Arguing

R1D2 said:
It is interesting people think of searching a name. I don't recall it soon enough I guess. But why does people search a name so fast? And I don't know... What my "name" brought up... Guess I need more time to search and be paranoid. Miss L, interesting stuff was brought up for you...
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? What are you paranoid about?

There seems to be a lot of general paranoia in this place. This is hard to follow.

---Futilitist
 
gmilam said:
I'll just make one comment. I find it a little condescending for someone to sign up on a forum just so they can "enlighten us with their wisdom". :rolleyes:

:bugeye:
Click to expand...

You can think what you want, but I am really just wanting to hear everyone's thoughts..
 
gmilam said:
It certainly was NOT to read some young lady's personal blog on relationships.
Click to expand...

So why do you want to spoil the fun? This is a big site. Why not find something else to post about? Party pooper.

Besides, I read loganonlove's post as broadly applying to all relationships. Like the ones on display here in this discussion. A positive, respectful, and encouraging approach is better than a fight.

---Futilitist
 
Futilitist said:
So why do you want to spoil the fun? This is a big site. Why not find something else to post about? Party pooper.

Besides, I read loganonlove's post as broadly applying to all relationships. Like the ones on display here in this discussion. A positive, respectful, and encouraging approach is better than a fight.

---Futilitist
Click to expand...

Hhaha What Futilitist said.
 
While may of us here deeply appreciate the enthusiasm of youth, the great passion of the inexperienced and the naivete of the uneducated, like many/most web sites there are rules (also called "Terms Of Use") that you must agree to and follow if you wish to participate here.

I encourage all new members to review those rules if they wish to stay and play. :)

As for another "why":

Futilitist said:
Even for an atheist like myself, the concept of redemption is a powerful one. But for a religious nut job like you, it just twists you up in knots. People like you never seem to be able to come to terms with their own guilt and complicity. I, too, find it tragic that I must be dragged kicking and screaming to my own crucifixion in RE's Smokehouse. But now you have to live with your part in that crime. I think it serves you right. And you call yourself a Christian! Shame on you.


The concept of redemption cannot be a powerful one for the atheist, because there is no one worthy to redeem you (that you are aware of and accept). You can't be redeemed by yourself, some human guru, the Pope or the laws of nature. Redemption only has meaning in the context of a person who is uniquely situated to forgive you for your evil nature/deeds and atone for them, i.e. Jesus Christ.

If you are implying here that you were scapegoated in a manner similar to Jesus, you are wrong. Jesus never made a huge display of what was being done to Him, and, in fact, it was all a part of God's plan. He never once blamed other people or God for the fate that He had to suffer in the name of God's truth... which is exactly the opposite of the display you have shown on these threads - it was fantastic display of projection and external blame, and it had very little to do with reasoned analysis of the truth. When Jesus was scourged and ridiculed and berated, how did He respond? Compare that to how you responded to Karpatok and me and others.
Click to expand...

....from his blog.

Stoniphi said:
Google her nick (user name).
Click to expand...

I am always a bit puzzled by someone who calls themselves an atheist....and then goes on at great length in extreme xtian terms dogmatically accepting the Christ myth as historic fact. :shrug: That seems so....contradictory. :confused:

Futilitist said:
I am a philosopher who practices a philosophy called Futilitism that searches for practical utility in absolute futility:
Click to expand...

Guess that sorta explains it somewhat....

I understand the need to feel important and the desire to have others look up to you, but that is something that must be earned if it is obtainable at all.

If you desire the attention of and engagement with educated adults, you must conduct yourself respectfully (you give respect in order to get respect, there is no other way to obtain that) and at least attempt to follow the rules most of the time - especially when you are a new member. If you choose to be unpleasant and/or uninteresting no-one will desire to interact with you. If that is what you wish, then why bother to join us here?
 
loganonlove said:
You can think what you want, but I am really just wanting to hear everyone's thoughts..
Click to expand...
You asked no questions and invited no discussion. Why did you choose a science forum to post relationship advice.

Don't worry, I'm putting you and Futilist on ignore. I suggest you do the same for me.
 
Futilitist said:
What are you talking about? What are you paranoid about?

There seems to be a lot of general paranoia in this place. This is hard to follow.

