38
   

I PUT HIM ON IGNORE AGAIN

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 01:18 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Come on David. I like you. I would never ignore you. You said you wanted to know who had you on ignore. I just wanted to reassure you that I did not have you on ignore if I at some point failed to respond to a post addressed to me.

Anyhow, anybody who can have a really good discussion with Spendi is okay in my book. He's one of my favorite A2K people, but I'll admit it does require talent and intelligence to be able to converse in Spendi-speak. Smile (He's had to advise me from time to time that I haven't quite mastered it yet but he never makes me mind that I was so advised.)
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 01:20 pm
It isn't spendi's language that makes him get ignored. It's the way he clutters a science thread with irrelevance and ill manners. If he tried reasoning for a change, he would be at least tolerated.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 01:23 pm
@edgarblythe,
Actually I think he does reason quite well Edgar. But he has so much fun pulling people's chains, a lot of folks miss it.
lmur
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 01:25 pm
@edgarblythe,
Bullshit, edgar. Not just ineffable bullshit but effemmable bullshit.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 01:26 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Actually I think he does reason quite well Edgar. But he has so much fun pulling people's chains, a lot of folks miss it.


toys with the pompous......
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 02:33 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
If u allege the existence
of a duty to debate, then I will be compelled to challenge u
to identify the source and legitimacy of any such alleged duty.


Yes- I do allege a duty to debate if people seek to persuade others to their viewpoint in a democracy. We elect the legislative body and we are therefore the principle legislative body. Anyone seeking to persuade other voters to a viewpoint can be legitimately challenged.

If you accept that we are the principle elective body, and I don't see how you can't, then, by your own statement, you see where the points I raise are applicable. If you don't accept that we are the principle elective body, having been elected by birth in a democracy, then you must favour scrapping elections.

My source is the "government of the people, by the people, for the people". A democracy is on dangerous grounds when the voters are uninformed on the issues and the arguments which come with them. Ignoring those views you don't agree with is the road to ruin.


spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 02:41 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
It isn't spendi's language that makes him get ignored. It's the way he clutters a science thread with irrelevance and ill manners. If he tried reasoning for a change, he would be at least tolerated.


More assertions.

How do you reason with people who won't answer questions put to them? You can only make the points which I did yesterday. No answers. Just insults based on effemm being right. No debate about whether he's right or not. That's simply assumed. And I have been subjected to more ill mannered posts, as your's is, than anyone on A2K.

I'll find a couple of my posts and put them on here so you can see for yourself my reasoning. Just give me a minute to get it together Senor.
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 02:51 pm
@spendius,
Here's one Ed. Now read it carefully eh? Just for once.

Quote:
Nothing's for certain and that's the only thing that is for certain. If ever you need cast iron proof of ros's sicentific ignorance it is right there in that--

Quote:
One thing's for certain.

And there is nobody on this thread, or anywhere else, who is disputing the fact of evolution because it is a dynamic process going on right now all around us. It didn't stop when Origins was published and it started long before mankind even existed and might well continue long after mankind has departed.

Why is ros allowed to continue misleading people, particularly young people, in the manner he has just attempted to do. And in the name of science. I am non-plussed why there are no scientists prepared to come on here and ask him to desist from discrediting science in this crass and infantile manner. I sometimes think he might be a YEC coming on here for that very purpose.

And we are not discussing the "fact" of evolution. There's nothing to discuss. Like- I think therefore I am---it's happening right now therefore it is. Which explains why ros cannot read or write. And what somebody in that state, at his age, is doing having an input into education policy for 50 million kids is baffling to put it at its mildest.

We are discussing teaching it. The reason we are discussing teaching it, and how it might be taught by Marxists and atheists in actual classrooms, is because to do so has social consequences which we might not wish to see whereas all other aspects of science, apart from a few areas of biology and psychology, don't. We wish to see, or most people do, science prosper. And it might not prosper to its fullest extent if it is to be continually used for the purpose ros is trying to sneak past our guard with slippery words.

The teaching of evolution undermines religion. All religion. And as religion has social functions the teaching of evolution, especially by political extremists, and who else is there, undermines those functions. In fact it sets them aside altogether. And that is the objective of anti-IDers and if it is unintended they are merely fools and dupes of those who do intend to undermine those functions for political reasons or for personal convenience. As a Communist would. Obviously. Or any totalitarian. Equally obviously.

Religion functions, now and always, to support and be supported by the state as we saw blatantly exposed at the inauguration. ros has no alternative but to scoff at those oaths and count them as nothing. Or any oaths taken in the name of religion. And to scoff at the church services attended on inauguration day and the day after by the Democratic hierarchy. Every jibe aimed on here equally applies to all that and much more besides. The baptisms, weddings and funerals of millions of Americans for example.

