The web-site is self-promoting, Superstition MD, i wasn't saying your posts are self-promoting. However, by attempting to foist your screed off on us, you are promoting yourself indirectly, it is an exercise in ego which says, obliquely, "I am unique, i have the answers, you don't."
This is what i mean about your rhetorical skills--or rather, the lack thereof. I was saying that your web page is self-promoting, not your posts. But by your error in assuming that i meant your posts, without having troubled yourself to understand what i'd written, you've opened another fertile area for me to have fun with you.
I see you've neatly side-stepped the force of my question about your pc and the web page. You decry what you have assumed (unwarranted) to be our indifference to the plight of the poor, and yet you are sufficiently well-off to afford a pc. Why haven't you sold your pc, and used the proceeds to help feed and house and clothe the needy?
Great turn of phrase, Frank, "going nowhere apace," kudos . . .
soul_doctor73 wrote:CodeBorg wrote:Just as you were under no obligation to post.
Again, once you read what I wrote, then we can continue.
Which I knew would be your excuse. Not your problem cause you didn't start it right? lol.
If you use slang, poetry, metaphor or scientific words, that's what you'll attract.
If you use insults and condescension, that's what you'll attract.
If you use considerate respect, that's what you'll attract.
If you acknowledge what people say, that's what they will do in turn.
This is your topic and your thread. As the host, you set the tone.
Anytime you care to discuss the topic of this thread, all you have to do is
a) avoid making insulting assumptions about the reader
b) stop putting them down
Good luck trying to read and acknowledge that.
Sorry we couldn't get a discussion going sooner, but I'll drop by later to
see (in your language) if you grow up.
Take care, Bye!
Setanta wrote:The web-site is self-promoting, Superstition MD, i wasn't saying your posts are self-promoting. However, by attempting to foist your screed off on us, you are promoting yourself indirectly, it is an exercise in ego which says, obliquely, "I am unique, i have the answers, you don't."
So now we get to the meat of your anger. Is this what bothers you? My perceived superiority? I attempted to post my message on this board, which I am free to do for whatever reason I chose to do so, as long as I don't violate the rules of this board. Which I have not. I have only violated your delicate sense of morality with my 'offensive' take on reality.
Quote:This is what i mean about your rhetorical skills--or rather, the lack thereof. I was saying that your web page is self-promoting, not your posts. But by your error in assuming that i meant your posts, without having troubled yourself to understand what i'd written, you've opened another fertile area for me to have fun with you.
Have fun eh? Is this what you call your abusive attitude to one only recently arriving in your domain? Is this your normal activities, find something, or someone you hate, belittle them to your hearts content, merely because it is 'fun' to you? I can see why you might be bitter towards me. My idea of fun does not include personally attacking the integrity, honor, or personality of another. But that is you.
Quote:I see you've neatly side-stepped the force of my question about your pc and the web page. You decry what you have assumed (unwarranted) to be our indifference to the plight of the poor, and yet you are sufficiently well-off to afford a pc. Why haven't you sold your pc, and used the proceeds to help feed and house and clothe the needy?
And here we have arrived at your destination. You ask me the question my whole post was about. Yet you avoid speaking of your own efforts to feed, and house, and clothe. And if I told you, would you believe me? Would you honor me and say, 'wow, that was kind of you'. Or will you call me a liar and a deciever along with deluded and everything *else* you have said about me? The personal attacks don't bother me. No skin off my back, to coin a phrase, but you must be getting quite angry right about now. Seeing as how nothing you have said is of any substance but your own selfish perception of it.
This appears to be why you would find such an offensive and hateful pastime as 'fun'.
You're making unwarranted assumptions again. I'm not angry, there is nothing about you or your rant to anger me. I had not characterized your posts as self-promoting, but, with your inability to read and comprehend what others write, you assumed i had. So i took the opportunity to take the ball and run with it. The anger seems to be on your side, as you have already commented on what might spark your ire.
