey Maddow]

I, for one, do not have any problems on any post of e_space.

[e_space]

let me get this straight ... you have "no reason to believe" that your
ongoing complaints had anything to do with his decision (i.e. you
assume), yet you take issue with me assuming that they might have?
please reread my post, and you will see that i didnt state this as
fact, but that i had a feeling he might have? unlike some, i do not
state my feelings or beliefs as fact ... a trait that you might want
to seriously consider adopting ...

quite hilarious though, you suggesting that i dont do something, while
in the very same sentence youre doing it yourself ... ;-^)

what cursory attacks are you talking about? ... do you mean when i
strongly responded to your thoughtless comment that "muslims believe
in a false idol"? ... better to clean up your own kitchen before
concerning yourself with mine, dont you think?

where do you think that these types of comments belong, if not on the
cutting room floor? in the lofty penthouse of your arrogance and
bigotry? i would think that you would be very remiss to ever say
anything like that in public ... if that is true, why do you think you
can get away with it here?

On May 3, 3:42 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

thank you tracey ... i realize my direct approach, and the pointed
questions that i often ask of ones stated beliefs, sometimes cause a
backlash ... i dont believe i engage in personal attacks often, but i
certainly speak my mind, especially to those who i feel are being
abusive or make unsubstantiated statements of "truth" ...

[atypican]

Comments that could be left out or reworded without detracting from
the substance of the post.

> quite hilarious......

Aims to ridicule...could be replaced with something like.....I find it
ironic

> thoughtless

the jab could have just been left out

> in the lofty penthouse of your arrogance and bigotry?

Adds nothing but nurtures ill will.


The language described would be what made me reject a message.

[14SM.jcil]

On May 3, 2011, at 18:18, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> let me get this straight ... you have "no reason to believe" that your
> ongoing complaints had anything to do with his decision (i.e. you
> assume), yet you take issue with me assuming that they might have?

Considering that my 'complaints' were voiced repeatedly to you during the period of Dec through March, I figured if any of the influence on his decision could be attributed to me if would have happened then.

Regardless, your response doesn't address my fundamental assertion that you've made an assumption.

Assumptions leads to erroneous conclusions. You would do better to ask questions.

> please reread my post, and you will see that i didnt state this as
> fact, but that i had a feeling he might have? unlike some, i do not
> state my feelings or beliefs as fact ... a trait that you might want
> to seriously consider adopting ...

I've previously pointed out to you where you have done exactly that (stated your beliefs and opinions as fact). I've never had a problem with that, but feel it's necessary to point out the double-standard you're requiring from others versus what you allow yourself.

> quite hilarious though, you suggesting that i dont do something, while
> in the very same sentence youre doing it yourself

I missed it...which sentence are you referring to?

> what cursory attacks are you talking about? ... do you mean when i
> strongly responded to your thoughtless comment that "muslims believe
> in a false idol"?

Sure, let's talk about that. I've repeatedly invited you to do so and have recently made a post that I await your response to...

[14SM.jcil]

On May 3, 2011, at 18:52, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Comments that could be left out or reworded without detracting from
> the substance of the post.
>
>> quite hilarious......
>
> Aims to ridicule...could be replaced with something like.....I find it
> ironic
>
>> thoughtless
>
> the jab could have just been left out
>
>> in the lofty penthouse of your arrogance and bigotry?
>
> Adds nothing but nurtures ill will.
>
>
> The language described would be what made me reject a message.
>

Excellent. Good suggestions.

Good for e_space to know firsthand why his message was reject do he doesn't have reason to continue in his assumptions.

[e_space]

so, you would prefer that i white wash my commentary, and make it more
the way you would prefer it? ...

i actually enjoy hilarity more than irony ... i laughed when i read
his comment, so why should i replace that emotion with a word you deem
is more appropriate, and one that does not reflect my feelings about
it?

i actually do consider his comment as thoughtless, and that he
probably wishes he hadn't made it ... why not ask him if he would ever
say such a thing in public, or to a group of muslims? why do you find
it appropriate for him to insult a billion people, yet that it is some
sort of felony for me to describe such a comment as inappropriate?

does his comment seem bigoted to you, or not? it matches the
description of such to me ... meanwhile, no reflections of his
statement that i should have left my comment on the floor? arent
moderators supposed to look at both sides of an issue? or are you okay
with everything he has said?

i find it hilarious, errrr, i mean, ironic, that nobody has said one
thing to him about that comment, yet when i stand up to it, everybody
(except tracey) is busting my chops over it ...

[atypican]

If developing an atmosphere where beliefs can be respectfully
contrasted proves futile, I suppose I will finally be convinced that
ridicule is a more practical method than reasoning and return to AvC
with my tail between my legs. I think I am the only atheist left at
this forum anyway. Diedzoeb and Bridge left already, possibly because
they realized it as a waste of time.

No one ever brings up anything that the other party hasn't already
considered to their satisfaction. :(

[atypican]

I may just give up on this forum. I have taken you off moderation. I
have no desire to be a censor.

[14SM.jcil]

On May 3, 2011, at 19:23, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> he probably wishes he hadn't made it

Another erroneous assumption easily shown to be false in light of what I've written.

> does his comment seem bigoted to you, or not? it matches the
> description of such to me ...

I don't think that you know the meaning of the word...nothing of my statement indicates that I'm intolerant of other beliefs. Believing that they're not all worthy if equal regard as truth is not intolerance.

> meanwhile, no reflections of his
> statement that i should have left my comment on the floor? arent
> moderators supposed to look at both sides of an issue? or are you okay
> with everything he has said?

I specifically said that you should leave your personal attacks and accusations on the floor (where they belong). These are not in the same league as discussions of belief which is what our forum is about (have you read the title if our forum lately?).

Why not try to stick to the content and purpose of the forum? If you have differing ideas than the ones being presented, let's hear 'em (and preferably any supports that you have for them as well)! Or present your own (and be prepared to support it)!

[e_space]

i hope you dont feel that sm and i have destroyed the atmosphere of
respectfully comparing beliefs ... although i am not much into belief,
when someone who claims to be open minded, states that the belief of
over a billion people is false, i respond quite pointedly ... and this
coming from a non-religious person ... im a little surprised that no
other xtian here had anything to say in response ... to me, that
doesnt say much for them adhering to the teachings of their religion

please do not take any radical moves on account of these minor
incidents ... if there is a little bit of bickering, how does that
harm you? you survived the turmoil between joe and i ... why is this
any different?

btw, isnt orn an atheist?

[e_space]

re: "Why not try to stick to the content and purpose of the
forum?" ... and what would that be, bashing other religions?

On May 3, 8:11 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:51 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

although i am not much into belief, when someone who claims to be open minded, states that the belief of over a billion people is false, i respond quite pointedly 

So far e, you haven't responded to my invitation to discuss this.  Thus far, the best you've been able to muster is a few whines.  If you have a perspective that you can support, then bring it.

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:51 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

re: "Why not try to stick to the content and purpose of the
forum?" ... and what would that be, bashing other religions?

Please describe how it's somehow accurate (as you see it) to characterize the expression of my belief about there being only One True God as "bashing other religions".   Contrast this with your assertion(s) about Christianity (i.e., 'Jesus is a man-made god', 'Christianity is a man-made religion thought up by ancient men', 'Christians only believe what's preached to them in sunday schools', other ignorant characterizations that I haven't read or don't recall), and demonstrate how we should be following your example of discourse.

[SM]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:29 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

If developing an atmosphere where beliefs can be respectfully
contrasted proves futile, 

atyp, I've been in this forum for almost two years and for the first eighteen months or so, there was healthy dialogue among all participants (including those you mentioned: Bridge and Diedz).  I enjoyed those days as well.  I think you did right to put e_space on moderation as you chose to do.  I believe your intent was to serve the forum at large by drawing his attention to his conduct in hopes that he would change or move on.

My hope is that e_space can find the will and ability to reform, (or if not, then move on), and the forum will continue in the respectful exchange we once had.  I likewise hope that in the meantime you can stick it out and we can all continue to enjoy and benefit from your contributions.

