A typical debate with the idiot jodih

[Satan]

Poster: You know what? I don't know who could not enjoy watching a beautiful sunset on the beach.

jodih: What are you talking about? I hate it when people say that EVERYONE has to like a sunset. I mean, you know, I like sun rises. And I know A LOT OF PEOPLE who like sun rises. I really thought you were open-minded than this.

Poster: Well, what I meant by my post was that sunsets are great. I don't know how you got the idea that I meant that ALL people have to think sunsets are great. I mean, it's a figure of speech.

jodih: I really don't get your point. First you say that EVERYONE has to like sunsets, now you say "figure of speech." What does a figure of speech have to do with a sunset? I think you really should think these things out before you post.

Poster: What I was saying is that I used a figure of speech - that I don't know how anyone could not enjoy something, kinda like saying, "I don't know how anyone could not like chcolate". I used this figure of speech to tell of my own love of sunsets. To be honest, sunrises are fine too, but that's really not what I was getting at in the OP.

jodih: So what is it, sunrises or sunsets? And WHY are you continuing to force sunsets upon me and everyone I know? I happen to know a lot of people who do not even like the sun, so I really don't know what you're getting at. And I also know a LOT of people who HATE chocolate. Why are you pushing chocolate on me and my friends? Your stereotypical ways are really sad...

poster: Wha... Huh? Where did this come from? I was talking about chocolate as an example of my figure of speech. I guess that, sure, some people might not like sunsets and sun rises, but if you read above, you will not see me saying that everyone HAS to like ANYTHING! Hey, Polycarp, what is she trying to get at?

jodih: Why are you talking behind my back to Polycarp? I think that is rude. It's bad enough that you demand that everyone has to like a sunset just because you do, but now you talk behind my back. Well I HOPE ALL OF YOUR CHOCOLATE MELTS IN YOUR PRECIOUS SUNSET! How about that!?!

poster: Okay. Here's the deal. Nowhere in my OP did I say that EVERYONE had to love sunsets. Please read the post. I said it is an enjoyable thing, a sunset, but I never specifically said that EVERYONE HAS to feel this way. Why are you accusing me of this?

jodih: Look, poster. It is obvious that you think that everytone should think like a few token sunset-worshippers. Well, I happen to disagree. Can't we just disagree? I think you're just too stubborn... I don't understand the OP the way you worded it anyway.

Poster: We aren't just disagreeing. You don't understand. I never said anything about demanding other people TO DO ANYTHING! Can't you read? Nowhere did I say ANYTHING about this!

jodih: I really don't see your point. Oh, and not everyone likes chocolate, you know...

---------------------------------------------

At this point, Poster gives up EVER trying to converse with the idiot known as jodih without the benefit of an English-to-Moron, Moron-to-English dictionary around, a fifth of Jack and a lot of quaaludes.

For those who don't know what the Hell I'm talking about, go to http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000461.html andcheck out this piece of... work...

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

[engineerboy]

Well I *DO* have a moron-to english dictionary, a handful of 'ludes and a fifth of Absolut (maybe it's not strong enough)... and I'm still not sure where she's going with any of what she's saying. Allow me a few observations:

She's an attorney. Probably not an overworked one, at that. She can't seem to get enough arguing in the courts, so she'll do it here. Reminds me of "The Wookie Defense" on SouthPark

She'll probably have a heart attack if people don't start (uh, maybe that should say stop?) playing her game.

She's not unlike the class clown/smartass. She'll always have something contradictory to argue or say. And, like the class clown, she craves ATTENTION. If she is ignored, maybe she'll go away- I know my rash did :) On the other hand, if she's NOT ignored, her practice will go down the tubes, she'll be even more pissed off, and she'll have that much more time to bother us. Just a little food for thought.

Engineerboy

[WallyM7]

Satan,

She did what a good lawyer is supposed to do.
She changed the subject. She hardly spent any time on the OP. Most of her energies were devoted to how the debate should be conducted.

It's an old dodge. Lots of verbiage, little substance.

Never worked for me. That's why I post short.



------------------
Trust me.

[Therealbubba]

Jodih once told me:Brilliant question because, of course, there was no war or suffering before Jesus and no war or suffering after that can't be attributed to Him. Are you really, really simple or are you trolling?

How anyone in their right mind would argue with her is a glutton for punishment.

Therealbubba

[Falcon]

< stands up on soapbox > FTR, not all non-fundaloony Christians are like her!!! ACK!
< gets off soapbox >

Great....first I had to defend myself against the fundaloonies, now against the random argumenters....hmm...atheism ain't looking so bad after all....

[GLWasteful]

Falcon: Well, we do have the hottest chicks and the best drugs and liquor.

Waste
Flick Lives!

[Jodi]

Hey, let's be honest here. This is a more accurate re-telling:

Satan: Here's the latest idiocy spouted by a fundie Christian! He makes ALL Christians look like idiots!

Jodi: Why does that follow? If you know Christians who are not idiots, why would the words of one idiot make us all look like idiots?

I'm still waiting for an answer to that, BTW Satan -- oh, wait, you gave me one, I remember -- "Because it does." That hasn't become any less lame through the passage of time. The funny thing is, as I posted in the original thread, I didn't even intend my comment/clarification to be an attack on anyone and certainly not on you. But you'll take it as you take it, apparently.

ENGINEERBOY -- Do I KNOW you?? Because you're not ringing any bells with me. It seems to me that the definition of someone with too much time on their hands is an individual who jumps in to beat up someone they've never personally had any dealings with whatsoever.

WALLY says:

She hardly spent any time on the OP. Most of her energies were devoted to how the debate should be conducted.