Religion affords an emotional outlet for those whose lives are circumscribed in some way. The poor, the sick, the depressed, the bereaved or even well-to-do people who sense an emptiness in their lives such as the congregation of the Burning Man cult. Religion offers the possibility of joy and release from the severe facts of life, which many millions find unbearable, and many millions more will find unbearable when faced with life seen in an exclusively scientific perspective.

It offers a system of community togetherness and facilitates social gatherings. The mystery religion of Eleusis offered the comforts of a blessed resurrection. That is not a Christian invention.

It seeks to enlist Divine aid for the practical purpose of upholding ideals of conduct which could only be acheived without religion by orders and regulations coming from a human source such as a Comintern. Or a Party structure in the hands of a few.

And religion inspires art. All our great art; be it architecture, music, literature, painting or sculpture. The Christian religion has inspired all our science.

It maintains traditional values and provides a system whereby those traditional values can only be gradually modified after much consideration rather than radically altered at the stroke of a pen.

If we allow religion to be set aside what does science have to offer in respect of those functions apart from the policies of the ruling elite. And why will anti-IDers not only not answer that question but are ****-scared of even seeing it expressed. They are wimps as well. Running from the truth. And bleating about the truth all bloody day long. As a critter too.

And it is highly likely that this ignorant and frightened opposition to religion is not only subjectively convenient to its own interests, mainly regarding sexual matters, but is fulfilling the same functions as religion does for others in that it is giving its adherents also an opportunity for emotional respite, an escape from reality, even to the point of taking leave of their senses, provides the joy and release in insulting invective aimed at people who cannot answer back and an opportunity to rewrite the ethical codes from the point of its own mad control freakery and thus further their own careers.

We all know what anti-religious Soviet art looked and sounded like and we all know how the experiment ended and thus it is fair to assume that anti-ID is subversive and treacherous. I commend this statement to the House.

(The Speaker now called the leader of the opposition.)


Are you saying that there's no reasoning, and relevant reasoning in the topic of the challenges to the teaching of evolution?

And all that came back was a bunch of insults based on one simple thing--that effemm is right. Not a shred of reasoning as anybody who looks can see. I was declared stupid, silly, irrelevant etc.
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 03:00 pm
@spendius,
To which insults I replied-

Quote:
Another pile of flapdoodle circularity and non-sequiturings. Of course I'm all you say if your position is the right one. Tell us something we don't know. It follows like 2+2= 4 that if you are right I am silly. Obviously. Do you go around telling people what they already know all the time. All larded with machismo allusions. You should make a tape explaining how things are. You could sell it in the Insomniac's Journal. Five minutes should be enough with a ten-minute de-luxe version, only $5 extra, for those who just found out they won the lottery roll-over jackpot.

The question is "are you right?" and has nothing to do with the state I'm in if you are right. I concede every point in that case. Indeed, I would go much further.

No wonder you don't understand my posts. You're talking about the mental state of your protagonist assuming you're right. I'm talking about whether you are right or not. I wouldn't lower myself to talking about your mental state assuming you are wrong. It would be impolite.

And stop trying to write better. You need to read the masters first.


Now Ed. Is that not reasoning. Isn't that an expose of the emptiness of effemm's position which he wishes to foist onto 50 million kids without any opposition except that he knows he can deal with using a carbon dating machine.

That's when I went on Ignore and the reason was that he couldn't answer the charges and went off in a huff.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 03:55 pm
He toys with something all right.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 03:59 pm
@spendius,
word....credibility
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 05:16 pm
I have four people on ignore.

Two of them to my knowledge have taken a hike anyway.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 05:24 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:


Quote:

Come on David. I like you. I would never ignore you.
You said you wanted to know who had you on ignore.
I just wanted to reassure you that I did not have you on ignore
if I at some point failed to respond to a post addressed to me.

Thank u, Foxfyre.
I like u too.
If u r missing any responsive posts to me,
that is not something that I remember.

Quote:

Anyhow, anybody who can have a really good discussion with Spendi is okay in my book.
He's one of my favorite A2K people, but I'll admit it does require talent
and intelligence to be able to converse in Spendi-speak. Smile
(He's had to advise me from time to time that I haven't quite mastered it yet
but he never makes me mind that I was so advised.)

Americans and English may need a translator.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 08:18 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Well, as an experiment, I took him off ignore for a week or so. He still is an annoying little bird brain who has no manners and is busy creating metaphors that have nothing to do with the topiv=c. SO, I put im on ignore again .