[e_space]

i see ... so now im whining ... i guess you really have no desire to
be civil, despite your repeated requests for such from others ...

beliefs are neither right nor wrong, since the truth is not known ...
that is why they are classified as beliefs ... this is true of any
belief system, not just the muslim belief ... which you claim is
false ... many people claim your belief is also false ... the point
is, making claims of falsehood regarding a belief is not only futile,
it is presumptuous imo ...

xtian "truths" are debatable ... even within the ranks of religious
experts and theologians, historical "events" claimed as "truth" in the
bible are highly contested, and the actual events seem vague at
best ... in reality, nobody really seems to have definitive proof of
many biblical claims, most notably the resurrection ... the main
ingredient of your belief and call to worship ... i would highly
suggest that you verify the "truths" of your own belief, before
totally disregarding and insulting those who do not share your
faith ...

one has no need to believe in god if they know of its existence ...
you dont believe you are about to sit on a chair, you know you are ...
you can see it and feel it, thus negating the requirement for
belief ... the very word "belief" to me equates to "lack of
knowledge", and combined with "wishful thinking" or "blind faith",
describes your religious platform ... what does belief mean to you?

btw, i have addressed these issues before ... maybe you have forgotten
similar posts, and this is driving your request for re-debating the
issue of belief? if the issue is specifically about the muslim
comment, i do not see any reason to discuss this further, especially
as it relates to your belief ... ive have already read the ongoing
proselytizing of your posts, and anything that you have to say about
your religion has been heard multiple times before ... they hold no
significance for me ...

On May 4, 9:24 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:51 AM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > although i am not much into belief, when someone who claims to be open
> > minded, states that the belief of over a billion people is false, i respond
> > quite pointedly
>

> So far e, you *haven't* responded to my invitation to discuss this.  Thus

[e_space]

yes ... i can still vividly recall the respectful and civil exchanges
between joe and brock/yourself ... the sweet air of those debates
still wafts pleasantly through my senses ... ;-^)

btw, i am not going to "reform" as i dont think i am out of line ...
maybe you should reconsider your propensity to chop apart the beliefs
of others in a very straight forward and uncaring way?

btw, i also enjoyed pleasant conversations with diedz and others ...
even with you, before you began to incorporate the use of adjectives
in describing me, rather than the issues i raise ... you really ought
to take a look at your own attitude, and quit throwing all the blame
my way ...

On May 4, 9:45 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:56 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

i see ... so now im whining ... i guess you really have no desire to
be civil, despite your repeated requests for such from others ...

As I've already made clear, my current approach to communicating with you is to treat you as you treat me and others in the forum in hopes that it'll be easier for you to appreciate what others experience from you.  I've been looking forward to the time when I can resume my preferred manner of communicating, and treat you as I do all other participants.  Please let me know when you're ready to engage likewise.

 

beliefs are neither right nor wrong, since the truth is not known ...
that is why they are classified as beliefs ... this is true of any
belief system, not just the muslim belief ... which you claim is
false ... many people claim your belief is also false ... the point
is, making claims of falsehood regarding a belief is not only futile,
it is presumptuous imo ...

A fair point.  I'd be helpful to me if you can respond to my earlier post (in another thread, but I'm sorry, I can't think of which one??) with this point.  We can continue our discussion from there.  Thanks.

Nevermind...I just noticed that the rest of this post from you is on the same topic, so I'll do the porting for you...I'll cut and paste this post from you into the other thread and provide response from there.

[ornamentalmind]

e-space, while I personally interpret the word 'belief' in a very
similar way as you do in this presentation, the term itself has
numerous definitions...many which differ by quite a bit.

Over the years, most such discussions/debates quite quickly run into
the semantic quagmire...including the meaning of 'belief'.

While we may agree upon how we use the word, others do not and no
amount of imposing our beliefs about which definition is more
appropriate will satisfy the situation let alone change opinions.

This is one of the numerous reasons I keep reminding people that
words (all words) are subjective in nature.

> > perspective that you can support, then bring it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:03 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

yes ... i can still vividly recall the respectful and civil exchanges
between joe and brock/yourself ... the sweet air of those debates
still wafts pleasantly through my senses ... ;-^)

Perhaps then you can also recall that I suspended discourse with Joe when it became clear that he wouldn't respond to my pleas for improved conduct?

 

btw, i am not going to "reform" as i dont think i am out of line ...

Considering that several others perceive differently, I'm sorry to hear this.

 

maybe you should reconsider your propensity to chop apart the beliefs
of others in a very straight forward and uncaring way?

The only possible reference that I can perceive that you may be referring to is this ongoing 'discussion' we're having about my assertion regarding Allah (if there's another example, you haven't manifested it), and as I said in my recent post, I'll continue that conversation with you in the other thread.

 

btw, i also enjoyed pleasant conversations with diedz and others ...
even with you, before you began to incorporate the use of adjectives
in describing me, rather than the issues i raise ... you really ought
to take a look at your own attitude, and quit throwing all the blame
my way ...

Prior to my postings to you in the past two weeks, my earlier use of 'adjectives' were not intended in the manner they were received.  Upon recognizing how they were interpreted, I apologized.  I do not recall that you've done the same for me.

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:16 PM, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

e-space, while I personally interpret the word 'belief' in a very
similar way as you do in this presentation, the term itself has
numerous definitions...many which differ by quite a bit.

Over the years, most such discussions/debates quite quickly run into
the semantic quagmire...including the meaning of 'belief'.

While we may agree upon how we use the word, others do not and no
amount of imposing our beliefs about which definition is more
appropriate will satisfy the situation let alone change opinions.

This is one of the numerous reasons I keep reminding people that
words (all words) are subjective in nature.

I think we should all be able to accept and encourage the expressions of belief (subjective or otherwise) in the context of this forum; that is the nature of this forum, is it not?

What I'm asking e_space for, is a recognition that he condemns my expressions of belief while giving himself free reign for his own.  He condemns me for bigotry, when in fact, his conduct is more illustrative of the definition for that term.  

[e_space]

i will continue to post in my current style, because that is who i
am ... if you cannot accept what i consider to be fairly presented
criticism, then you may want to reconsider making the type of
controversial statements that elicited the response that you have
objections to ...

i have no goal to treat anybody with meanness or with a lack of
civility ... criticism isnt always pretty, and i may not offer it in
the sugar-coated method that you claim to prefer, and incorporate on
occasion ... but like i have said, i enjoy people telling it to me
like they see it, without the sweet glazing ... the type of "civility"
that i often see here, are vaguely disguised insults that actually
create more of a reaction than if one was to just spit it out as they
feel it ...

On May 4, 12:08 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

i'll buy stock in that promotion ... english is a very diverse
language ... i think i saw the other day that there were 574 thousand
english words ... add to this the nuances of each one, and i totally
agree with the semantic quagmire of which you speak ... i would be
interested in reading where "belief" and "knowledge" are considered
intimate with each other ...

On May 4, 12:16 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[SM]

sticking up for muslims is not something i take on because i agree
with their belief ... especially since i am not the least bit
religious ... but i find the negative commentary regarding false idols
to be an insulting and contentious issue, and i spoke out against it
using words like "arrogant" and "ignorant", and i stick to that
assessment ... i guess the moderators here consider this commentary
acceptable because S&M didnt get any comments from moderators about
it ... yet here he is calling me contentious? i have NO idea of
anything i have said that comes close to being as contentious as that
comment ... if you could point something out it would help me
understand the moderation issue ...

S&M attacks billions of people by claiming that all muslims worship a
false idol, but in your judgment i am not supposed to refer to this as
arrogant, biased or ignorant [meaning "spoken without knowledge"]? ...
in response to S&M's claim that i am contentious, i asked if he
thought it was a good idea to paint "Muslims Worship A False Idol" on
a placard and parade in front of a mosque, but you put that comment on
moderation? ...

do you feel his comment is contentious? what do you think the reaction
would be if he actually did what i suggested? do you feel his comment
is attacking people, or their ideas? how about a billion people with a
single brush stroke? islam is not muslims "ideas", it is their
religion, and in case S&M has missed the news in the last several
decades, muslims in general are very offended, on a personal level, if
one insults their religion ... can you think of a worse insult that
what he is saying?

e, I acknowledge that you're offend by my statement about Allah (and other 'gods' that I've asserted to be false).  However, you would do well to see that this is not intended as an attack on anyone anymore than your assertion that Jesus is a "man-made god" is an attack on me, or Christians in general (if it was your intention to attack us, then shame on you, but I didn't perceive it as such).  It's an expression of belief, and to the extent that any belief is based on truth, it brings life.

