Nothing dishonest about it - she hasn't tried to hide the fact that she needed help, and asked for it. They wouldn't have any reason to come here this time, except Arella keeps taking an unprovoked beating from all you wolrdly wise types.
Timberland, don't you think its strange that no one but men (and Lash) on A2K attack Arella? Do you think there's any method to the reasoning that keeps the women from joining in the pecking parties?
Arella Mae wrote:Do I want to be an atheist? Pardon the expression but not only no but hell no! And I say that only because the majority of atheists I run across seem to think it's ok to act like total jackasses because they don't believe in God. So, for that reason alone I want to believe.
Thumpers are not typically adverse to being jackasses either, AM.
Not much to be had from engaging in a contest of wits against inadequately equipped opponents.
Did I miss the gathering of the clan? Welcome to all the new members. How many of you will stay around to actively participate in the forums? Or, did you just drop by to post a few tedious sermons, never to be heard from again?
Arella, I'm happy to meet your friends; don't get me wrong. But so far I haven't seen any posts of substance.
What is the purpose of their presence?
snood wrote:timberlandko wrote:snood wrote:Nothing dishonest about it - she hasn't tried to hide the fact that she needed help, and asked for it.
The dishonesty lies in the concept of the call, snood, not in the manner of its issuance. A mob lends no credence to an argument, only volume.
Assume what you will Timber. I told you the reason for it. I am kind of curious about one thing, though. What's all the fuss because some Christians joined A2K because I asked them to? Hmmm, now why would that bother anyone?
Whatever the hell that means. She hasn't tried to hide the "concept" of the call - those people are her friends, and the fact that they tend to all spout the same scriptural content is just because they think similarly. And there's no dishonesty in the knowledge that they know you don't like it.
Non sequitur, snood, and straw man; wholly irrelevant - no allegation or implication of the call being disquised was presented. To put it more simply, the dishonesty lies in the tactic - marshalling the mob.
Marshalling the mob?Let's see, they barely get registered and already they are inadequately equipped and a mob? Shame on you Timber.
Quote:They wouldn't have any reason to come here this time, except Arella keeps taking an unprovoked beating from all you wolrdly wise types.
Nonsense - nobody has been beating on anyone. Some, however, apparently unable to support a proposition through argument, seek support in numbers.
Nobody has been beating on anyone, huh?I won't even go there with you. But let me clarify something, SUPPORT IN NUMBERS, AS WELL AS IN INTELLECT, which I'm sure you'll find they know so much more than I do!
Quote:You seem to really think that if you dress up your lowblows and insults with pretty words, that it makes it other than it is. You cannot disagree with Arella without insulting her. I've seen it time and time again. I know it to be true, because I have disagreed with her myself, and it doesn't have to sink to the same level.
snood, by your posts,you appear to share with some others a propensity to fail to separate argument from arguer, whether in the first person or the third. An attack on an argument and/or its manner of presentation is not an attack on the presenter of that argument, and negative appraisal is not insult, it is criticism, rebuttal, and refutation. Demonstrate that I have "insulted" other than argument or manner of presentation.
Quote:Some, however, are neither able to separate themselves from their positions, nor able to make a coherent case for the positions they espouse. More of the same is but more of the same; inanity is rendered no less inane for there being an increase of it. I expect nothing else from the troops our defenseless freind has marshalled to her support.
Make no mistake Timber. I AM NOT defenseless. I'm just not going to resort to calling people names and engaging in frays with those that attack. My friends are pretty cool. We all keep each other in check if our behavior gets out of line.
There - "inane" and incoherent. You can't abuse people into reasoned debate. It would be better all around if you just dropped the pretense, and admitted you get some kind of punkass jollies from picking on her. The position you try to take is that you are somehow being instructive, and you are no more above being personal than anyone else.
Now, here, snood, you fall to ad hominem and invective, and inanely at that. Characteristic of some, to the point of stereotype, serving only to confirm and validate the criticism to which it ineptly and ineffectually is directed, and to reinforce the stereotype thereby exemplified.
Now, THAT made me laugh, Timber!
Quote:Quote:Quote:Timberland, don't you think its strange that no one but men (and Lash) on A2K attack Arella? Do you think there's any method to the reasoning that keeps the women from joining in the pecking parties?