I find this surpassingly ironic, since the catylist for the entire dust-up was a post of David's that had nothing whatsoever to do with the thread and instead dissed me for how, in his opinion, I should conduct myself. Did I have a problem with that? Damn right.

THEREALBUBBA -- I took issue with the wording of your post, several people backed me up, and you backed right down off of it, admitting it could have been posted better. Yet you apparently STILL have a problem with me -- although, apparently like David, you neglected to deal with it then.

[Falcon]

Waste -

But wait, what about having the hottest GUYS? (I'm a girl, remember? Damn, I'm almost as bad as Auraseer in having people not remember what gender I am....)

[Satan]

As Falcon pointed out, YOU make all Christians look like idiots.

[ChiefScott]

At the risk of damning my eternal soul,

::Satan gleefully rubs hand together::

I must say I pissed myself reading the thread. jodih cracked me up!

::Perking up, jodih thinks-"A convert?"::

I thought jodih was just messing w/poster's head. And I thought poster was amazingly tolerant.

In retrospect, after perusing jodih's follow-up post, I think she's just fucked up. And if she can't handle sunrises, sunsets or chocolate, she ought to be summarily martyred and her head stuck on a pike in New Jersey to greet the sun each morning. I'd personally decorate her decomposing body with Hershey kisses, enticing seagulls to nibble at her lifeless, decomposing corpse.

I don't know jodih, but I'll side w/Satan on this one.

::Satan -- Another devotee::
::jodih -- JEE-sus CHRIST!!::

::ChiefScott -- drawing chalk pentagram on deck::

[andros]

Satan said we ALL appear to be "mind-melded zealots," based upon the words of ONE.

Yes, he did. And it's true. You do all APPEAR to be zealots. When someone gets up and says "I represent Christianity, and you are going to hell," it turns me right off. Because I see so many idiots around, I begin to wonder if my christian friends may not be as stable as they appear. I worry and I wonder. Not all pit bulls are killers. But I sure don't read about the nice ones enough to want to meet one in a dark alley.

It's up to the moderates to counteract opinion. It looks to me like you're nitpicking so you can continue to sit on your ass. You don't actually have to convince anyone, oh no. Because if they're intelligent they'll just know automatically that the nuts aren't representative. WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG again.

Wake up and smell what you're shovelling.

And, btw, what could I have been thinking when you wrote:
[quote]I didn't take
the original post as a "personal slam;" I just didn't understand it, and I still don't.[/b]

Did you understand his post or not?

-andros-

------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

[kellibelli]

I am with spoons on this...I dont know jodih from a hole in the ground, and while she obviouslt splits hairs, and beats a point into the ground, so what? Jeepers, Con #3, David B...so many others do too.

She is a lawyer for petes sake! What else is she supposed to do? This is like asking wally not to flirt, or satan not to be a smartass, or unclebeer not to be well...unclebeer.

Lay off, you neanderthals...you are making athiests/agnostics/non christians look...
nevermind, just kidding.

[tracer]

GLWasteful wrote, regarding Atheism:

Well, we do have the hottest chicks and the best drugs and liquor.

Nonsense. Everybody knows the hottest chicks are girls fresh out of Catholic high school. If you'd just spent three years forbidden from so much as looking at boys, you'd be a pretty hot chick yourself when you got out!

------------------
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

[Mojo]

I've never dealt with jodih so I don't know if I'm allowed to post here but anytime that ANYONE claims to be a representative of a group- whether it's Islamic, Christian, people who listen to goth music, et. al.- and others are not familiar with that group, those others will ASCRIBE qualities to that group based on what (little) they know. Stereotyping is a shortcut that many people take, and many times its not justifiable.

Nowadays you don't hear much about the religious leaders that preach tolerance, only the ones that don't.

[andros]

(Grunt . . .)

Sorry, kelli.

I'll be good. No sniping at Jodi.

-andros-

[GLWasteful]

tracer:Nonsense. Everybody knows the hottest chicks are girls fresh out of Catholic high school. If you'd just spent three years forbidden from so much as looking at boys, you'd be a pretty hot chick yourself when you got out!
Enthusiasm is not now, nor has it ever been analogous to hot.

Plus, I've dated young ladies in Catholic high school. Their hotness is highly overrated, based upon my experience. Although, I did find out what in hell those beads were all about.

Waste
Flick Lives!

[VegForLife]

You know, I don't think I agree with Jodih on more than one or two religious points, but I have to say, the more I read of the GD thread and this one, the more I have to say "wait a minute, guys, you don't really mean that, do you?"
Yes, he did. And it's true. You do all APPEAR to be zealots.
If *one* person says something on behalf of a huge group -- one-third of the world's population, according to thread a few weeks ago that made reference to a mailbag article on religion -- and based on that comment *all* of the members of that group suddenly *appear* to be zealots in your eyes, well, I'd say you're the fool, not the guy making the comment in the first place. Ignorant at the very least.
When someone gets up and says "I represent Christianity, and you are going to hell," it turns me right off.
And rightly so. It should turn you right off to the guy making the comment, and it should make you question the organization that he purportedly represents. But if you suddenly believe that all members of the organization that he purportedly represents are loonies, or even if they suddenly "appear" to you to be loonies, well, again, you're the fool, not the speaker.
Because I see so many idiots around, I begin to wonder if my christian friends may not be as stable as they appear. I worry and I wonder.
That's healthy. But "worrying and wondering" is different than "suddenly believing they're unstable," or "having them suddenly appear to be unstable."

Rich

[Mojo]

There are some valid points. However, when a member of a group (i.e. Falwell, Glidden) makes intolerant statements and claims to speak for all christians, you would think that christians who don't agree with them would mount vocal opposition to their statements. Finding a "I'm a christian and this guy is a moron" thread on this board is pretty rare.