I believe it factual that there is One True God, and Allah is not his name.  This is an expression of my belief and I can provide ample support for my belief (i.e., it's not merely my opinion).  I welcome you to demonstrate how my assertion is false and/or provide support for your assertions about Jesus.  I believe we can do so without concern for being disrespectful for those believe differently.

Since you haven't responded to my inquiries with details about why you consider this assertion to be offensive, I have to make some assumptions about what you might be thinking.  I surmise that you consider that any claim about the veracity of another religion is somehow disrespectful.  Don't you realize that Islam makes a similar claim?  Is not their claim as "arrogant, biased & ignorant"?

Additional response to follow...

[ornamentalmind]

"...I think we should all be able to accept and encourage the

expressions of
belief (subjective or otherwise) in the context of this forum; that is
the

nature of this forum, is it not?..." - SM

For some, it is. Not for all. This represents one of your core beliefs
as I interpret your posting.

On May 4, 9:22 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:16 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com

[e_space]

what commentary that i have made resembles bigotry? it would be
helpful if, when you make such claims, to provide some reference ...

On May 4, 12:22 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:16 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com

[ornamentalmind]

e-space...while I agree almost entirely with the notion that being
'civil' is but a contractual agreement to lie...the term is found in
the title of this group...one that I did not create.

How this notion of being 'civil' is interpreted may be open to
question and debate; however, it is central to your current moderation
as I understand it.

> > from you into the other thread and provide response from there.- Hide quoted text -

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:25 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

i will continue to post in my current style, because that is who i
am ... if you cannot accept what i consider to be fairly presented
criticism, then you may want to reconsider making the type of
controversial statements that elicited the response that you have
objections to ...

i have no goal to treat anybody with meanness or with a lack of
civility ... criticism isnt always pretty, and i may not offer it in
the sugar-coated method that you claim to prefer, and incorporate on
occasion ... but like i have said, i enjoy people telling it to me
like they see it, without the sweet glazing ... the type of "civility"
that i often see here, are vaguely disguised insults that actually
create more of a reaction than if one was to just spit it out as they
feel it ...

Ok, well perhaps you're incorrigible then if you wont accept the perspective of multiple participants in the forum.  It's your choice how you choose to conduct yourself.

In that case, I may not continue discourse with you because I don't enjoy speaking to you in this way any more than you seem to dislike receiving it.  If only one of us is willing to change than I'll have resume ignoring your posts.  There won't be any confusion about why I've done so either.

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

"...I think we should all be able to accept and encourage the

expressions of
belief (subjective or otherwise) in the context of this forum; that is
the

nature of this forum, is it not?..." - SM

For some, it is. Not for all. This represents one of your core beliefs
as I interpret your posting.

Participation in a forum of this kind by definition means that we will encounter beliefs that differ from our own.  If a participant cannot stomach the differing beliefs of others, they have no place in a forum like this.

[e_space]

do you find my commentary to be lacking in civility in general, or in
specific instances? i have already admitted that i do bristle
[although much more passively than some] at what i consider to be
abuse, and also do not pussyfoot around factual sounding commentary
that one cannot provide evidence of ... proselytizing also draws
rather pointed commentary from me ...

im not the poster boy for civility, i admit to that, but on the other
hand, i dont feel that i am a flagrant abuser either ... i think
pointed comments can be made without directly insulting anyone, or
even being uncivil ... i certainly prefer them to what you classify as
"a contractual agreement to lie" (i find that comment hilarious) ...
can we not speak our minds without all the sugar? im on a diet! ;-
^) ... besides, and my daddy absolutely whipped my butt for lying ;-^(

On May 4, 12:32 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

what commentary that i have made resembles bigotry? it would be
helpful if, when you make such claims, to provide some reference ...

As I suspected, it's clear that you've been using the term without understanding its meaning.

big·ot·ry

stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, oropinion that differs from one's own.
e, I suggest that your rather vehement reaction to my assertion that there is One True God (whose name is not Allah) is more illustrative of bigotry than any recent posts I've seen in the forum.

[e_space]

is being able to "stomach the differing beliefs of others" what
inspired you to make the "false idol" comment in regards to what
muslims believe in? i'm trying to get a feel of who you really are,
but the signals seem to be a bit muddled ...

On May 4, 12:38 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:47 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

is being able to "stomach the differing beliefs of others" what
inspired you to make the "false idol" comment in regards to what
muslims believe in? i'm trying to get a feel of who you really are,
but the signals seem to be a bit muddled ...

I certainly tolerate Muslim belief (although, I admit being disquieted about their belief in having free reign to kill all 'infidels'); I've never intimated otherwise.  Your confusion is a function of your erroneous assumptions and misperceptions, not my explicit statements.

[e_space]

lol ... well, you are the one who claimed someone elses belief was
false, not i ... i simply reacted to what i considered to be a bigoted
statement (which seems to totally reflect your kindly posted
description of the word) ... do you consider your comment to be more
tolerable than me "vehemently" disagreeing with your declaration? i am
not intolerant of beliefs, although i do question them when they are
stated emphatically as truth ... i have not said that what you belief
is false, i have said that you have no proof that it is true ... big
difference ...

maybe orn or atp can comment on this issue, as it is clear that you
and i dont see eye to eye in the slightest in this regard ...

On May 4, 12:43 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > what commentary that i have made resembles bigotry? it would be
> > helpful if, when you make such claims, to provide some reference ...
>
> As I suspected, it's clear that you've been using the term without
> understanding its meaning.
>

> big·ot·rystubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, oropinion

[14SM.jcil]

On May 4, 2011, at 13:02, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> i have said that you have no proof that it is true ... big
> difference ...

LOL, you're really trying to suggest that's all you've said?

Heh, if it was just an issue of 'factual statements' we'd still be contrasting the 'factual' assertions we've BOTH been proffering...and I'd be reminding you that my 'factual' statements have only recently appeared in such a form to offset the 'factual' statements you've been making about Christianity.

Where you feel the need to combat expressions of belief stated as fact, I feel the need to point out the inequities and double-standards that some like to require of others so that they can feel able to compete.

[e_space]

factual statements about xtianity, such as? ...

On May 4, 1:24 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:01 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

factual statements about xtianity, such as? ...
 

c'mon e_space, I've already provided you with a summarized list of the related comments you've made in an earlier post...do you really not recall what I've written, or more to the point, what you've written? 

[e_space]

well, i have said that xtianity is a man made religion ... do you
think god started it? as far as i know, you dont have any proof that
it isnt man made, do you? ... all religions are of men are they not?
after all, men wrote the book(s), men selected what parts of it were
to be included [and excluded for some reason], men modified it, men
translated it, men preach it, and men wont let women preach it ...
sounds sorta manly to me, no?

do you think god would have any qualms about women speaking about
"him" ... do you think god actually wants women to be subservient to
men? do you actually think eve was made from adams rib? wow, this IS
circular isnt it?

other than that, im not sure what you are referring to ...

On May 4, 2:05 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:01 PM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > factual statements about xtianity, such as? ...
>
> c'mon e_space, I've already provided you with a summarized list of the
> related comments you've made in an earlier post...do you really not recall

> what I've written, or more to the point, what *you've* written?

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:29 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

well, i have said that xtianity is a man made religion ...  do you
think god started it?

I've stated for you more times than I can keep count of that I don't believe that God started a 'religion'.  What God provided mankind was a way to be released from the penalty for his sins and to be eternally reconciled back to God.

 

as far as i know, you dont have any proof that it isnt man made, do you?

I have evidence which I consider is overwhelming persuasive when honestly evaluated.  Man's natural state is to erect barriers to any evidence for God, and 'proof standards' are an example of such a barrier.

