It is nearly the weekend again and tony1 will probably appear soon.

He seems to spend most of his weekend here posting as many one-liners to as many threads as he possibly can regardless of whatever state the debate is at in each thread.

Most threads tend to reach a conclusion or simply fade away, at least that used to be the norm here at sciforums, but when tony1 launches his onslaught each weekend nearly every thread is suddenly resurrected again.

I find that this somewhat irritating behavior tends to degrade the quality of sciforums. It is also unfortunate that tony1 rarely if ever posts a paragraph, except perhaps a bible quote. His tactic tends to be one-line innuendos, and cynical or sarcastic single clause comments usually aimed at people rather than the issues. This shallowness and in such quantity is most unfortunate and I’d like to see it stop.

But these are free forums and open to anyone who wishes to post and I do not want to suggest any form of censorship, but the quality of sciforums is at some risk and new members might see tony1 as typical and be dissuaded from continuing.

Many here have made many comments concerning tony1’s behavior but I don’t think he understands his unfortunate impact.

To tony1: If you understand what I am saying would you be prepared to be less inflammatory and try to add depth to your points of view. That way we could have debates of greater quality and value. Quality and depth are far better than a vast quantity of inadequate, often foolish and ill-considered one-liners. You do occasionally introduce gems but these are difficult to find and are easily lost among the rest of your shallow attempts at debate.

So does anyone else here see the same problems and do you have any suggestions for solving this issue, apart from leaving sciforums?

Cris

*Originally posted by Cris
nearly every thread is suddenly resurrected again.*

What's this, argumentum ad schedule?

Aren't you aware that advertising drives a lot of things, and advertising works best when seen repeatedly.

* new members might see tony1 as typical and be dissuaded from continuing.*

Why would they jump to such a conclusion, when as you say, I only post on weekends?

Can't your erudite posts expressed daily for an entire week outweigh my insignificant little one-liners?

*To tony1: If you understand what I am saying would you be prepared to be less inflammatory and try to add depth to your points of view.*

Well, thanks, but I might not be inflammatory at all.
It could be that you are simply very sensitive and fail to understand what I am saying.

*do you have any suggestions for solving this issue, apart from leaving sciforums?*

Sure, try to grow up, and stop running away from your problems.
You will simply experience exactly the same thing at every forum you go to, simply because the one thing in common will be you.

to Cris:
Will you attempt to be the bigger man, and deal with your issues, or will you run away?

Tony1,

*Originally posted by Cris
nearly every thread is suddenly resurrected again.*

What's this, argumentum ad schedule?

Click to expand...

This isn’t a big deal but it’s like having a conversation with someone that ends when both are satisfied that everything has been said and the conversationalists move on to something else, and then you come along a week later and continue as if the conversation is still alive. It’s a minor irritation and really just an observation. If the only time you can post here is at weekends then that is the way it must be. No big deal.

Aren't you aware that advertising drives a lot of things, and advertising works best when seen repeatedly.

Click to expand...

I think this is where your lack of depth simply leaves confusion. Are you saying that you are trying to advertise yourself? What was your point here?

* new members might see tony1 as typical and be dissuaded from continuing.*

Why would they jump to such a conclusion, when as you say, I only post on weekends?

Click to expand...

A fair point but many of your short one-liners are of the form of sarcasm and cynicism and you do spread yourself everywhere. But without depth it is often difficult to read between the lines to determine what you are trying to say. But the often less than friendly style you have adopted will certainly dissuade many from joining in. They would not want to be treated the same way.

Can't your erudite posts expressed daily for an entire week outweigh my insignificant little one-liners?

Click to expand...

Ha ha, maybe. But you will find me in only a few places where I feel I have a genuine point to be made; I’m not in everyone’s face everywhere. But then why should I criticize you for having so much energy that you can post so much in such a short time. That really isn’t my point.

*To tony1: If you understand what I am saying would you be prepared to be less inflammatory and try to add depth to your points of view.*

Well, thanks, but I might not be inflammatory at all.
It could be that you are simply very sensitive and fail to understand what I am saying.

Click to expand...

Sarcasm and cynicism can easily be seen by many as inflammatory, but the distinction I guess is subjective. Such techniques are valid styles, they just don’t come across as helpful or persuasive, and they are simply not very effective for convincing someone that you have a valid point. The reaction I have seen from most here that respond to you is one of anger, outrage, or attempts to match your style. The final result is not positive and you lose credibility.