I did not attack your "integrity, honor, or personality," rather, i pointed out your unwarranted assumption about what "we" were taught to believe and not question. That you perceive that as an attack is evidence that you consider any criticism of your point of view as evidence of hostility and aggression. In fact, i consider that there is much of merit in your screed, but it gets drowned out in the rant, and you drive people away from the message by taking a high-handed tone in what you write. I don't hate you, and i have not belittled you, but rather what you write, and your seeming inability to engage in a point by point rhetorical exchange. If you wish to take that as personal insult, that is evidence of inference, not intent on my part. It is indeed entertaining to me to deflate pomposity, and people take their shots at me often enough. This is not my domain, and i claim the same right to post here as you do. No, attacking someone's integrity and honor is not me, unless and until they have demonstrated deficiencies in such matters. I did not attack your integrity and honor, just the quality of your thought and your forensic skills. This is not a hateful pasttime, but it does continue to entertain me. I'm not decrying how others perceive and react to the world, you've done that. I'm calling for you to say whether or not you've put your money where your mouth is. I have not harangued others on this topic, so my integrity is not at stake in a question of whether or not i am charitable. Your integrity is only in question if you call for others to behave in a manner which you don't yourself practice. Again, you make an unwarranted assumption: "And if I told you, would you believe me? Would you honor me and say, 'wow, that was kind of you'. Or will you call me a liar and a deciever along with deluded and everything *else* you have said about me?" Since you seem so eager to characterize me as angry (not so) and hateful (your inferential statement, based upon a false assumption that i question your integrity and honor), you might as well make such a statement about yourself. I know nothing of you personally--all that i have criticized is your rant, your unwarranted assumptions, and your demonstrated lack of the ability to read and understand what others have written, and to respond to it in an appropriate rhetorical fashion. That's not hatefulness, it's reality.
soul_doctor (I always thought that was Barry White, but whatever), I have to go with Setanta on this. Nobody here is offended by you, or angered. But, typically, religious fanatics here seem to resort to cheap tactics as they always seem to feel under attack. You are not under attack. Cut to the chase, don't ramble so much, find the meat of your message, and a lot more people might be willing to get into a proper debate. Also, you are absolutely correct. You can post anything you want here, as long as you don't violate the TOS. How you respond to others, though, is another issue entirely. Play nice, and people will listen.
Setanta wrote:I did not attack your "integrity, honor, or personality,"
Quote:Apart from having no interest in general in your rants, Mr. Superstition MD, you lost me with that line right there. That does not describe me, and i'll warrant that it does not describe the majority of those who regularly post at these fora. Your nonsense always starts with a set of really ridiculous assumptions about your potential audience.
Quote:Far from assuming that you only post at this forum, i have assumed from the outset that this site is just one of many where you show up to dump your rants.
Quote:You're not here to discuss anything, you just want to shove your opinions down the throats of others.
Quote:I could not care less if you agree with me, and operate from the assumption that you don't and that nothing i can say will change your mind
Quote:Saying that you post this drivel in many places in no wise authorizes your assumptions made a priori about those who are foolish enough to waste their time reading your claptrap
Quote:Whether at this site, or another, i continue to assert to you that you begin your looney disquisition with unwarranted assumptions about those who you expect to read your rant. You are living in a narrow little world, the limits of which are your truncated imagination, and physical laws of which are defined by your delusions.
Apparently, your own words prove you a liar, but I'll not accuse you. Your words do that themselves. If need be, I could go through and get more proof that you did in fact, attack me personally. I started with your first post to me and followed up with the second. I didn't even go through all of your posts that are filled with similar content. Even so, I don't think you will see it, but if someone is reading for truth and objectivity, they will see that you, sir, do not have it.
Oh my, I didn't see this gem:
Quote:I know nothing of you personally--all that i have criticized is your rant, your unwarranted assumptions, and your demonstrated lack of the ability to read and understand what others have written, and to respond to it in an appropriate rhetorical fashion. That's not hatefulness, it's reality.
Now this is an obvious lie.
There's enough commas in soul's delirious dissertations for twenty term papers.
cavfancier wrote:soul_doctor (I always thought that was Barry White, but whatever), I have to go with Setanta on this. Nobody here is offended by you, or angered. But, typically, religious fanatics here seem to resort to cheap tactics as they always seem to feel under attack. You are not under attack. Cut to the chase, don't ramble so much, find the meat of your message, and a lot more people might be willing to get into a proper debate. Also, you are absolutely correct. You can post anything you want here, as long as you don't violate the TOS. How you respond to others, though, is another issue entirely. Play nice, and people will listen.
Oh joy. No one is offended or angered by me. Yet I detect so much hostility. You stand by setana, and say in the same breath: 'you are not under attack'. Then how do you define 'attack'? I hope painting some one as a liar doesn't violate the sensibilites of the moderators. That would make two.
Is this what you told your teachers in school when they critiqued your writing? I suggest trying this essay of futility on your chosen minister and she what he or she says about your advocacy for Jesus and Christianity. You're likely to get an answer you don't like.
CodeBorg wrote:soul_doctor73 wrote:CodeBorg wrote:Just as you were under no obligation to post.
Again, once you read what I wrote, then we can continue.
Which I knew would be your excuse. Not your problem cause you didn't start it right? lol.
If you use slang, poetry, metaphor or scientific words, that's what you'll attract.
If you use insults and condescension, that's what you'll attract.
If you use considerate respect, that's what you'll attract.
If you acknowledge what people say, that's what they will do in turn.
This is your topic and your thread. As the host, you set the tone.