So I'm to assume that, if Glidden and his ilk make these statements that other christians disagree even though I have no proof of it other than "gee, its a pretty big religion?"

[Boris B]

Part of the confusion here is the application of an expression. If a good electrician sees a terrible wiring job, he grunts irritably, "The numbskull that did this job makes my profession look bad." Does the profession look bad to the good electrician? No - otherwize he wouldn't be surprised to see bad wiring. The good electrician is just sore because he knows eventually electricians are going to get a bad name if aforementioned numbskull is allowed to stay in the union.

It's not a great analogy because Christians aren't unionized.

My personal theory, is that as a moderate Christian, jodih is embarrassed by the fundamentalists. So when some diabolical poster comes along and points out the fundamentalists, it's not always going to be taken very well. I think there is a lot of misdirected anger here ... sort of like when you've been walking around all day with a big booger hangin out of your nose and somebody with horns and a tail and a pitchfork points out aforementioned boogger, and you get all annoyed. "Hey, just cause I've got a huge hunk of dried snot hangin out of my nose doesn't mean I'm a bad person and quit threatening me with that pitchfork!"

[VegForLife]

Finding a "I'm a christian and this guy is a moron" thread on this board is pretty rare.
You're joking, right? Didn't you read any of the threads that ARG220 was in? Lots of people -- who openly professed their Christianity -- chimed in with statements in opposition to ARG220 and his views.

Rich

[GLWasteful]

Including jodih. . .

Waste
Flick Lives!

[Jodi]

Veg, I would hug you if I could reach you because you apparently understand what I'm trying to say. If they're too mad to even listen to my explanation, maybe they'll listen to yours.

ANDROS -- You're kidding me, right? The very reason I took issue with the over-generalization in Satan's post in the first place was because people on this Board keep asking: If people keep misrepresenting your religion, why don't you say something? Well, guess what -- I did, and Satan took it as a personal attack, which it wasn't.

Now you say:

It looks to me like you're nitpicking so you can continue to sit on your ass. You don't actually have to convince anyone, oh no. Because if they're intelligent they'll just know automatically that the nuts aren't representative. WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG again.

How the hell am I supposed to convince people? By "sitting on my ass" while someone says "This single moron makes you all look like a bunch of morons"? Yeah, that would help a lot. I'm not saying that people should know anything "automatically," but Satan does know that reasonable Christians exist -- he's said as much himself. So why would he say that one idiot makes us all look like idiots to him? That's the point I didn't get.

[Mojo]

That was my point- that no one (except Snarkberry) who professed to be a christian started a thread denouncing demagougery, they only chimed in. (I'm really not trying to weasel, I would've used "posts" as opposed to "thread" otherwise).

[pldennison]

Satan [b]never[/i] said they appeared that way "to him." and you damn well know it, jodih. Cripes, do they have special courses on lying in Lawyer School?

------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[Satan]

So why would he say that one idiot makes us all look like idiots to him? That's the point I didn't get.

Exhibit A. 7,287 posts later, the idiot is STILL spouting nonsense.

If after all of this, you can still say and honestly believe that the words "to him" belong in the above statement, I will pray to my namesake today and forever that he takes you and puts you in a hell where you are deafened by the screams of illogical, non-listening souls for all eternity.

Yeah, you DON'T get the point. You're a fucking moron!

Oh, and when I am accused of something that I am not, I consider that a personal attack, since you are attacking the very essense of my being.

Call me ugly and I won't care. Say that I think a way I clearly do not, and I'll attack back as long as it takes, because that's the very definition of a personal attack.

You know, I can hear the ding-bat's reply already:

jodih sez: "Well, of course you believe that all Christians appear that way. Why else would you have put it in your OP?"

Rinse & repeat.
Rinse & repeat.
Rinse & repeat.
Rinse & repeat.
Rinse & repeat.
Rinse & repeat...

[Satan]

Thank you, Phil. Actually, isn't law school a whole bunch of classes on lying?

Please note, that not all lawyers lie. That is an evil stereotype. I'm sure there are some honest lawyers out there.

Of course, jodih will respond, "Why do you think all lawyers lie?" in spite of the disclaimer, so why I bother, I'll never know...

[Jodi]

Spare me, Phil. If I say "Jerry Falwell appears to be a world-class idiot," can I then reasonably say "I didn't say he appeared that way to me[/'i]."? C'mon; any reasonable person would impute the opinion to the person stating the opinion, and to try to deny it means (a) you weren't clear enough in the first place; or (b) you're back-pedalling. That hardly makes me a "liar," a word I've noted in the past you seem to be inordinately fond of throwing around and which -- as I've also told you -- would mean more to me if you [i]didn't throw it around quite so freely.

Satan, for you to say "this makes all Christians seem like mind-melding zealots" and try to say that you didn't mean to imply they look like mind-melding zealots to you is laughable. Hey, you posted it; I didn't. If you want to clarify what you said (or if you have clarified what you said), fine, but that hardly makes my interpretation upon first reading it unreasonable. I suggest you rinse and repeat until you grasp that.

[Jodi]

Heck, I'll even give you an example, using your own colorful language:

Satan, you appear to be a total fucking idiot.

Don't bother taking offense because, hey, I didn't say you appeared that way to me.

[andros]

Veg, you said:

If *one* person says something on behalf of a huge group -- one-third of the
world's population, according to thread a few weeks ago that made reference to a
mailbag article on religion -- and based on that comment *all* of the members of
that group suddenly *appear* to be zealots in your eyes, well, I'd say you're the
fool, not the guy making the comment in the first place. Ignorant at the very least.
(sorry about the big quote, all, but I didn't want to get anything too far out of context)

You're right, Veg. If one person says something, I don't necessarily find it representative of a group. If one person in South Boston pulls a gun on someone, I won't freak. But enough people have that I believe South Boston to be comprised of a disproportionate number of people with guns. Are there good people there? Assuredly. Will I ever move there? Hell no.