 

... all religions are of men are they not?
after all, men wrote the book(s), men selected what parts of it were
to be included [and excluded for some reason], men modified it, men
translated it, men preach it, and men wont let women preach it ...
sounds sorta manly to me, no?

I agree; 'religion' is man's attempt to reach the divine on his own terms and using his own means.  I have no interest in promoting religion...in fact, I believe it most often is a hindrance to man, rather than that which draws him closer to God.

I believe the Bible has been inspired by the Spirit of God, and articulated in material form through the hands of men.  I've given you numerous reasons to consider this to be true.  Please provide a response for each of those.

 

do you think god would have any qualms about women speaking about
"him" ... do you think god actually wants women to be subservient to
men? do you actually think eve was made from adams rib? wow, this IS
circular isnt it?

Not sure what your 'circular' comment refers to, so I won't address that 'question'.

Are you now asking specific questions about what the Bible teaches regarding women?  Can I quote the Bible now, or are answers from the Bible still of no interest to you?

[e_space]

re: "What God provided mankind was a way to be released from the
penalty for his sins and to be eternally reconciled back to God. " ...
you have no proof of that, that is part of your belief ... and since,
according to that belief, god created man in sin, why should he be
penalized for it? ... i did pose this question to you lately, not sure
if you read it, but i dont recall a response to it ... maybe it was in
one of my censored posts ...

re: "Man's natural state is to erect barriers to any evidence for
God" ... really? why do all races of people worship some sort of god
or another then? why are so many consumed with finding these answers?

re: "I believe the Bible has been inspired by the Spirit of God" ...
emphasis on "believe" ... i hold no such belief ... as a silly
example, what does "so and so begat so and so, who begat so and so, ad
nauseum" have to do with inspiration from god? ... much of the book
reads like some quaint historical record, interjected with mostly
unsubstantiated references to what god said, did, thought, planned,
etc ... sorry, im just not buying it as truth ...

re: "I've given you numerous reasons to consider this to be true.
Please provide a response for each of those." ... i'll take a rain
check on that proposal ... if you want responses, please post comments
that you want responses for ... if i havent addressed these comments
before, im certainly not going to go through every thread since ive
been here to find them ...

nothing written in the bible about mans authority over women, has any
valid meaning for me, so no, please dont bother quoting them ... maybe
i missed it, but i still dont recall reading your thoughts on eve
being created from adams rib ...

On May 4, 3:49 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:16 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

re: "What God provided mankind was a way to be released from the
penalty for his sins and to be eternally reconciled back to God. " ...
you have no proof of that, that is part of your belief ... and since,
according to that belief, god created man in sin, why should he be
penalized for it? ... i did pose this question to you lately, not sure
if you read it, but i dont recall a response to it ... maybe it was in
one of my censored posts ...

Again I have to repeat myself?  I've noted numerous times that a 'proof standard' is not a tenable argument against those things which cannot be empirically proven.

I distinctly recall providing a response for your question about man's state of sin, but I note that your question here is a worded little differently than you did before, so I'll append my previous response with the following:

God did NOT 'create man in sin'; man was created perfect and free from sin, but with the capacity to choose to rebel against what God requires.

 

re: "Man's natural state is to erect barriers to any evidence for
God" ... really? why do all races of people worship some sort of god
or another then? why are so many consumed with finding these answers?

I think in the same post I provided an answer for that question as well...man seeks to become like God through his own means and on his own terms.

 

re: "I believe the Bible has been inspired by the Spirit of God" ...
emphasis on "believe" ... i hold no such belief ... as a silly
example, what does "so and so begat so and so, who begat so and so, ad
nauseum" have to do with inspiration from god? ... much of the book
reads like some quaint historical record, interjected with mostly
unsubstantiated references to what god said, did, thought, planned,
etc ... sorry, im just not buying it as truth ...

The are several places where lineages are specified and for different reasons; not sure which one you're referring to.  One example that comes to mind is the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam.  This is relevant and important for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that Jesus came to earth as a representative for mankind in a similar way as Adam is a representative for mankind.

Your consent to "buy it as truth" in no way adds to or diminishes it as such.

 

nothing written in the bible about mans authority over women, has any
valid meaning for me, so no, please dont bother quoting them ... maybe
i missed it, but i still dont recall reading your thoughts on eve
being created from adams rib ...

I recall the most recent time your referenced 'Eve and Adam's rib" was something unintelligible; without construct or form.  If you have a question, please articulate it.  If you aren't willing to accept any of my responses that are based upon the Bible, then I guess you shouldn't bother.

[e_space]

no, you dont have to repeat yourself ... but you can if you care to?
nobody is forcing you to say anything are they? and you call me
belligerent?

our religious teaches us that we are born in sin ... is this because
adam sinned, and since we are all offspring of adam, we are born
sinners? if so, that is impossibly ludicrous, from my perspective ...
i guess i was saying something "unintelligible" again, since you didnt
understand that i was talking about being "born" in sin, rather than
being "created" in sin, since only adam was created [according to your
belief], and all of the rest of us are procreated ... i realize it is
a bit of a stretch to come to the proper conclusion about what i was
saying, so i will try harder to meet your intellectual requirements
for understanding ;-^)

re: " God did NOT 'create man in sin'; man was created perfect and

free from sin, but with the capacity to choose to rebel against what

God requires." = your belief, not fact

re: "man seeks to become like God through his own means and on his own
terms" ... what other means are there? trusting someone else's take on
it?

re: "Jesus came to earth as a representative for mankind in a similar
way as Adam is a representative for mankind" = your belief, not fact

re: "Your consent to "buy it as truth" in no way adds to or diminishes
it as such" ... and your stating it as fact, in no way validates it,
or makes it the truth

re: "I recall the most recent time your referenced 'Eve and Adam's
rib" was something unintelligible; without construct or form" ... if
you dont understand the question in this simple form, you will not
understand it in any other form ... i dont mind if you blame me
because your intellect didnt allow you to understand the question

On May 4, 5:43 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:43 PM, SM <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:16 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> re: "What God provided mankind was a way to be released from the
>> penalty for his sins and to be eternally reconciled back to God. " ...
>> you have no proof of that, that is part of your belief ... and since,
>> according to that belief, god created man in sin, why should he be
>> penalized for it? ... i did pose this question to you lately, not sure
>> if you read it, but i dont recall a response to it ... maybe it was in
>> one of my censored posts ...
>
> Again I have to repeat myself?  I've noted numerous times that a 'proof
> standard' is not a tenable argument against those things which cannot be
> empirically proven.

Hi SM,

Welcome to the "joys" of interacting with some:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_%28mythology%29

Watching you and atypican wrestle with e_space, is a bit like watching
your friends participate in a train wreck, but yet remaining powerless
to help. In response to such an emotional vampirism, you are perhaps
meant to feel under his obligation to respond to every aspect of every
innuendo, yet he is under no obligation or courtesy in respond other
than to enjoy watching you "twisting in the wind"[1]. For example, he
recently goaded and baited me by referring pejoratively to a specific
experience he said he had with me while I was a moderator on AvC. I
was, in fact, happy to provide the best customer service experience
that I could, understanding that I possibly faced this kind of
scenario: he finds nothing positive or redeeming about my
interactions with him as an AvC moderator in that specific issue, and
instead notes those interactions, months later, with disdain. I'm
sorry to hear him say such things, I can assure you I interacted with
him in good faith.

You can be sure that you face the same kind of peril with your well
meaning and considered replies to him. Months later, when he's
discordantly snacking on a lunch of existential, Joyce-ian dialogue
with another, you'll warn that person, and receive a similar low,
pejorative and disdainful assessment of all the time and effort you
spent in good faith discussions with him. I think that kind of
negative, heart-sickening, spirit-killing discord is the kind of thing
atypican was reacting against in his moderation request.

Regards,

Brock

[1] "She wants to see you again, see you twisting in the wind." - They
Might Be Giants, Twisting

[14SM.jcil]

I sometimes feel as though I need to say the same thing repeatedly until it finally is acknowledged (some things I say seem to *never* be acknowledged - I'm not necessarily expecting 'agreement', just a manifestation in the word choice of future posts that demonstrates that my view was acknowledged!), but I don't consider that this is unique to e_space. I remember experiencing the very same thing with Diedz (who I otherwise enjoyed conversing with; he asked really good questions and had good support for his point of view).