---Futilitist
Click to expand...

Can you drop all the paranoia? Its fine to have a little but you seem to have a lot. And my comment was simple enough to follow. My paranoia is people confusing me with some of the other R1D2 things the searches bring up. I like this site and visit daily. I don't feel like leaving any time soon. Simple enough. I don't have a blog or a twitter account. Let alone of the same name.
 
The Big Frame Up!!!!

Stoniphi said:
While may of us here deeply appreciate the enthusiasm of youth, the great passion of the inexperienced and the naivete of the uneducated, like many/most web sites there are rules (also called "Terms Of Use") that you must agree to and follow if you wish to participate here.

I encourage all new members to review those rules if they wish to stay and play. :)

As for another "why":

Stoniphi criminally misquoting me!!!: said:
Even for an atheist like myself, the concept of redemption is a powerful one. But for a religious nut job like you, it just twists you up in knots. People like you never seem to be able to come to terms with their own guilt and complicity. I, too, find it tragic that I must be dragged kicking and screaming to my own crucifixion in RE's Smokehouse. But now you have to live with your part in that crime. I think it serves you right. And you call yourself a Christian! Shame on you.


The concept of redemption cannot be a powerful one for the atheist, because there is no one worthy to redeem you (that you are aware of and accept). You can't be redeemed by yourself, some human guru, the Pope or the laws of nature. Redemption only has meaning in the context of a person who is uniquely situated to forgive you for your evil nature/deeds and atone for them, i.e. Jesus Christ.

If you are implying here that you were scapegoated in a manner similar to Jesus, you are wrong. Jesus never made a huge display of what was being done to Him, and, in fact, it was all a part of God's plan. He never once blamed other people or God for the fate that He had to suffer in the name of God's truth... which is exactly the opposite of the display you have shown on these threads - it was fantastic display of projection and external blame, and it had very little to do with reasoned analysis of the truth. When Jesus was scourged and ridiculed and berated, how did He respond? Compare that to how you responded to Karpatok and me and others.
Click to expand...

....from his blog.



I am always a bit puzzled by someone who calls themselves an atheist....and then goes on at great length in extreme xtian terms dogmatically accepting the Christ myth as historic fact. :shrug: That seems so....contradictory. :confused:



Guess that sorta explains it somewhat....
Click to expand...

Sorta is right! Ha ha ha! Nice try. Here is the way that quote above should have read:

ghost of futilitist said:
Even for an atheist like myself, the concept of redemption is a powerful one. But for a religious nut job like you, it just twists you up in knots. People like you never seem to be able to come to terms with their own guilt and complicity. I, too, find it tragic that I must be dragged kicking and screaming to my own crucifixion in RE's Smokehouse. But now you have to live with your part in that crime. I think it serves you right. And you call yourself a Christian! Shame on you.
Click to expand...
Ashvin: said:
The concept of redemption cannot be a powerful one for the atheist, because there is no one worthy to redeem you (that you are aware of and accept). You can't be redeemed by yourself, some human guru, the Pope or the laws of nature. Redemption only has meaning in the context of a person who is uniquely situated to forgive you for your evil nature/deeds and atone for them, i.e. Jesus Christ.

If you are implying here that you were scapegoated in a manner similar to Jesus, you are wrong. Jesus never made a huge display of what was being done to Him, and, in fact, it was all a part of God's plan. He never once blamed other people or God for the fate that He had to suffer in the name of God's truth... which is exactly the opposite of the display you have shown on these threads - it was fantastic display of projection and external blame, and it had very little to do with reasoned analysis of the truth. When Jesus was scourged and ridiculed and berated, how did He respond? Compare that to how you responded to Karpatok and me and others.
Click to expand...

So the reason it sounds like two distinctly different speakers because it actually is!

My post sorta explains things a whole lot better. Reads kinda different when you get the quotes right, huh? All in all, a very amateur frame up. The space where the speaker designation goes is still evident! Stoniphi obviously believes that no one knows how to read. He is projecting. That's a psychology term.

By the way, why go to so much (little?) effort on my account? I've never even met you. Have I? Yeah, I'm feeling real welcome here!