One wacko saying that I'm going to hell doesn't mean much to me. But when most of what we see on the news are religious fruitcakes, we develop a stereotype.

Yes, stereotyping can be bad. But we do it. If you claim you don't, you're lying.

I was raised christian. My father recently became a preacher-man. I know that not all christians are arch-conservative or fundamentalist. But because of what I've seen and heard, I imagine I have a skewed idea of the number of moderate and liberal christians. And for most of the unthinking sheep out there in northamericaland, that number is skewed close to zero. IOW, the christian right, and christianity as a whole, appears to many people to be heavily loaded with the religiously deranged. (is that how Satan should have phrased it?)

That's because the screwy ones get most of the press. Again, it's up to the moderates to change that view, or not.

Jodi, Satan:

Satan said "It is absolute 'truths' like this that turn people off from Christianity, and make ALL of it's followers look like mind-melded zealots."

Would all of this have been avoided if Satan had tagged on "to others" at the end of that sentence? Especially since his next sentence in the post indicated pretty strongly to me that he was not one of the "others."

-andros-
"Mr. Bandwidth"

[andros]

And Satan? If I ever say "you're acting like a fucking idiot," it'll mean that--"you are behaving in a manner of a fucking idiot."

That will NOT make you one personally.

But maybe that's just semantic quibbling? (and I didn't learn that from my law classes. I could quibble waaaay before that).

[VegForLife]

Yes, stereotyping can be bad. But we do it. If you claim you don't, you're lying.
You posted this at 5:45, 12 minutes after my most recent post in the *other* Pit thread devoted to this whole mess, in which I gave my views on stereotyping. I'll assume you hadn't read it when you posted, given the time spent typing, as well as the time it takes for the board to reload, etc. In that post I gave my views on stereotyping, which I'll re-iterate now: yes, we all do it, myself included.

Nevertheless, surely you agree that the statement, "my experience with Christians leads me to believe that they are, by and large, incapable of forming logical conclusions," is a far cry from, "Fred Phelps makes ALL Christians look like loonies." One is a generalization, supported (as much as it can be, which isn't actually very much, but that's a different discussion) by the speaker's experiences, the other is unprovable nonsense.

Rich

[VegForLife]

Oh, and I forgot this:
IOW, the christian right, and christianity as a whole, appears to many people to be heavily loaded with the religiously deranged. (is that how Satan should have phrased it?)
That depends on his intent. Given what he has posted since the OP in question, I'd guess that this accurately portrays his feelings, and it is certainly clearer than what was originally posted.

Rich

[andros]

Yes, I did read your posts in the other thread just after I posted. My apologies.

So what this boils down to (barring the fact of Jodi's being offline until tuesday) is that some of us interpreted Satan's OP one way (as he intended it) and some of us interpreted it another way (as he did not)?

Buddha in a bidet, what a cockup. This whole issues was nothing more than semantics.

-andros.

[Czarcasm]

O.K. jodih, lets try this analogy: You are having a pool party and have invited a bunch of fellow Christians over. One of your bretheren takes a dump in the pool. When your next door neighbor says,"If that's how Christians behave at a party, I'm not inviting any over!", do you start a long arguement with your neighbor about the percentage of Christians that don't take a dump in the pool, and that because he took a dump in the pool he is no longer a Christian so it doesn't count? Or do you clean the pool first, kick the lout out, and apologize to the neighbor for the bad impression?

[VegForLife]

My apologies.
None necessary. Like I said, that's what I figured.
This whole issues was nothing more than semantics.
I hate that phrase. I think it's overused, and I don't think it's accurate here, at least insofar as I think I understand your intent. Saying two things that are equal is not the same as saying one thing that is interpretted two different ways (I know that the term "semantics" might be used to describe the latter situation, but I think it's almost exclusively used to describe the former).

Rich

[Lucky]

Just in case anyone is interested.....

While it may be reasonable to say that most people in the United States know that all Christians aren't loonies, a good portion of the world gets nearly all their information about Christianity from the media. Guess who's getting air time.
Like it or not, those guys do make you look bad to enough people to make it worthy of your concern.

------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

[VegForLife]

Slythe, Jodih's apparently gone for the weekend (must be having a pool party or something), so I'll answer your question, since I seem to be the only contestant left in The Word Game (and since I'm bored).

The answer to your question is simple: clean the pool, kick the lout out, etc. (although, personally, I'd kick him out *before* cleaning the pool). However, it's not a valid analogy, because the statement made by the neighbor is conditional, not declarative. Although the outcome for the dumping Christian would presumably be the same regardless of the neighbor's comment (at least, I *hope* Jodih would kick the guy out no matter what her neighbor said), the attitude toward the neighbor might be different if they were to say, "that pool-dumper makes all Christians look like pool-dumpers." In the spirit of not-pissing-off-the-people-next-door it's likely that you'd respond similarly to either statement, but I think the gut reaction to your example would be more like, "wow, I'd better make sure I convince them that we *don't* all act that way," while the gut reaction to the declarative statement might be more along the lines of, "what an idiot." It would be for me, anyway. If I had a pool.

Rich

[Just Ed]

This whole issue was nothing more than semantics.

se.man.tics n. 1. The study of meanings in language.

Yep. Satan's OP in the thread in question can be mis-interpreted, but it was taken by many of us to be a generalization. It is clear that he himself does not hold an offensive opinion of Christians; he is pointing out one way the stereotype is perpetrated. Do I need to define hyperbole?