Anytime you care to discuss the topic of this thread, all you have to do is
a) avoid making insulting assumptions about the reader
b) stop putting them down
Good luck trying to read and acknowledge that.
Sorry we couldn't get a discussion going sooner, but I'll drop by later to
see (in your language) if you grow up.
Take care, Bye!
And then the quick duck out so I can't retort. Typical.
Lightwizard wrote:Is this what you told your teachers in school when they critiqued your writing? I suggest trying this essay of futility on your chosen minister and she what he or she says about your advocacy for Jesus and Christianity. You're likely to get an answer you don't like.
I don't advocate Jesus or Christianity. Your assumption. As a matter of fact, I don't advocate religion at all. Actually, I often offend christian sensibilities with my posts, and they, as you, most certainly do not like it.
You're pleading for a cause (that's what advocacy means) and I didn't delineate where you were positive or negative about religion. The important thing is you fell for the bait and revealed that you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Ramble on -- cyberspace is brimming over with such amateurish pontificating. Lincoln said it is better to be quiet and be thought of as a fool than to open one's mouth and prove it.
Superstition MD, you are apparently unable to distinguish between criticism of what you write and a personal attack. I've described your writing as a rant, a screep, claptrap--if i left out garbage and crapola, you have my sincere apology. An attack on what you write, and how you write it does not constitute an attack on you personally, and is not either an intentional or accidental attack on your integrity or honor. I haven't the least doubt that there are a great many people who have greater or lesser delusions who nevertheless operate in life with honor and integrity, are good to their families and kind to small animals. As for referring to you as Superstition MD, you leave yourself open to that sort of thing when you call yourself "Soul Doctor," the implication of which is that there are sick souls in the world at large, which you are able to identify and cure. This is not only absurd, it is arrogant and hubristic, and it just begs to be deflated.
Sole Doctor (a fishy profession) wrote:Apparently, your own words prove you a liar, but I'll not accuse you.
In fact, of course, you did accuse me, and had the monumental gaul to assert within the same sentence that you would not do so.
Get a grip, take a deep breath, and adopt the mantra: "Criticism of my ideas and lack of literary style are not assaults on my character, criticism of my ideas and lack of literary style are not assaults on my character, criticism of my ideas and lack of literary style are not assaults on my character . . . "
Setanta wrote:Superstition MD, you are apparently unable to distinguish between criticism of what you write and a personal attack. I've described your writing as a rant, a screep, claptrap--if i left out garbage and crapola, you have my sincere apology. An attack on what you write, and how you write it does not constitute an attack on you personally, and is not either an intentional or accidental attack on your integrity or honor. I haven't the least doubt that there are a great many people who have greater or lesser delusions who nevertheless operate in life with honor and integrity, are good to their families and kind to small animals. As for referring to you as Superstition MD, you leave yourself open to that sort of thing when you call yourself "Soul Doctor," the implication of which is that there are sick souls in the world at large, which you are able to identify and cure. This is not only absurd, it is arrogant and hubristic, and it just begs to be deflated.
Sole Doctor (a fishy profession) wrote:Apparently, your own words prove you a liar, but I'll not accuse you.
In fact, of course, you did accuse me, and had the monumental gaul to assert within the same sentence that you would not do so.
Get a grip, take a deep breath, and adopt the mantra: "Criticism of my ideas and lack of literary style are not assaults on my character, criticism of my ideas and lack of literary style are not assaults on my character, criticism of my ideas and lack of literary style are not assaults on my character . . . "
Now if this were true, there should be no place where you are speaking specifically concerning me, which you often do. You are not simply addressing what you think of what I wrote, you are condemning me for writing it. And you don't see that as 'personal'? I'm asking the wrong question. I should be asking myself if I expected you to. I think I see an intersection up ahead.
soul_doctor73 wrote: And I suppose you think *your* forum is the only one I post to.
So in other words, you're just spamming this crap all over the place. That's good to know.
He won't stop until he hears the one about leaving
the computer unlocked in the asylum library.
(And I doubt even then because the attendants will probably show up with his meds).
I don't condemn you for writing it, i condemn the foolishness which leads you to write it in the manner you do, which virtually assures that it won't get a fair reading. Were you to produce your ideas in a more compact, well-written form, and leave out the rant, and the unwarranted assumptions about what your audience does or does not believe, you'd get a much better response. This is, once again, a criticism of your style as well as of the content, not an assault upon your character, a subject of which i am blissfully ignorant.
He's also got to get used to the fact at A2K he's going to get a lot of ribbing about his entries which is also about what he's written, not about anything anyone could possibly know about his character or mental state. He may not want to give the impression he's giving but he better wake up and realize that we're not a bunch of dummies here like he may have run into in some endless chat room.