Sensitivity is not the issue. But yes I often cannot understand you. Your one-liners just do not deliver enough information. And I do not see any value in responding to them because I know you will respond with more confusing one-liners. Brevity is fine up to a point but you go too far. I would really like you to explain yourself more clearly and in greater detail and develop meaningful arguments. As I said you do drop some gems occasionally but they are overshadowed with your very unconventional approach to religion. I still do not have a good grasp of what you really believe and I am not sure that you have a clear idea either. But without some depth I will never know. Perhaps you don’t care, and I could understand that, but then isn’t the fun of debating in places like this to try to convince others of your point of view.

So please if you can, instead of blasting as many people at as many threads as you can, try to develop fewer posts but with greater depth. I would love to see you start a topic and explain your views in some detail. That could be very interesting. You are a significant poster here and I’d rather understand and debate with you rather than ignore you as I have been doing recently.

*do you have any suggestions for solving this issue, apart from leaving sciforums?*

Sure, try to grow up, and stop running away from your problems.
You will simply experience exactly the same thing at every forum you go to, simply because the one thing in common will be you.

to Cris:
Will you attempt to be the bigger man, and deal with your issues, or will you run away?

Click to expand...

You missed my point, I have no intention of leaving or running away. If I had I wouldn’t have started this topic. I am attracted to problems, they represent enjoyable challenges.

Just trying to be helpful for the benefit of all at sciforums.
Cris

I believe Chris has made a rational appeal to Tony1. He’s made fair requests with ample, logical explanations. I don’t see how anyone could expect more, and I seriously doubt that such is deserved, but it’s up to Chris to decide what he thinks fair and appropriate.

I no longer bother reading any of Tony1’s posts because they’re a waste of time; too cluttered with quotes--and not just biblical quotes. (Don’t watch much television anymore either. It’s all too much like advertising to me.) At any rate, in Tony1’s posts, it’s difficult to keep up with where one quoted speaker has ended and another begins--and as Chris and others have pointed out, repeatedly, he offers little more than sarcastic, unenlightening, one-liners when he does offer anything at all. Sorry, but I’ve never gleaned any of his “gems;” although frankly, the discovery of one or two questionable gems aren’t usually enough to make me want to wade through that much muck just for the off-chance of finding another.

To judge by Tony1’s responses on this thread so far, he doesn’t appear to understand or to care how his posts are perceived, and this is the impression I’ve had of him ever since I first arrived. His apparent objective is not to discuss or to debate like a mature adult, but to thwart and confuse those who claim to be atheists, or anything else Tony1 may object to, much like an irrational child who is bent on arguing for the sake of arguing. The real reasons he posts in this manner may never be known, but without resorting to insupportable assumptions, I’ll leave it at that.

I know I’ve mentioned this a couple of times before now, at least, and I respect the rights of others to disagree... but unless Tony1 can demonstrate a willingness, a desire, or even an ability to “converse” with others here in a sensible and/or productive fashion, I see no purpose in encouraging him to continue as he is by responding to anything he writes. I believe he has a choice and that what he chooses to do reflects what he values.

Once upon a time I might have been willing to go to the lengths Chris has so far in order to be fair and to try to “connect” with this person, but much experience has taught me that some efforts are simply futile. And positive reinforcement... it’s a tricky thing. At some point Tony1 has to take responsibility for what he writes. If he wishes to ignore kind, considerate, (quite fair) requests meant to achieve a better understanding, and to improve the overall quality of ‘conversation’ here at sciforums, then I think he brings upon himself the outcome of being ignored, or verbally slighted. The board may suffer a bit in the short run, but there’s no real reason why discussions can’t continue, and probably will, regardless of what Tony1 posts or doesn’t.