Maybe the point wasn't made as clearly as it could have been, but I don't see the dichotomy here.


------------------
I know you understand what you heard me say, but what you don't understand is what I said is not necessarily what I meant.

[andros]

Mother Mary in a pumpkin patch . . .
psycho fundies make all christians look bad to non-christians. That is the truth, Jodi.

Perhaps another analogy? Some women like to shop. Various media emphasize this, making it appear that more women are obsessed with shopping than actually are.

Some men like football. But what we see in the entertainment and news media is the stereotype that all men like to drink beer and stick their hands down their pants while watching the Razorbacks whup ass on ESPN. So, men appear that way. Of course it's not true.

Some Christians are headcases. Not all. BUT, the media show us clinic bombings, Buchannan presidential bids, Chick tracts, abolition of evolution education (ooh, try that one 3 times fast), etc., etc.

Why? Because the fundies and whackos have spent more money and time pushing their message than the moderates (because, of course, they're moderate).

Therefore, to many people it APPEARS as though more christians are complete drooling psychotics than is actually true.

How's that? Does Satan's OP over in the other thread make more sense now?

-andros-


------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

[pldennison]

jodih, you've spent several hours of your life on three different threads taking me to task not for what I say, but for how I say it; and injecting yourself into an exchange between me and another poster, which had nothing to do with you, questioning my honesty and sincerity.

Wasn't there a certain itinerant preacher who placed a great emphasis on reaping what one sows, and knowing others by their fruits? Seems to me you just got it back in spades. Doesn't make you too happy, does it?

You know, if 100 people tell me I'm drunk, I go lie down. If 100 people tell me I'm a horse, I get a saddle. I, and then Satan, and now David, have taken issue with the way you treat people, the way you address them, your seemingly willful miscomprehension, and your outright inability to concede a point. Maybe there's something to it, huh?

------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[SpoonsJTD]

My first post in the pit, so I'm not sure if 'fairness' has anything to do with it.

It should probably be pointed out that, AFAIK, Satan's OP was a fictitious thread he invented to provide his view of what it is like trying to argue with Jodih, partially from the ongoing debate in GD over a post Satan made, for which he provided the link. Again, AFAIK, it was not an actual thread, which seems to be implied by some of the responses (but not by Satan's OP).

I don't even know why I am posting, maybe because I think that if the underdog loses and deserves to lose, it should at least be done fairly, and not just because they were the underdog.

[Czarcasm]

Veg, the trouble right now is that there are a lot of people shitting in the pool right now, and the only voices that are loud enough to reach the neighbors are saying,"If you ain't in the pool, you ain't cool!" There is going to have to be a LOT more pool cleaning before I'm going to want to come to the party.
Sometimes I wonder how Christianity can see at all with a mote in the eye that large.

Maybe jodih is really arg in disguise!

------------------
If you can read this,youre too close.

[GLWasteful]

Falcon-A thousand pardons. . .We also have the hottest guys, the fastest cars, and we sleep in on Sundays.

And yeah, I really did think you were male. Once again, I apologize.

Waste
Flick Lives!

[Jodi]

ANDROS asks "Does Satan's OP over in the other thread make more sense now?"

It always made sense, andros; I didn't misunderstand it, I was simply trying to point out that it stated a gross over-generalization that even Satan knew was not really true. Since he took my post as a personal attack upon him, I'll address you're rephrasing of it, in the hope that you won't think I'm personally attacking you.

Psycho fundies make all christians look bad to non-christians. That is the truth, Jodi.

No, it's a half-truth, which is my point. Psycho fundies make Christians look bad to people who don't know that Christians are not what the psycho-fundies say, or at least are not just what the psycho-fundies say. Why would the spouting of one Christian idiot (or nine, or nine-hundred) make ALL (Satan's term, not mine) Christians look bad to a person who personally knows several Christians who disagree vehemently with the psycho-fundie in question.

Perhaps another analogy?

Okay.

Some women like to shop. Various media emphasize this, making it appear that more women are obsessed with shopping than actually are.

Satan did not say "the media's focus on psycho-fundies, to the exclusion of reasonable Christians, make all Christians look like idiots to people who don't know better." I could hardly have taken issue with him -- even to the limited extent that I did -- if he had. He said "what this guy says makes ALL of you look like idiots." For the millionth time, why?

Some men like football. But what we see in the entertainment and news media is the stereotype that all men like to drink beer and stick their hands down their pants while watching the Razorbacks whup ass on ESPN. So, men appear that way. Of course it's not true.

Again, Satan was not, so far as I could tell from his post, decrying the biased media portrayal of Christians -- which I myself noted, if you read all my posts. He was saying, essentially, "this guy's an idiot" (which I agree with), and "he makes you ALL look like idiots." Assuming that a person knows all Christians are not like that, why would he make all of us look like idiots?

Some Christians are headcases. Not all.

Satan said we ALL appear to be "mind-melded zealots," based upon the words of ONE.

BUT, the media show us clinic bombings, Buchannan presidential bids, Chick tracts, abolition of evolution education (ooh, try that one 3 times fast), etc., etc.

Again, if Satan's original point was that the media shows the worst/stupidest of Christianity, I'll frankly admit that I missed that. What I read was: "He's an idiot; he makes you all look like idiots." And, again, I wasn't even insulted by that; I was just trying to point out that it doesn't necessarily follow.

Why? Because the fundies and whackos have spent more money and time pushing their message than the moderates (because, of course, they're moderate).

I absolutely agree, and have said as much.

Therefore, to many people it APPEARS as though more christians are complete drooling psychotics than is actually true.