Stoniphi, you, sir, need to read the Terms of Use! This is supposed to be a science forum. Seriously. I would like to register a formal complaint for intentional misquoting. Very sh!tty thing to do. If you were an actual scientist, you could loose all standing in the scientific community for this sort of fraud. You should at least apologize to me. Actually, you should be BANNED for life. You should never be taken seriously by anyone again. You will probably be promoted to moderator, instead! Shame on you, sir. :mad:

If you really want to know the truth, and I can tell you don't, go to my blog and read it for yourself. Here is a link: http://futilitist.blogspot.com/2012/10/picturing-ashvins-redemption.html.

If you really, really want to know the truth, I pity you. Go to:
http://www.doomsteaddiner.org/forum/index.php#c4 and check it out. But you have to sign up to see the really good stuff.

Here is the direct link to the juicy stuff after you sign in:
http://www.doomsteaddiner.org/forum/index.php?topic=910.0

I sure hope you have a strong stomach. Good luck.

I don't think this is a good place. You are witnessing a crime. Run Logan, run!;)

---Futilitist:cool:
 
R1D2 said:
Can you drop all the paranoia? Its fine to have a little but you seem to have a lot. And my comment was simple enough to follow. My paranoia is people confusing me with some of the other R1D2 things the searches bring up. I like this site and visit daily. I don't feel like leaving any time soon. Simple enough. I don't have a blog or a twitter account. Let alone of the same name.
Click to expand...
But your post wasn't directed at me, was it? I've never done any search of your name, period. I genuinely don't know you. You seem pretty nice.

---Futilitist
 
If I post something here, it should be obvious that I want to know what you guys think of it.

James R said:
Why not just post a link to your blog and be done with it? Anybody who wants to read your blog can go read your blog.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I have posted enough to just post them as links, but I'll look into that, sir.
 
Futilitist said:
Does this site have a clear definition of "spamming"?
Click to expand...
Normally we only invoke it when it's done commercially. However the administrators also don't appreciate people advertising things on SciForums that aren't precisely commercial, such as other discussion boards.

Why is everyone so content to just wink at each other over the use and misuse of the words "spam" and "spamming"?
Click to expand...
I'm the Linguistics moderator so I put more thought into issues like this than most people.

Lately we've been inundated by spambots. We even had to establish a new procedure that places all new members in a moderation queue so they can't get out into the real boards until they've been verified. Unfortunately we get so much spam that it can take a while to clear the queue so legitimate members lose patience.

So the whole concept of spam has become a sensitive subject.

As a professional writer, I would advise anyone who writes a blog, and is thinking of posting the same ideas on another website, to not cut and paste the text. Rephrase it. State it in a new way that's more appropriate.

It stands to reason that something that people are going to respond to wouldn't necessarily be written in exactly the same form as something people are only going to read. If you're trying to start a dialog, then write it as the opening statement in a bloody dialog, not as a lecture or an editorial.

Disciplining yourself to never say something exactly the same way twice is a great way to improve your communication skills. Be proud of your ideas, not your sentences.
 
What we want on sciforums is original content. We don't want stuff copied from facebook, or your favorite blog, or even The New York Times. If you want people to read a great new article you found at http://sciam.com, try posting a brief extract, with a link to the original article, plus some questions or points of discussion that you thought of yourself when you read the article. In other words, try to post things that lead to an original discussion. Don't come here just to say "Hey guys! Check out this youtube video I found!" and then leave it at that. If we want to watch random youtube clips we can all go there to do that. If we want to read somebody's blog, we can go there to read it. sciforums is a discussion forum.

Regarding spam, what does all of the above imply? It implies that if you post a one-liner post that only contains a link to your favorite blog, chances are we'll regard it as an advertisement for that blog and presume that you have little of worth to contribute to sciforums.
 
I guess not one single person here thinks that Soniphi's blatant smear attempt against me was wrong. Anyone?

Great.

I am going to have some serious fun misquoting people here! What a cool game. Please don't get mad at me. I'm just trying to fit in.

---Futilitist
 
Well, this escalated quickly..

From now on I will post a link and an excerpt from my blog instead of the entire thing. And if people are interested they can just go there.
Let it be known that anything I post on this forum is up for discussion. I am pretty much here for others to criticize my thoughts, debate, and enlighten..

Thank you.

P.S. Futilitist, everything will be just fine..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top