That’s an honest opinion offered with no hostility. Blunt opinion and nothing more. I don’t think for one moment that Chris needs my input here, but I believe in speaking out against what I consider utter absurdity when it reaches certain limits and when it touches things of value. Intelligent, rational debate...communication...on issues relevant to our times is a valuable thing.

~~~

Counterbalance

Counterbalance.

Many thanks for your comments. And I apologize for not responding to some of your other posts in other threads where we have visited. Your style certainly tends to mimic your name.

I am hoping that tony1 will respond positively although I have no evidence to suspect he will, but I am an eternal optimist.

I would truly like to understand why tony1 thinks the way he does. One of my key purposes of being here is to learn from others.

See ya around.

Cris

PS. Please note correct spelling of Cris (no H).

Noted.

And you're welcome.

*Originally posted by Cris
No big deal.*

Right on.

* think this is where your lack of depth simply leaves confusion. Are you saying that you are trying to advertise yourself? What was your point here?*

This is where your lack of depth and inability to relate to reality take over.
Do you think these forums are here simply to provide a place to air out your tonsils?
These places depend on advertising revenue the same as commercial TV, newspapers, magazines, etc. do.
Controversy works to the advertisers' advantage here the same way as it does in other media.

*But the often less than friendly style you have adopted will certainly dissuade many from joining in. They would not want to be treated the same way.*

It's only "less than friendly" if you disagree.

*But you will find me in only a few places where I feel I have a genuine point to be made;*

Great.

*they are simply not very effective for convincing someone that you have a valid point.*

I'm not always attempting to establish that I have a valid point.
Sometimes I am simply showing you that you don't.
The reason for that is quite simply that my point(s) are lost on you if you consider your point valid when it obviously isn't.
That is not to say that all of your points are invalid.

*The reaction I have seen from most here that respond to you is one of anger, outrage, or attempts to match your style. The final result is not positive and you lose credibility. *

My credibility is not my concern.
Many people build castles in the air, and the only reasonable thing to do is to bring them down to earth.
Sometimes the castles fall apart due to poor construction.
That creates anger, outrage, etc. but so what?

*But yes I often cannot understand you.*

It isn't as though I haven't noticed.

*Your one-liners just do not deliver enough information.*

The question is, how much information do you need delivered to you and how much can you figure out for yourself?

*I still do not have a good grasp of what you really believe and I am not sure that you have a clear idea either.*

I suspect that my idea of what I believe is very much clearer than your idea of what you believe.

*You are a significant poster here and I’d rather understand and debate with you rather than ignore you as I have been doing recently.*

You haven't been ignoring me at all.
You have simply been refraining from posting responses.

Keep in mind that, while I am not a practioner of zen, the concept of the zen master slapping the zen disciple in the side of the head to bring enlightenment is a good one.

Zen enlightenment goes nowhere, but real enlightenment means something.
Consider my one-liners as koans that actually mean something.
And consider your anger and frustration as the slap in the side of the head.

You live in a small box, and I'm trying to get you to think outside of the box.

*Originally posted by Counterbalance
I believe Chris has made a rational appeal to Tony1.*

Such an incredible demonstration of faith!
I, of course, also believe that he has done so.

*in Tony1’s posts, it’s difficult to keep up with where one quoted speaker has ended and another begins*

Read the names.
That would be your clue.

*to thwart and confuse those who claim to be atheists*

Only those atheists who can't figure out what they believe.
Atheists who say they flat out reject God and everything he says don't get much from me because they've made their bed and they'll lie in it.

Wishy-washy atheists will hear from me simply to clarify their thinking.

*Originally posted by Cris
I am hoping that tony1 will respond positively although I have no evidence to suspect he will, but I am an eternal optimist. *

So you do believe things without any evidence.

Tony1,

*Originally posted by Cris
I am hoping that tony1 will respond positively although I have no evidence to suspect he will, but I am an eternal optimist. *

So you do believe things without any evidence.

Click to expand...

Good try but it wasn't a belief only a hope.

You'll go to any length to create the appearance of no unsubstantiated belief.

You believe you're hoping.

---hope \Hope\, n. [AS., akin to D. hoop, hope, Sw. hopp, Dan. haab, MHG. hoffe. Hope in forlorn hope is different word. See Forlorn hope, under Forlorn.]
1. A desire of some good, accompanied with an expectation of obtaining it, or a belief that it is obtainable; an expectation of something which is thought to be desirable; confidence; pleasing expectancy.---

You just can't get away from the fact that you believe things with no substantiation.

ha ha ha ha, typical tony1

I'm just curious as to when the intelligent retorts to what Tony says are going to start.

Bunch of cheerleaders around here....

Ben

KalvinB, that's simple

I'm just curious as to when the intelligent retorts to what Tony says are going to start.

Click to expand...

Apparently, KalvinB, you missed the month or so back around February, I believe, when people attempting to discuss the history of the Bible found their topics bombarded by Tony1's claims that such history never happened, and then his eventual rhetorical stand against Catholocism. His attempts to divorce Catholocism from Christianity stem from his inability to counterpoint the historical fact of the bloodshed which has occurred in the name of the Bible and its God.

In this sense, we would love to discuss the historical ideologies surrounding the Bible, but Tony1 needs "Christian history" to be whitewashed. It's why he identifies with such an embittered, negative Christianity. He's cut out all the positives because he refuses the historical contexts of his faith. In light of that history, he's locked himself into a pattern of denial and deflection.

I tend to think that the intelligent posts take place around Tony1, and that they will resume their former quality upon either his departure or reformation of style. In the meantime, Tony1 merely drags down topics with his anti-identification of concepts, and with his Biblically-mandated distrust of everything and everyone, as well as his belief that he is charged to crush those who disagree with him..

Right there we've got three relevant factors:

* Distrust (biblically mandated)
* Supremacy fantasies (biblically inspired)
* Anti-identification (identifying what he is not as opposed to what he actually is.)

Distrust compels him to invent opinions on people's behalf instead of actually recognizing their perspective. Supremacy fantasies compel him toward an eternal competiition where things are to be won or lost, not understood. Anti-identification leaves him sputtering angrily about other people's ideas without ever offering much of his own. And no wonder: we see why. Again, distrust and supremacy fantasies: it's all he really has to offer, or at least all he's really shown. He will continue to call it God's gift of salvation, but look at his method: to chase as many people away from the word as possible? That's ... really the point of the Gospels, isn't it? That God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son to die in order to scare the people away?

That's beyond perverse: it's idiotic.

thanx,
Tiassa

Originally posted by KalvinB
I'm just curious as to when the intelligent retorts to what Tony says are going to start.

Bunch of cheerleaders around here....

Ben

Click to expand...