Which would be correct for people who didn't know better -- for people who don't generally have exposure to Christians who are not "drooling psychotics." But -- again -- if I know several Muslims who are reasonable people, and then I post an extremist position that really cannot be supported ("Allah says 'death to all women!'"), and then say: "This makes ALL Muslims look like idiots," I might reasonably expect one of my Muslim acquaintances to say "Wait a minute -- ALL of us? Why ALL of us?" That is the point -- the only point -- I was ever trying to make.

[Falcon]

Quite all right, Waste...I'm used to it by now....and you have hot guys, fast cars, and sleep in? I'm THERE!

(Hmm...maybe Auraseer and I should change screennames...that way people wouldn't get confused!)

[Satan]

jodih expelled:

Satan, you appear to be a total fucking idiot.

Don't bother taking offense because, hey, I didn't say you appeared that way to me.

Actually, the analogy would be correct if you used an approximation of my verbiage.

As such, let me point out something more along those lines:

"When you post like this and argue incessantly, people are going to think you're a moron."

Obviously, this is neither offensive nor implying that I feel that way. Only that you have made it possible for people to think that, period.

Oh, and for the record: You ARE a moron. I DO think that with all the fibre of my being. I don't care what anyone else thinks about you, that is my opinion. Also a fact is that several other people here feel the same way about you.

You might wanna try and practice some introspection, jodih.

[Satan]

Oh, one more thing.

After the very first clarifying post, which was neither harsh nor aggressive if anyone wants to check, a normal person would simply say, "Fine, I misinterpereted him."

Maybe a stickler would go so far as to say, "Okay, I trust you don't feel this way, but maybe you might want to choose your words more carefully next time to avoid confusion."

I'll admit that I'm pig-headed enough to have said, "Well, I thought my words were just fine," but also am sensible enough to have let it go as long as she got the point.

Instead, after explanations out the yazoo as to what I meant in the OP, I'm still hearing, "Why do you say that all Christians are like this guy?"

THAT is the crux of the matter...

It's one thing to be confused about what someone says. I won't even comment about how she immediately jumped to conclusions based upon what she THOUGHT was in the OP, not what was there.

But when someone goes out of their way to explain themself, and several people crowd around agreeing with that explanation, and the fool STILL hasn't figured out the answer, well, I think my frustration is warranted.

[Satan]

Here is the OP, since I feel the need to vent some more:

So according to what this guy says, you cannot believe that God created the Big Bang and be a good Christian. If you decide to look at scientific evidence and realize that it is correct, "God will enact his vengeance upon you," even if you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord & Savior, Inc.

Key words in the above include "according to what THIS GUY says..." Not "according to what ALL CHRISTIANS say.

It is absolute "truths" like this that turn people off from Christianity, and make ALL of it's followers look like mind-melded zealots.

Now then, I think that the word "truths" being in quotation marks shows clearly that they are not truths, but "truths." As in, not really truths, but this guy seems to think they are.

Also, saying it makes all of his followers "LOOK like mind-melded zealots" is also a fact that almost everyone on the board agrees on. Even you did, jodih.

But here is the important thing that has not been mentioned yet, and clearly states that any confusion over what MIGHT have been said in the OP cannot be chalked up to semantics, but willful ignorance:

I know a very good Christian who believes God created the whole universe, and helped things evolve, but he does not think the universe is any less than billions of years old.

Guess he's going to Hell...

How can I possibly be saying that I agree with the notion that all Christians are like-minded zeaolts when in the VERY NEXT FUCKING PARAGRAPH, I mention a personal friend who is NOT like this at all?

Even IF my words were unclear, and even IF every one of my several rebuttals were equally unclear (though I do think I have a pretty good grasp of the English language), if the OP is taken AS A WHOLE AND IN CONTEXT, there is NO FUCKING REASON for there to be any confusion about my intent or feelings on the matter.

Not to a clear-thinking, logical person at any rate.

[Monty]

Satan:

I think I know why Jodih freaks out when you mention some of the stuff you do, although you're not directing them (other than in one particular topic) usually at her.

Here it is: "If you throw a rock into a pack of wolves, the one that yelps is the one you hit."

[pldennison]

Sorry, jodih, but yet again, you think that simple dismissiveness coupled with a wretchedly poor analogy makes any kind of point. I'm beginning to think you got your law degree by mailing in those Betty Crocker points.

If I say, "It's people like RuPaul who turn people off towards all homosexuals and transvestites, and makes them all appear to be nothing more than mincing flamers," do you think that I think that all homosexuals and transvestites are nothing more than mincing flamers? Why or why not?
Do you think that if had been, say, Polycarp rather than Satan who was the OP, you would have had half the problem you do with it?

Do you need a guided reading? Cliffs Notes?

------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[Temujin]

I realize this post may be unwelcome, but if you read through the original GD thread, it appears that Brian was more interested in fighting than in discussing.

Brian, your style of posting on this board is personal and confrontational. That's not a bad thing in itself, but sometimes, it can bring out the worst in other people. Jodi was very nice to you in her first two posts over in the GD thread, referring to you as intelligent, and ''repenting'' for her initial mistake.

Her third post was annoying, but many people would have been able to respond to the content of what she said, while ignoring the minor tweaks she tried to inflict. You, however, decided not to do this.

Instead, after Jodi's third post, you launched into an attack against her person. You told her straight out that you were not going to respond to the content of her ideas. Here's what you said:You know what, jodih? I can tell you are one of them(notice here that you are attacking Jodi's person, not her ideas)because you and them are alike in a very simple way: Neither the fundies nor yourself knows how to listen and understand someone who doesn't think exactly like them. I'm done with you here... You still insist I am saying everyone is like him when I am patently not.(that's not exactly what she said. you could have found a more effective way to address her objections)And appealing to your sense of logic does not work because you don't seem to have a sense of logic.(now you are calling her illogical -- not her ideas, but her. it's another attack on her person)Face it: YOU stereotyped someone who would bring up with displeasure a fundie. When called on it (by more than just I), you simply say the same thing over and over again. Yep, you're one of them alright...You conclude with yet another attack on her person. BTW, she didn't say the same thing over and over again. I think you missed her point, so perhaps it sounded to you as if she was repeating herself when she was simply trying to clarify herself.