I have no doubt that you treated e_space with grace and magnanimity in your role as moderator, Brock. It's lamentable that it wasn't recognized or appreciated, but I don't think that e_space is unique in this regard either. All men (especially unbelievers) are generally woefully ungrateful for the grace and magnanimity shown to them by our Creator, are we not?

Notwithstanding the above, I'm encouraged by what I see as a legitimate effort by e_space (even if he doesn't want to admit it!) to facilitate improved discourse with me. I give him kudos for the recent progress we've made.

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:18 PM, 14SM.jcil <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I sometimes feel as though I need to say the same thing repeatedly until it finally is
> acknowledged (some things I say seem to *never* be acknowledged - I'm not necessarily
> expecting 'agreement', just a manifestation in the word choice of future posts that
> demonstrates that my view was acknowledged!), but I don't consider that this is unique
> to e_space.  I remember experiencing the very same thing with Diedz (who I otherwise
> enjoyed conversing with; he asked really good questions and had good support for his point of view).
>
> I have no doubt that you treated e_space with grace and magnanimity in your role as
> moderator, Brock.  It's lamentable that it wasn't recognized or appreciated, but I don't think
> that e_space is unique in this regard either.  All men (especially unbelievers) are generally woefully
> ungrateful for the grace and magnanimity shown to them by our Creator, are we not?

Hmmm. Very well put. :)

Regards,

Brock

[14SM.jcil]

On May 4, 2011, at 19:18, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

our religious teaches us that we are born in sin ... is this because
adam sinned, and since we are all offspring of adam, we are born
sinners? if so, that is impossibly ludicrous, from my perspective ...
i guess i was saying something "unintelligible" again, since you didnt
understand that i was talking about being "born" in sin, rather than
being "created" in sin, since only adam was created [according to your
belief], and all of the rest of us are procreated ... i realize it is
a bit of a stretch to come to the proper conclusion about what i was
saying, so i will try harder to meet your intellectual requirements
for understanding ;-^)

I can't comment on what "[your] religious teaches [you]", but the Bible describes how sin entered the world: through Adam.

re: " God did NOT 'create man in sin'; man was created perfect and
free from sin, but with the capacity to choose to rebel against what
God requires." = your belief, not fact

Back to this again as your 'argument'?  Surely you can bring something more substantive than that!

re: "man seeks to become like God through his own means and on his own
terms" ... what other means are there? trusting someone else's take on
it?

Approaching God on his terms and through the only means that is acceptable to him.  If ANY other means was adequate, the sacrifice of His son on our behalf wouldn't have been necessary!

re: "Jesus came to earth as a representative for mankind in a similar
way as Adam is a representative for mankind" = your belief, not fact

See my above comment about this not being an argument of any substance.  Do you recall anyone in this forum complaining about Brock making the same statements over-and-over?  An 'old saw' I think you called it?

re: "Your consent to "buy it as truth" in no way adds to or diminishes
it as such" ... and your stating it as fact, in no way validates it,
or makes it the truth

Concur.  I haven't claimed otherwise; only that I consider they it is true and as such provides a truthful answer to the questions you've ask me.

re: "I recall the most recent time your referenced 'Eve and Adam's
rib" was something unintelligible; without construct or form" ... if
you dont understand the question in this simple form, you will not
understand it in any other form ... i dont mind if you blame me
because your intellect didnt allow you to understand the question

Is there a question here?  If so, you're getting pretty good and concealing 'em!

[ornamentalmind]

"> Participation in a forum of this kind by definition means that we
will
> encounter beliefs that differ from our own.  If a participant cannot stomach

> the differing beliefs of others, they have no place in a forum like this." - SM

Uhhh, SM, you asked a question...perhaps one that was merely
rhetorical to you; however, I took you at your word and answered it.
You said: "... that is the nature of this forum, is it not?..." - SM
I answered. So, using your very own view, if you can't 'stomach' a
differing belief than your own,....hehe. I think you get the picture,
no? :D

On May 4, 9:38 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com

[ornamentalmind]

“do you find my commentary to be lacking in civility in general, or
in
specific instances? …” – e-space

I’m not so sure you actually care about my view, right? You have
already said that you’ve been put on moderation elsewhere and called
on your ‘style’ of posting and still don’t wish to change it, right? I
see you as not wishing to change so I’m not sure that my opinion is
worth anything to you.

I do know that I personally just glance over many of your posts as
they aren’t quite my ‘cup of tea’. And, as for ‘specific instances’,
I’ll leave that to others…again, I’m not interested in performing an
autopsy! :D

As to what I see as your admitted wish not to change your posting
style…this can be seen from numerous positions: pigheaded, truthful,
self-justifying, all of the above….etc. Ultimately it is up to you to
selfmoderate – especially when moderators see you as one who they wish
to moderate! You either do or you don’t. The result is based upon your
behavior. Yes, it is based upon other people’s views/opinions etc;
however, you have already said you don’t care about that.

As a friend, I’d suggest a bit of self-responsibility here e-space.. I
know you didn’t ask for this type of advice…and if you find it
offensive, I apologize. I’d just rather have you being able to stay
around. I do appreciate some of the stuff you post.

[e_space]

although train wrecks are very unfortunate, and comparing my posts
with such is quite mean spirited, at least they are more visually
entertaining that watching paint rust ... get my drift? ;-^) ...

concerning your interaction with me as a "moderator" in AvsC, you were
all charm and glitter in private emails, commiserating with the
injustice that you felt i was being subjected to, and totally void of
anything relevant where it mattered, in the moderators forum ... in
that den of insignificance you contributed absolutely nothing [similar
to the post im currently responding to, but with a whole lot less
words] ... how anybody loses that job is beyond me, but you were
successful at it, so congratulations on that at least ;-^)

btw, is this your idea of civility brock? dont you have better things
to do than spend this much time worrying about little ole me? do you
go on attacks such as this, simply because you have a hard time
answering questions about your faith?

i do have to give you some kudos though, you actually typed your own
words! ... id suggest that you continue to avoid the copy/paste button
for a change, except that when you do, you come out with fluff like
this ... i find it sad that people who profess to be civil and godly,
have the capacity for such hatred ... or should i say "negative, heart-
sickening, spirit-killing discord" ...

On May 4, 8:20 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:43 PM, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

funny that, as i too find myself asking you the same questions
repeatedly ... sometimes even responded to with the typical "not all
things can be proven" sorta comment ... thus putting the onus on your
faith, that you continuously state as fact ...

you and brock seem to be quite offended because i question your
faith ... if you dont want to be questioned about it, i suggest that
you quit making factual statements about it ... belief isnt knowledge,
so maybe you can say "it is my belief that blah blah blah" ... rather
than "god did this, god wants that, god will do this .... etc, etc,
etc" ... if you admitted that, in reality, you dont know for a fact
the things you believe, you would not get such pointed questions about
them from me ... comprehend?

re: "I have no doubt that you treated e_space with grace and
magnanimity in your role as moderator" ... yep, all gooey and sugar in
private, but no support in public ... i wasnt looking for him to treat
me with grace, i was looking for his support against a bunch of
thugs ... as it turned out, id rather be in an alley with a lab mouse
for support against a mugger, than to have brock by my side ... non-
existent best describes it ... shortly after he was given the heave
ho ... why dont you ask him why?

re: "All men (especially unbelievers) are generally woefully

ungrateful for the grace and magnanimity shown to them by our Creator,

are we not?" ... this is rather a silly statement, since "unbelievers"
dont recognize a "Creator", so how could they possibly be ungrateful
towards it?

you and brock are currently on a campaign against me ... how graceful
and magnanimous of you! god must be very happy with you ;-^)

On May 4, 9:18 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 2011, at 20:20, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:43 PM, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

yeah right ... adam sinned, so you are euchered unless you worship,
repent, beg for forgiveness ... how childish! that an adult can
actually believe that is beyond any reasonable conclusion that i can
muster ...