~~~~~~~



And Counterbalance wrote:

That’s an honest opinion offered with no hostility. Blunt opinion and nothing more. I don’t think for one moment that Chris needs my input here, but I believe in speaking out against what I consider utter absurdity when it reaches certain limits and when it touches things of value. Intelligent, rational debate...communication...on issues relevant to our times is a valuable thing.

Click to expand...

This is cheerleading?

Perhaps we need to take a poll on "definitions" or "goals." By doing so we might better understand each other's purposes--we might better understand the motives behind one-liners? (Not likely, but...)

We also might better understand whether or not it's futile to respond to some people's remarks--and regardless of whether it's a response of support or one of refutation.

Wasting my time to even type this, except that I do value Cris's attempts, and enjoy reading Tiassa's...essays.

So YAAAAYYYYY!!, Cris and Tiassa. Don't suppose it would matter what topic either of you wrote about, you both write very well.

Later, taters...

Counterbalance

Maybe I'm forgetting something but I thought that generally a post is in response to the post directly above it unless otherwise specified. Usually with quotes.

what part of "ha ha ha ha, typical tony1" isn't cheerleading?

"That’s an honest opinion offered with no hostility. Blunt opinion and nothing more. I don’t think for one moment that Chris needs my input here, but I believe in speaking out against what I consider utter absurdity when it reaches certain limits and when it touches things of value. Intelligent, rational debate...communication...on issues relevant to our times is a valuable thing."

I don't know if that's cheerleading but it certainly is wordy (adjectives galore) and says very little.

Ben

In a perfect world, yes... one's response would be relative to the comments made prior. However, I've yet to see a forum where this was standard practice.

Tony1's responses, for example, tend to include quotes from several prior posts. Others' posts also include quotes, or they just respond to whomever they wish, even if it's to a post made on a previous page. Rampant free speech, if you will...

Which brings us back to communication. Specificity counts. While Tony1 does address his "remarks" to a named poster, he often includes his own one-liner retorts to that (quoted) remark, along with a biblical quote or two, and then adds yet another new one-liner...on top of more of the same to several other posters...all within the same post... Oh, and there are frequent font changes... so you have a message that doesn't make much sense to start with, cluttered with "stuff" that makes it harder for the eye to follow. Not impossible to follow, but not worth it for everyone. I've only had to read a few of his posts to know the effort wasn't worth the message obtained.

Whatever comments are made, the more specificity offered in a response generally helps others to better understand the intended message. And responding directly... to questions directly asked ... keeps the discussion coherent.

But that's not what happens, eh?

And so, what can we do?

1. We can try reading others' post more carefully--if we have good reason to read them at all.

2. And we can try to not make assumptions about someone else's viewpoint that we cannot prove, for by 'jumping the gun' we create one obstacle after another to be hurdled before true communication can be achieved.