If you had taken a moment to think about why she might have interpreted (or misinterpreted) your post as a perpetuation of a negative stereotype of Christians, you could have responded in a manner that would not have escalated the discussion into an argument. Instead, you decided to do the opposite. You wrote a post that was all but guaranteed to anger Jodi.

Please remember, you post as ''Satan.'' For many people, the name ''Satan'' in itself is a signal that you probably oppose Christianity -- that you're not just non-Christian, but anti-Christian (not that you are anti-Christian, but people could easily get this mistaken idea about a poster who uses the name ''Satan''). Plus, you constantly contribute posts about the silly things that fundamentalist Christians say and do. Nobody is going to expect ''Satan'' to be evenhanded about Christianity or supportive of it. But your defense of the ''good Christian'' thread in GD is that you were, in fact, seeking to support Christianity by bringing attention to a fanatic who does not represent Christianity as a whole. So ''Satan'' is coming to the defense of Christianity? Fine, but don't be surprised if some people don't get it at first.

Jodi didn't get it. And unfortunately, she played along with the fight you set her up for. I guess she likes to fight, too.

In GD and other forums, Brian, I've noticed that you're very quick to call people names like ''troll'' and ''idiot'' and ''moron.'' And when someone tweaks you a little bit, you are very quick to defend yourself.

It seems like you sometimes lose emotional control when someone questions something you wrote. Very often, you respond not only to what a person said, but also to the faults you find with them as people. You label people. You don't just tell people that what they said was worthless; you tell people that they themselves are worthless.

This is your style of discourse, and it is why you and Jodi got into a big fight. You could have avoided this fight by behaving more maturely and more reasonably than Jodi. Instead, you escalated things.

That's one reason many people are fascinated by your posts. It's like watching the Jerry Springer show, or Judge Judy, or professional wrestling. Or looking at the scene of a bad traffic accident. People have a morbid curiousity when it comes to conflict involving others. You create conflict.

And you often call people names.

Notice that everything I've written here is commentary on your ACTIONS. I've talked about what you do. I have NOT talked about who you are or what you are like as a person. I have not called you any names. I have not launched a personal attack against you.

As far as I'm concerned, you are OK. But I wanted to help you become aware of how your behavior seems to bring out the worst in people sometimes (assuming you are not aware of this).

Since this is the pit, I realize I'm setting myself up for some personal attacks. Since you do not know me personally, I'll try not to take attacks on my person seriously. If you or anyone has a problem with what I've said or done, however, I'm very willing to listen.

[SterlingNorth]

Plus, you constantly contribute posts about the silly things that fundamentalist Christians say and do.

In that particular instance, it may have been partially my fault.

Satan, question, did you find that link in my thread about a Christian college opening?

[Satan]

You know what? I get frustrated when people don't listen. The reason I started to get pissed at jodih and now you is simply because you don't listen.

This should be a total non-issue, and you are still bringing it up.

Why?

People other than myself have said that in debates with jodih she is prone to lying, conveniently omitting points made in posts to further her cause, and twisting the words of posters to where they are not what was said.

I am not the first person to make these claims, only the most recent, and the loudest, mainly because I refuse to give in to ignorance, especially when MY THOUGHTS are taken out of context.

I notice now that, having exhausted all other things to talk about, you feel the need to bring up how rude I am towards jodih. Well, I submit I did not begin out that way, but the frustration of banging my head against the wall that is jodih brought me to that point.

I am a very patient man.

I like debates of spiritual and secular notions.

What I do not like is someone who does not respond to questions with an answer having to do with the question.

What I do not like is answering a question, only to be asked it again several moments later only worded slightly differently.

Look at my first response to her. I made a joke in it. I was figuring that would be the end of it. And of course, it was not.

Then you come in, after I explained myself 100 times, and bring forth the same allegations that I rebuffed 100 times before!

So forgive me for being frustrated.

All I know is that I answered every question that came up to the best of my ability. And that wasn't enough for two people here.

Whatever. Feel free to believe whatever you want.

The sad thing is, they'll believe what they want, anyway. There is no sanity clause in the social contract.

------------------
YO-HO, ME HEARTIES! ALL HANDS ON DECK FOR THE MUSICAL BATTLE AT SEA!

[Temujin]

Then you come in, after I explained myself 100 times, and bring forth the same allegations that I rebuffed 100 times before!That's not what I did.

The ''allegations'' that I brought up were that perhaps you were not reasonable with Jodi, and perhaps you didn't understand what prompted her initial objection.

I then tried to explain to you how someone might have misinterpeted your OP.

In effect, I said: ''Here is why a reasonable person might have misunderstood you. (followed by an explanation of why)''
In response, you said, in effect: ''How can you believe those things?'' (following by a defense to my explanation, in which you leapt to the erroneous conclusion that I was explaining my own views about your OP. I wasn't. I was explaining how a reasonable person might interpret your OP, to help you understand Jodi's initial position.)

Then you impugned my ability to read and lumped me into the same philosophical camp as Jodi, whom you have been referring to as a moron and an idiot. I don't belong in that camp.

You started THIS thread in the pit to demonstrate for all to see how unfair Jodi was to you. I am responding in THIS thread because I think you were at least as unfair to Jodi.