re: "Back to this again as your 'argument'? Surely you can bring
something more substantive than that!" ... you make statements of fact
based on belief ... what can one say about that that makes any
difference to you? you speak of knowledge from a state of
ignorance ... no sense arguing about it ... i simply disagree with the
comment, and therefore say, "that is your belief, not fact" ...

what "terms" does god have? the ones you have been taught by the words
of man? sorry, i am not a sheep ... if you want to be governed by the
things you have read and been taught, good for you ... i prefer to
come to my own conclusions ...

so i repeated myself once, and now you compare me to the ad nauseum
cut/paste propensity of brock ... youre quite mean spirited arent you?
if you didnt continuously make statements of fact about your belief,
you wouldnt get this type of comment ... im not going to waste my time
trying to dissuade you from your belief ... i realize that would be
futile as your fanaticism is quite evident ... i guess i could just
ignore your proselytizing instead of repeatedly saying that your
belief is not fact ... maybe i'll start doing that, as conversations
with you and your cohort are never really enjoyable ... too much like
wading through eternal mud ...

it seems that i dont have to be good at concealing questions for you
not to see them ... ;-^)

On May 4, 9:38 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

its not in his interest to answer this question, since he would have
to admit his lack of acceptance of differing beliefs ... claiming that
"muslims worship a false idol" hardly sounds like being able to
"stomach" anothers belief ... but thats just my take on it ... maybe
he can twist up some sort of justification for such a comment ... ive
been waiting to read one, but alas it is not forthcoming ...

On May 4, 11:47 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[e_space]

actually, i would appreciate your view ... i dont think that i am
especially harsh, pointed yes ... as mentioned, id much prefer man-to-
man combat, than some of the sickenly sweet civility that often fails
to disguise the true attitude of the poster ... what merit does a
"contractual agreement to lie" have? tell it like it is, what is so
bad about that? i'm sure there are some people who prefer my direct
approach ... maybe if there were more than 4 posters here, we could
get an opinion about it that has some relevance ...

this is not an issue to me, as i am not there, but several days ago i
was talking to a poster from Minds Eye, who saw me online and asked me
why i was not going there any more ... as you might recall, i was
booted for calling molly on her unfair moderation tactics ...

out of the blue the person said to me "gee that orn is a rhetorical
jerk" ... we were not talking about you, he just put it out there ...
i said, you mean ornamental mind? he confirmed that it was you that he
was talking about ... i commented that i thought you were an atheist,
and that i didnt know too many of them that were habitually
rhetorical ...

the point is, there are a lot of sensitive people in chat rooms ...
some take offense at the slightest bump in the road ... i really dont
know what you have said to offend this person, but you have ... do you
think his reaction is justified? do you think that my posts are so bad
that brock/sm need to be so offended? i question their beliefs ...
isnt that the bottom line purpose of this forum ... my feeling is
that they should answer the questions, and quit crying because i
havent sugar coated them ...

On May 4, 11:56 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:47 PM, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

"> Participation in a forum of this kind by definition means that we
will
> encounter beliefs that differ from our own.  If a participant cannot stomach

> the differing beliefs of others, they have no place in a forum like this." - SM

Uhhh, SM, you asked a question...perhaps one that was merely
rhetorical to you; however, I took you at your word and answered it.
You said: "... that is the nature of this forum, is it not?..." - SM
I answered. So, using your very own view, if you can't 'stomach' a
differing belief than your own,....hehe. I think you get the picture,
no? :D

Apparently, you misunderstand (or assume) upon my intentions.  The fact that I responded isn't evidence of an inability to 'stomach' your point of view (differing belief).

You make a comment, I make a comment, etc.  That's how this works, isn't it?

[SM]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:41 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

its not in his interest to answer this question, since he would have
to admit his lack of acceptance of differing beliefs ... claiming that
"muslims worship a false idol" hardly sounds like being able to
"stomach" anothers belief ... but thats just my take on it ... maybe
he can twist up some sort of justification for such a comment ... ive
been waiting to read one, but alas it is not forthcoming ...

<chuckle> 

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:56 PM, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

“do you find my commentary to be lacking in civility in general, or
in

specific instances? …” – e-space

I’m not so sure you actually care about my view, right? You have
already said that you’ve been put on moderation elsewhere and called
on your ‘style’ of posting and still don’t wish to change it, right? I
see you as not wishing to change so I’m not sure that my opinion is
worth anything to you.

I do know that I personally just glance over many of your posts as
they aren’t quite my ‘cup of tea’. And, as for ‘specific instances’,
I’ll leave that to others…again, I’m not interested in performing an
autopsy! :D

As to what I see as your admitted wish not to change your posting
style…this can be seen from numerous positions: pigheaded, truthful,
self-justifying, all of the above….etc. Ultimately it is up to you to
selfmoderate – especially when moderators see you as one who they wish
to moderate! You either do or you don’t. The result is based upon your
behavior. Yes, it is based upon other people’s views/opinions etc;
however, you have already said you don’t care about that.

As a friend, I’d suggest a bit of self-responsibility here e-space.. I
know you didn’t ask for this type of advice…and if you find it
offensive, I apologize. I’d just rather have you being able to stay
around. I do appreciate some of the stuff you post.

Good post. 

[e_space]

lol ... as you can see from orn's comment, he is still waiting for
your response ... is this it? ;-^)

On May 5, 8:00 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:23 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

funny that, as i too find myself asking you the same questions
repeatedly ... sometimes even responded to with the typical "not all
things can be proven" sorta comment ... thus putting the onus on your
faith, that you continuously state as fact ...

e, as always, you're more than welcome to provide support for your contention otherwise.  Can you support the notion that all things are empirically provable?  If not, then you have no argument and mine remains unchallenged.

 

you and brock seem to be quite offended because i question your
faith ... if you dont want to be questioned about it, i suggest that
you quit making factual statements about it ... belief isnt knowledge,
so maybe you can say "it is my belief that blah blah blah" ... rather
than "god did this, god wants that, god will do this .... etc, etc,
etc" ... if you admitted that, in reality, you dont know for a fact
the things you believe, you would not get such pointed questions about
them from me ... comprehend?

In what specific ways do you perceive that I am in any way offended by your questions (I haven't seen evidence of Brock being offended by your questions either, but I'll let him speak for himself)?  Considering that I've been pleading with you to distract yourself from personal attacks and accusations and instead focus on dialogue and asking substantive questions...your accusation again has little basis in fact.  However, I'll allow that you've honestly misunderstood a response and rather than asking for clarification have assumed (uh oh!) a sense of offense in something that's been written.

I invite you then list a question and response combination that you think demonstrates this alleged offense.  I'll be happy to provide the clarification in your understanding.

FWIW, I mentioned before that I'm a "pretty stoic sorta guy"; similarly, I am not easily offended.  If I ever happen to be, I'll let you know (i.e., I found your assertion that 'xians' are 'brainwashed' as offensive and ignorant, and I told you as much - BTW, while also providing a supported argument as to why I consider such a comment to be ignorant of fact).

Lastly, I repeat my observation that I have only recently begun stating my beliefs in a 'factual' construct in response to your penchant for doing the same about those things which you believe (something that doesn't really bother me personally), and then denying others the right to do the same.  I've changed the construct of [some of] my articulations so that they exhibit a more 'factual' tone for the very purpose of demonstrating the double-standard that you like to maintain.

 

re: "I have no doubt that you treated e_space with grace and
magnanimity in your role as moderator" ... yep, all gooey and sugar in
private, but no support in public ... i wasnt looking for him to treat
me with grace, i was looking for his support against a bunch of
thugs ... as it turned out, id rather be in an alley with a lab mouse
for support against a mugger, than to have brock by my side ... non-
existent best describes it ... shortly after he was given the heave
ho ... why dont you ask him why?

Because I really don't care what happens/happened in the AvC forum.  I have enough to keep me occupied right here.

 

re: "All men (especially unbelievers) are generally woefully

ungrateful for the grace and magnanimity shown to them by our Creator,

are we not?" ... this is rather a silly statement, since "unbelievers"
dont recognize a "Creator", so how could they possibly be ungrateful
towards it?