3. When replying, we can ask about what we don't understand, remembering that there is always the possibility that we don't understand as much as we think we do... after all, we do all see things differently in one respect or another...

4. We can answer the question asked. We don't have to assume that we're being set up for a verbal knock-down. And so what if we get that verbal knock-down after all? We have a choice as to how we will take it--as well as how we will respond to it.

5. We can avoid the "kitchen sink" routine of throwing in faaaar too much information which might lead a discussion where none wanted it to go. (Hey, I enjoy productive tangents too, but some restraint is warranted, I think)

But all of this applies only if someone is interested in really communicating.

Who is truly interested in communicating about these topics?

And who is only interested in spewing?

~~~

Counterbalance

Cris

Cris - how can you have an arguement/discussion with someone who does not have a mind of his own, let alone an "opinion"; its like a Yeti running for office in Washington - oh, they already have? Sorry! If it aint in the little black book Tony - check out the little red book of Mao! Much more interesting!

Re: KalvinB, that's simple

*Originally posted by tiassa
His attempts to divorce Catholocism from Christianity stem from his inability to counterpoint the historical fact of the bloodshed which has occurred in the name of the Bible and its God.*

I'm just waiting for you to lose your wallet, to have it picked up by a serial killer and left at the scene of a crime.
Hey, if the murder was committed in tiassa's name, then tiassa is guilty.
I realize that your reasoning powers are tremendously weakened by drug use, but I am sure that even you can do better than that.

*It's why he identifies with such an embittered, negative Christianity.*

Mr. Bitterness is complaining about someone else's imagined bitterness?

*...sputtering angrily...*

Your posts are one gigantic gripefest, and I'm sputtering angrily?
ROTFLMAO!!!!
LOL!
...
Whew!

In spite of your sour attitude to life, you still manage to raise the chuckles.
Drug use hasn't affected the comedy center of your brain.

*Originally posted by Counterbalance
I do value Cris's attempts, and enjoy reading Tiassa's...essays.*

I enjoy Cris' attempts at writing myself, as well as tiassa's...er...essays.

*Originally posted by KalvinB
I don't know if that's cheerleading but it certainly is wordy (adjectives galore) and says very little. *

It might not be cheerleading.
He might have one of those buzzword-based sophistication-enhancers published by Mad magazine every few years.

You may not have seen them, but they are based on a simple concept.
Mad provides a skeleton sentence that has blanks in place of adjectives, verbs and nouns.

They then provide list of adjectives, verbs and nouns that are rather cleverly chosen.
You then choose one word from each list to fill in the blanks, and voila, you sound intelligent if you use such sentences.
Well, either that or you make it obvious that you read Mad.
Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference.

tiassa probably has the computerized version, called a Kant Generator in one iteration.
It is much like Eliza, except it doesn't need the human half of the conversation.

What do you mean by cheerleading??

"ha ha ha, typical tony1"

what i simply meant was that the irony that Cris's statements were met with tony's one liners, once again, and how typical it was. I never meant for this to become the disscusion in this thread.
By the way it was ment to say very little. I acknowledge that it is of little value and really says nothing but the obvious but it was meant to be taken that way. I usually do put more thought into my responses but it was a comment not a response to anything.

*Originally posted by Red Devil
Tony - check out the little red book of Mao! Much more interesting! *

Been there, done that.
Plus, isn't Mao dead?

Do better, Tony1

I'm just waiting for you to lose your wallet, to have it picked up by a serial killer and left at the scene of a crime.
Hey, if the murder was committed in tiassa's name, then tiassa is guilty.
I realize that your reasoning powers are tremendously weakened by drug use, but I am sure that even you can do better than that.

Click to expand...

And I realize that your reasoning capacities are undermined entirely by your religion. Were they not, surely you would be able to observe the difference:

* Lawdog commits a murder and drops my ID
* Lawdog commits a murder because he thought God told him to

Of course, I'm not expecting much from you here; that I have to explain it at all is pretty indicative of your direction here.

I would tell you to think it over, but your inability to perceive such a basic difference indicates that you wouldn't get it even if I put neon signs around it and had Jesus Friggin' Christ deliver it to you alongside John the Baptist's head.

The spotlight's on you, Tony1. In addition to the stunning hypocrisy of how you treat people, and your bland justification from Luke, your poor excuses for arguments are becoming even more emaciated. I hope your children are better fed than your intellect.

--Tiassa