Thank God. Again.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 08:39 pm
@rosborne979,
I kept ignoring and then not several times before I could let it go. Finally left him on ignore. Not my favorite thing to do, but oh what a relief it is.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 10:33 pm
I don't "have (anyone) on ignore." There are a couple of people whom i ignore, including the little **** FM refers to. But really, if you find someone that odious, why would you need mechanical help to ignore that someone? There was one other person whom i was ignoring, but he/she/it appears to have left.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 11:40 pm
@Setanta,
The people that think he is such a "talented debator" are usually the same people Ive taken on with some major points of topic disagreement even though these other people dont sink to personal attack . The person on ignore is, as Ive previously said, quite fond of yanking chains that include rude and demeaning comments that are usually off the subject . (if one were paying attention)SO I publish a harsh rejoinder and By me doing so, Im being just as idiotic as he, so in order to terminate constant backs and forth that were similar to those of recent days, the only answer for me is the physical use of "Ignore". I dont even have to avert my eyes or recognize his existence any more.
This time Ill try not to be such a nice guy and take him off, hes just not worth any investment in time
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 02:34 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
If u allege the existence
of a duty to debate, then I will be compelled to challenge u
to identify the source and legitimacy of any such alleged duty.



Quote:

Yes- I do allege a duty to debate if people seek to persuade others
to their viewpoint in a democracy.

The way u wrote that, it sounds more like a RIGHT
than a duty; like I have a right to vote, but no duty to do so.
I have a right to go for a walk around the block,
but no duty to do so.





Quote:

We elect the legislative body and we are therefore the principle legislative body.

OK






Quote:

Anyone seeking to persuade other voters to a viewpoint can be legitimately challenged.

Yes. A challenge can be asserted in that circumstance.
I have empirical proof of that fact, having done it.
In the face of such a challenge, the challenged party
can respond as he sees fit (within the law), including
silently walking away. If he does so, that is not violative of my rights,
as it woud have been if he picked my pocket.




Quote:

If you accept that we are the principle elective body,
and I don't see how you can't, then, by your own statement,
you see where the points I raise are applicable.

Being born into a democratic republic
does not subject the citizens to debate against their will.


Quote:

If you don't accept that we are the principle elective body,
having been elected by birth in a democracy,
then you must favour scrapping elections.

I accept it.
That still does not encumber me with a duty to debate,
if I dont want to; in fact, altho I am a very opinionated person,
there r some issues of controversy as to which I have no opinion
and no preference as to which side shoud prevail.




Quote:

Ignoring those views you don't agree with is the road to ruin.

Well if u put it that way,
then I 'll point out that a few of my responsive posts to YOU
did not meet with a response, after I took some time to prepare them.
I disregarded your failure to respond, deeming it inconsequential
and recognizing your right to brush it off. U r not my slave
and u don t have a duty to respond to my posts merely because
I sent something to u. I acknowledge your right to take a casual
attitude in what u can consider (my post to be) a trivial matter.





David
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 08:54 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Being born into a democratic republic
does not subject the citizens to debate against their will


I agree. But effemm wants to stay in the debate without listening to opposing arguments and thus proceeding to try to persuade as if those other arguments don't exist. It's indefensible. He should leave the debate or listen to the other arguments. And answer them.

Quote:
Well if u put it that way,
then I 'll point out that a few of my responsive posts to YOU
did not meet with a response, after I took some time to prepare them.
I disregarded your failure to respond, deeming it inconsequential
and recognizing your right to brush it off. U r not my slave
and u don t have a duty to respond to my posts merely because
I sent something to u. I acknowledge your right to take a casual
attitude in what u can consider (my post to be) a trivial matter.


I apologise. There's only so much time. But I doubt I carried on arguing against you as if you hadn't made your points. And I doubt that the issues involved the education of 50 million kids. Do you think it a right to carry on arguing on an issue of that importance after I had given the functions of religion as if I hadn't done. It would be fair enough to deny those functions, or try to, but to just ignore them and carry on as if nothing had been said about them is ridiculous.

Suppose you were listing the potential consequences of sex to a young woman and she ignored them and went on to try to persuade other young women to have casual sex as if those functions did not exist even though they had been explained to her.

I know why I'm on Ignore if you don't Dave. effemm had no answers to the points but simply wished to carry on persuading people without reference to them. If you think that's okay what can I say?

Suppose you were trying to persuade somebody to stay in education after the minimum age for leaving school and I came on offering arguments why it was better to get out of school at the earliest opportunity. And they do exist. And are real. And because you worked in further education, and thus had a vested interest, you just carried on persuading the kid ignoring the considerations I had brought up, avoiding effemm for example, getting some cash in the bank instead of a debt, learning a trade instead of some ponced up media studies blather, and plenty other stuff, and I lost heart and ten posts later some new talented kid comes on the forum and all he sees is your advice. Are you educating that kid or screwing his head up so your job is safe?

"It's only people's games you gotta dodge." Bob Dylan.





0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Adding Tags to Threads - Discussion by Brandon9000
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Merry Andrew - Discussion by edgarblythe
Spot the April Fools gag yet? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Great New Look to A2K- Applause, Robert! - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Head count - Discussion by CalamityJane
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
The great migration - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/28/2021 at 12:11:06