Man actively refuses to believe in his Creator who with each moment mercifully sustains his very life.  This lack of gratitude is contemptuous.

you and brock are currently on a campaign against me ... how graceful
and magnanimous of you! god must be very happy with you  ;-^)

There is no "campaign against [you]", e_space; your narcissistic tendencies coupled with your reliance on assumption have again led you to an erroneous conclusion.

Far from the reality of a concerted 'campaign against you', I actually provided you with kudos in my post to Brock.  Did you miss that paragraph or was it negated by your unwarranted feelings of being under attack?  If you missed it, please let me know when your temper has abated; I'll be happy to repost my kudos to you.

[SM]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:36 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

yeah right ... adam sinned, so you are euchered unless you worship,
repent, beg for forgiveness ... how childish! that an adult can
actually believe that is beyond any reasonable conclusion that i can
muster ...

Perhaps you can rephrase...'euchered' doesn't appear to be a word; your meaning is unclear.

euchered

 - no dictionary results

 

re: "Back to this again as your 'argument'?  Surely you can bring
something more substantive than that!" ... you make statements of fact
based on belief ... what can one say about that that makes any
difference to you? you speak of knowledge from a state of
ignorance ... no sense arguing about it ... i simply disagree with the
comment, and therefore say, "that is your belief, not fact" ...

I repeat my invitation for you to provide a supported argument for your assertion that all truth is empirically provable.  Until then, repeating this assertion is not a substantive argument.

 

what "terms" does god have? the ones you have been taught by the words
of man? sorry, i am not a sheep ... if you want to be governed by the
things you have read and been taught, good for you ... i prefer to
come to my own conclusions ...

Even if your conclusions are erroneous?  Aren't you interested in believing what is true (or even likely to be true for those things which cannot be proven), or is it enough for you to merely believe what you find preferable?

 

so i repeated myself once, and now you compare me to the ad nauseum
cut/paste propensity of brock ... youre quite mean spirited arent you?

There was nothing 'mean-spirited' in my comment...I was merely making an observation about your posting style.  You'll facilitate your own understanding if you ask questions rather than make assumptions about my motivations and attitude toward you.

 

if you didnt continuously make statements of fact about your belief,
you wouldnt get this type of comment ... im not going to waste my time
trying to dissuade you from your belief ... i realize that would be
futile as your fanaticism is quite evident ... i guess i could just
ignore your proselytizing instead of repeatedly saying that your
belief is not fact ... maybe i'll start doing that, as conversations
with you and your cohort are never really enjoyable ... too much like
wading through eternal mud ...

Well, no one is requiring you to dialogue with me, e.  I've been generously giving you my  time to patiently respond to the questions you've asked of me.  If you don't want to hear my answers you needn't ask me questions.

 

it seems that i dont have to be good at concealing questions for you
not to see them ... ;-^)

I prefer not to make assumptions.

[SM]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:59 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

actually, i would appreciate your view ... i dont think that i am
especially harsh, pointed yes ... as mentioned, id much prefer man-to-
man combat, than some of the sickenly sweet civility that often fails
to disguise the true attitude of the poster ...

I'll point out again that you assume attitudes that don't exist (at least in me; I can't speak for others).

 

do you think that my posts are so bad that brock/sm need to be so offended?

Again, an erroneous conclusion based upon assumption.

 

i question their beliefs ...
isnt that the bottom line  purpose of this forum ... my feeling is
that they should answer the questions, and quit crying because i
havent sugar coated them ...

Another baseless accusation.  Can you provide even a single a recent example where your question was refused because you didn't 'sugar coat it'?

[Brock Organ]

Well, accusation can be a cheap currency.

Regards,

Brock

[SM]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:04 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

lol ... as you can see from orn's comment, he is still waiting for
your response ... is this it? ;-^)

Which question from OM do you perceive he's asked that I haven't answered??   Something in this forum?

[e_space]

sorry, i spelled it wrong ... it comes from the game of euchre ...
when you select trump and lose the hand you get euchred ... as it
pertains to my post ... according to your belief, adam sinned, so the
rest of us lose ... not a very considerate ancestor we have, is it?
under those conditions, every offspring of a murderer would be
sentenced to a life in prison ... its not the rule of society, and i
dont think it is the rule we live under as it relates to adam/sin ...
i certainly dont accept it as truth ...

re: "I repeat my invitation for you to provide a supported argument
for your assertion that all truth is empirically provable" ... what
assertion? i dont recall stating that all truth was supportable by
facts ... maybe you can point out where i claimed that? on the other
hand, if one is talking from belief, based on the words of men, and
those words have never been proven to be true or accurate, i would
suggest that it is advisable not to state them in factual terms ...

my experiences were not erroneous, experiences never are from my
viewpoint ... i have never claimed emphatically what they were,
because i have no evidence ... this is something i suggest that you
consider ... i know what they meant and mean to me, and i assure you,
they had a vastly greater impact on me spiritually, than any sermon or
religious teachings that have unfortunately reached my ear drums ...

for someone who prefers not to make assumptions, you sure make a lot
of them, as i have recently pointed out

On May 5, 8:55 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, accusation can be a cheap currency.

It's certainly less taxing to dispense than the alternative.

There's a generally recognized phenomenon in child-rearing...some children actually disobey and misbehave from a subconscious desire for punishment.  Punishment, while not pleasant to endure, is at least attention and attention is a form of love.

I suspect that e_space's continued perception of himself as a victim is a similar phenomenon.  He doesn't care for 'syrupy-sweet' expressions of respect, so I'll continue to show him love in the terms that he appreciates and prefers.

[e_space]

you sure use a lot of adjectives for a guy who doesnt have an
attitude ... actually, you seem quite upset lately [btw, thats not an
assumption, just an observation ;-^]

well, i wont do your research for you, but you stopped returning posts
to me for several weeks, claiming that i was not meeting your standard
of civility ... i realize that this wasnt "recently", so i dont expect
you to remember it ... it was probably a full 2 weeks ago now ;-^)

On May 5, 9:04 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:59 AM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > actually, i would appreciate your view ... i dont think that i am
> > especially harsh, pointed yes ... as mentioned, id much prefer man-to-
> > man combat, than some of the sickenly sweet civility that often fails
> > to disguise the true attitude of the poster ...
>

> I'll point out again that you *assume* attitudes that don't exist (at least

[e_space]

re: "Which question from OM do you perceive he's asked that I haven't
answered??"

this dialogue ring a bell?

SM: "Participation in a forum of this kind by definition means that we

will encounter beliefs that differ from our own. If a participant
cannot stomach the differing beliefs of others, they have no place in
a forum like this."

ORM: "Uhhh, SM, you asked a question...perhaps one that was merely

rhetorical to you; however, I took you at your word and answered

it.You said: "... that is the nature of this forum, is it not?..." -
SM ...I answered. So, using your very own view, if you can't 'stomach'

a differing belief than your own,....hehe. I think you get the
picture, no? :D "

there seems to be a question there from my perspective... maybe you
consider his comment "unintelligible"? i could spell it out a bit
clearer if you wish ...

On May 5, 9:06 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:04 AM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > lol ... as you can see from orn's comment, he is still waiting for
> > your response ... is this it? ;-^)
>
> Which question from OM do you perceive he's asked that I haven't answered??

>   Something in *this* forum?

[e_space]

speaking of wayward assumptions, you just won the gold star! ... how
did you ever come to the conclusion that i consider myself a victim? a
victim of what or whom? nobody is victimizing me, my friend ... back
to the drawing board im afraid ...

maybe you can find some other way to try and get under my skin, but
you will have to work a LOT harder than you have to date ... sorry, im
just not affected by your attitude or words ... i'll try to be, if
that makes you feel better? ;-^)

On May 5, 10:06 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:05 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

sorry, i spelled it wrong ... it comes from the game of euchre ...
when you select trump and lose the hand you get euchred ... as it
pertains to my post ... according to your belief, adam sinned, so the
rest of us lose ... not a very considerate ancestor we have, is it?
under those conditions, every offspring of a murderer would be
sentenced to a life in prison ... its not the rule of society, and i
dont think it is the rule we live under as it relates to adam/sin ...
i certainly dont accept it as truth ...