No, not at all. I certainly don't. Are you implying that skeptical criticism might be misogynistic, and/or that the gentler gender might be predisposed to delusion? How unchivalrous of you.
"Skeptical criticism" is one way of looking at it. To some of us, it looks like you're just too weak to let certain things go, too weak not to get the last word...
I know a lot of people to whom "being right" is as important as it is to you. You have to keep proving it, over and over, whether you are being resisted or not.
I find quite revealing that some consistently resort to the ploy of attempting to silence or otherwise dismiss ideas and arguments incongruent with or counter to ideas of their own; whether unwilling or unable to address and withstand opposition, their stock in trade is to not confront the substance of that opposition but rather to decry that such opposition might exist and to disparage those presenting that opposition. That is not argument, snood; along with being disingenuous if not consciously duplicitous discourse, it is avoidance and denial.
snood wrote:timberlandko wrote:Not much to be had from engaging in a contest of wits against inadequately equipped opponents.
But then, you can't help yourself, can you?
I neither need help nor have I asked for any, snood - which transparent ploy on the part of another participant in this discussion precisely is at the center of this current digression.
Not transparent Timber. I explained why they are here. Nothing transparent about that at all.
snood wrote:neologist wrote:Did I miss the gathering of the clan? Welcome to all the new members. How many of you will stay around to actively participate in the forums? Or, did you just drop by to post a few tedious sermons, never to be heard from again?
Arella, I'm happy to meet your friends; don't get me wrong. But so far I haven't seen any posts of substance.
What is the purpose of their presence?
Don't be coy, Neo - she asked them to come becasue she felt besieged. Or have you totally not noticed the ongoing sluggout?
Again, snood, nobody is beseiged, though some fail to make the case for their proposition - it is proposition, argument, and manner of presentation, not personages, that are under attack. Again, more of the same is but more of the same; no argument of substance, let alone validity, in support of the religionist proposition at discussion has been presented. Nor, by the evidence of that so far posted by the newcomers to this discussion, as noted by Neo, does there appear to be promise of same.
Attack my arguments all you want. But being called a liar hasn't a thing to do with my argument Timber. That's plain and simple personal affrontage even if you can't see it.
On page 4--page 4, mind you--i responded to Coastal Rat in an ongoing discussion we were having about the historical basis for the events described as "Passion Week." At the end of that response, i commented on MOAN's latest "Well, that's just what i believe" post. She then went ballistic, and successfully derailed this thread by making it all about herself, and not about the topic at hand. She's absolutely correct--i call her MOAN, secure in the knowledge that it will set her off. She has lied at this site, and told more lies to cover her other lies, until a site was linked which gave the lie to her. She manufactured an incident in the attempt to gain my sympathy--and when it worked, when she played me for a fool, another member pointed out to me what she was likely up to. I particularly resent her having done so because in the process of making a fool of me, she elicited compassion and and expression of humane regard from me. No one likes being played for a fool--even less will anyone appreciate it when the means was to elicit sympathy on false pretenses. So i will continue to call MOAN by that name, and i will relish how easily one can jerk her chain by doing so.
Well, now I understand the reason for all your bullying and nastiness. You think I played you for a fool. I told you, I'll gladly send you the ER bill, report, etc. It's refreshing that you finally admitted your motive in calling me MOAN. There may be hope for you yet Setanta!
This thread is not about the so-often expressed invincible ignorance of MOAN's belief. She has contributed nothing to the discussion at hand.
The topic is whether or not there is any historical foundation to assert that the putative Jesus did exist. I have pointed out that i consider it probable, but that i see no historical evidence for it. I have pointed out that i don't have for an object to disprove that the putatitve Jesus existed. The subject, before being derailed by the petty childish egoism of MOAN, had turned to whether or not there are sources independent of the cult which confirm that the putative Jesus existed. I assert that there are not.
Man, you are just absolutely hilarious! I guess I owe you an apology, huh? I mean, you being so innocent and all? I practically begged you Setanta to let it go and get off me. I honestly tried to stop all this but you and a few others just wouldn't have it. You had to keep it going with your taunts and your posts that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. So, I'd say that calls you Mr. Kettle, wouldn't you?
I begged you all to stop. You wouldn't. Well, I have more support now. They know me for what I really am Setanta. You know nothing about me just as I know nothing about you.