Regardless of whether or not you accept it (remember, truth is not added or reduced by our understanding or acceptance of it), the Bible describes the introduction of sin into our world by way of Adam (as an aside, you made some reference to the treatment of women...note that Eve was actually the first to disobey God, but Adam is actually held responsible; of course, he ate too but hopefully you see the point).

I've heard some say how they're "gonna let Adam have it" when they see him someday...but I rather think that any of the rest of us would likely have done the same.  Since could have just as easily entered the world through Alan as it did through Adam.

 

re: "I repeat my invitation for you to provide a supported argument
for your assertion that all truth is empirically provable" ... what
assertion? i dont recall stating that all truth was supportable by
facts ... maybe you can point out where i claimed that? on the other
hand, if one is talking from belief, based on the words of men, and
those words have never been proven to be true or accurate, i would
suggest that it is advisable not to state them in factual terms ...

This is the proof standard that you require in order to consider something to be true...is it not?  I have asked you several times to provide me with the specifics of your truth standard; if it differs from that which is empirically provable, than by all means please elucidate.

If you don't find reason to be persuaded to the truth of otherwise non-provable ideas on the basis of the evidence which supports them, then is not your proof standard based upon empirical proof?

 

my experiences were not erroneous, experiences never are from my
viewpoint ... i have never claimed emphatically what they were,
because i have no evidence ... this is something i suggest that you
consider ... i know what they meant and mean to me, and i assure you,
they had a vastly greater impact on me spiritually, than any sermon or
religious teachings that have unfortunately reached my ear drums ...

I've never said that your experiences were 'erroneous'; you again mis-characterize my statements.

I do suggest however, that perhaps you have mis-interpreted your experiences.  I don't know; we know very little about what you think of them other than that you like to 'bask in the warm glow of unadulterated spirit'.  Great, I can probably describe a few similar experiences myself, but none of it gets us closer to truth unless we're assessing it accurately, and this requires the validation of trustworthy and reliable standards.

 

for someone who prefers not to make assumptions, you sure make a lot
of them, as i have recently pointed out

Have you?  What specifically do you consider that I've assumed about you? 

[SM]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:27 AM, SM <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Since could have just as easily entered the world through Alan as it did through Adam."

Should have been:

"Sin could have just as easily entered the world through Alan as it did through Adam."

"If you don't find reason to be persuaded to the truth of otherwise non-provable ideas on the basis of the evidence which supports them, then is not your proof standard based upon empirical proof?"

Should have been:

"If you don't find reason to be persuaded by the truth of otherwise non-provable ideas on the basis of indirect evidence which supports them, then is not your proof standard based upon empirical proof?"

Sorry for the necessity of the above corrections; I'm spinning too many plates this morning!  :)

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:06 AM, SM <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, accusation can be a cheap currency.
>
> It's certainly less taxing to dispense than the alternative.
> There's a generally recognized phenomenon in child-rearing...some children
> actually disobey and misbehave from a subconscious desire for punishment.
>  Punishment, while not pleasant to endure, is at least attention and
> attention is a form of love.

Well, I hope e_space knows he has our attention, care and concern,
though I'll forbear on the punishment part. :)

Regards,

Brock

[SM]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:09 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

you sure use a lot of adjectives for a guy who doesnt have an
attitude ... actually, you seem quite upset lately [btw, thats not an
assumption, just an observation ;-^]

The observation of the use of adjectives does not imply 'an attitude'.  To conclude as much is beyond observation and into assumption.

I have no attitude when I say: "That lawn is well-manicured.", or when I note: "This is a cold morning.", or when I observe: "e_space frequently relies upon baseless accusations."  In each case, my use of adjectives is to help to define and characterize the subject of my statement...and does so without communicating my 'attitude'.

As before, I invite you to ask me what my attitude is, or how I feel about something you've written.  As  you can see, I'm happy to respond; there's no need for you to assume.

 

well, i wont do your research for you, but you stopped returning posts
to me for several weeks, claiming that i was not meeting your standard
of civility ... i realize that this wasnt "recently", so i dont expect
you to remember it ... it was probably a full 2 weeks ago now ;-^)

Correct, there is not a 'recent' example.  I've admitted previously that I expected a higher standard of discourse from anyone who participates in this forum, but came to realize that requiring such of others who preferred a lower standard would mean that I couldn't dialogue with them.  Consequently, I now try to communicate in a manner which mirrors the preferred approach of the one with whom I'm trying to interact.

[SM]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:15 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

re: "Which question from OM do you perceive he's asked that I haven't
answered??"

this dialogue ring a bell?

SM: "Participation in a forum of this kind by definition means that we

will encounter beliefs that differ from our own.  If a participant
cannot stomach the differing beliefs of others, they have no place in
a forum like this."

ORM: "Uhhh, SM, you asked a question...perhaps one that was merely

rhetorical to you; however, I took you at your word and answered
it.You said: "... that is the nature of this forum, is it not?..." -
SM ...I answered. So, using your very own view, if you can't 'stomach'
a differing belief than your own,....hehe. I think you get the
picture, no? :D "

there seems to be a question there from my perspective... maybe you
consider his comment "unintelligible"? i could spell it out a bit
clearer if you wish ...

Look again.  I did provide a response to 'OM's post.  Not even a good attempt, e.  Your assertion remains a baseless accusation.

[SM]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:19 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

speaking of wayward assumptions, you just won the gold star! ... how
did you ever come to the conclusion that i consider myself a victim? a
victim of what or whom? nobody is victimizing me, my friend ... back
to the drawing board im afraid ...

Some of the most recent examples:

"you and brock are currently on a campaign against me..."

"...

i was looking for his support against a bunch of thugs ... as it turned out, id rather be in an alley with a lab mouse..."

I don't have the time to research others, but the above is a quick example of language one uses who views himself as a victim; continually perceiving that he under attack or somehow not being treated fairly.

 

maybe you can find some other way to try and get under my skin, but
you will have to work a LOT harder than you have to date ... sorry, im
just not affected by your attitude or words ... i'll try to be, if
that makes you feel better? ;-^)

Actually, e, what I'd prefer is that you return to the type of dialogue we were having yesterday.  I really noted an improvement in your questions and responses, and I perceived that we actually made progress in dialogue.  This other stuff is a distraction from what I consider the really good stuff that we saw a little of yesterday.

[SM]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, I hope e_space knows he has our attention, care and concern,
though I'll forbear on the punishment part. :)

I consider that my pursuit of a new approach to communicating with him is an expression of love.  I don't expect that he'll recognize it as such but my motivation isn't for his recognition; I demonstrate love to him for the audience of One.

Talk to ya later; I've gotta run for now...

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:09 AM, SM <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, I hope e_space knows he has our attention, care and concern,
>> though I'll forbear on the punishment part. :)
>
> I consider that my pursuit of a new approach to communicating with him is an
> expression of love.

Indeed, a reflection of Christ's gospel love.

> I don't expect that he'll recognize it as such

I have a family member like e_space (and some of the other forum
incorrigibles), as the years of our interactions have turned into
decades, I can share some of my accumulated experiences:

* the boundary issues never get better
* the taunts and accusatory questions never stop coming
* no matter how much one does, it is never enough

But:

* one learns over time to compartmentalize the relationship somewhat,
so the taunts and disdain don't "hurt" as much
* one can, and should take breaks from the relationship to remain
healthy and focused, but
* one should always return and re-engage as patiently and as kindly as one can

And, oh yeah, including them in your life, and remembering ebenezers
like birthdays and other holidays matter. :)

So thanks, e_space, for being a part of my life on the forum. :)

Regards,

Brock

[e_space]

yes ... i see the point, but i dont believe the adam/eve/snake/sin
story

i dont have a proof standard really ... i know what i feel ... and
sometimes believe stories that i find plausible ... i certainly dont
believe massive claims that contain no evidentiary value ... i have a
tendency to disbelieve self promotion ... i also have a tendency to
shy away from those who make moral demands using threatening language
that i have no way of substantiating ...

On May 5, 10:27 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Have you?  What *specifically* do you consider that I've assumed about you?