You provoked her into a fight by attacking her person.What I do not like is someone who does not respond to questions with an answer having to do with the question.I can understand why you don't like this. It's going to happen sometimes, though. It doesn't mean the person who responds is an idiot.What I do not like is answering a question, only to be asked it again several moments later only worded slightly differently.I can understand why you don't like this, either. But did you ever think that maybe the reason it happens is because your first answer is unclear? If someone asks you a question a second time, it doesn't mean she's a moron.You know what? I get frustrated when people don't listen. The reason I started to get pissed at jodih and now you is simply because you don't listen.Amen! That frustrates me to. I apologize if you think I am not listening. Sometimes, though, it seems like you're not listening to me.

I have repeatedly said that I BELIEVE you when you say you respect many Christians. I have never said that I disagree with your OP in the original GD thread. If you are listening to me, why do you insist on lumping me together into the same philosophical/religious camp as Jodi?

Maybe your are listening to me, but you're just not HEARING.

In any case, thank you for a thoughtful response to my post. I know the pit isn't the place for niceties, but I do appreciate a post from you like this, which contained NO personal attacks.

[Temujin]

Hi daniel p bostaph,

The sad thing is, they'll believe what they want, anyway. There is no sanity clause in the social contract.Which explains your post. ;)

[VegForLife]

People other than myself have said that in debates with jodih she is prone to lying, conveniently omitting points made in posts to further her cause, and twisting the words of posters to where they are not what was said.
I don't much like "sticking up" for someone who I don't know personally, or via e-mail, or any way other than from their Straight Dope posts, but in this case I have to say that I've never seen any of those things happen.

What I *have* seen happen is that I've seen Jodih paraphrase points made by the people with whom she is debating. This is not uncommon: I do it, Phil does it, Satan probably does it too (I can't recall a specific case, but I've read far more posts by Phil than I have by Satan). It's a perfectly reasonable way to try to cut to the heart of what someone is saying given your understanding of their position. If the paraphrasing *doesn't* express what you meant, you're perfectly free to point that out, but the use of the technique does not automatically imply some sort of dishonesty.

What I've also seen is the use of hypothetical analogies. This is another useful technique in getting points across, and has been used by all parties involved in this particular brouhaha. Again, if the analogy put forth is invalid, you're free to point that out, but using hypotheticals or paraphrasing text does not automatically imply dishonesty.

What I've also seen is several exchanges where numerous -- perhaps a dozen or more -- points are made in one post. There are several reasons why one or more points may not be addressed in a response: the respondent missed the point in the long post to which they are responding; the respondent saw the point, but decided it wasn't important enough to respond to; or the respondent realized the point is valid, and therefore continued arguing using different points. Even if you assume the latter, it is *your* choice to put the respondent in a negative light by saying, "she conveniently omitted points to further her cause." It's just as easy to put yourself in a positive light instead by saying, "obviously I made that point well and I was correct, because there was no response from the other side." IOW, the lack of a response doesn't automatically imply some sort of negative behaviour on the part of the respondent.

Having read her posts in several different threads pertaining to at least two different major subjects (and meandering into many more minor subjects), sometimes agreeing with her and sometimes disagreeing with her, I can't imagine anyone honestly coming to the conclusion that Jodih is a "liar" or a "moron" or an "idiot." I've known and respected Phil for a couple of years now, and if he really believes this and isn't just being bombastic, I'm surprised; Satan and David I haven't known long or well, so I don't know how likely it is that they actually believe this. For anyone who does, I can only hope that you don't always automatically ascribe negative motivations to potentially reasonable actions.

(I imagine the following reactions:
David B: "Hey, fine with me if you don't agree, Rich. I still think she's dishonest."
pldennison: "I still like you, Rich, but you're being a tool here."
Satan: )

Rich

[pldennison]

You're probably right, Rich; "liar" is probably far too strong a word.

My point was supposed to be that it is wrong of jodih to assume that someone stating, "This person tends to make all Xs look like idiots" holds the opinion that all Xs are idiots. She has no basis, prima facie, for making such an assumption. In fact, the truth is greatly mitigated by whether the person making the statement is an X or not.

And I think that is where a great deal of the problem lies. Jodih will accept criticisms (both of herself and of Christianity) from other moderate Christians that she will (seemingly) not accept from more radical Christians or nonChristians.

I would think that a reasonably person could conclude that Satan was, in his way, trying to be supportive of Christianity and condemning its zealots for commanding the lion's share of media coverage. And, as I said before, had Polycarp or tomndebb started that thread, she would never have taken issue with it.

------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[VegForLife]

My point was supposed to be that it is wrong of jodih to assume that someone stating, "This person tends to make all Xs look like idiots" holds the opinion that all Xs are idiots.
Eh, fair enough, Phil. I never really got that impression. I got the impression that she was questioning the apparent disparity between the declarative statement and the personal anecdote, and that was all. But while I don't agree that the whole thing was "just a matter of semantics," I *do* agree that the OP was open to different interpretations, and I can see why the whole thing spiralled downward the way that it did, in part for the reason you just gave.

As I said before, all in all, good fun! I know they turn some people off, but I'm all in favor of a good flamewar. You're still capable of some fine zingers. I especially liked the one I read this morning that you levelled at Phaedrus, and I'm glad someone posted a link to the original thread. If there was a serious point to be made originally, s/he certainly shot a hole in his/her "I'm a good Christian" foot. But that's elsewhere. . .

Rich

[Jodi]

Okay, this is my last post to this thread, and having cooled off over the course of the weekend, I hope I've got my perspective back. Here's the deal, as far as I'm concerned:

1. For the 90th time, I understood Satan's post. I was only trying to clarify that the way it was phrased constituted an over-generalization that even Satan (who posted it) didn't think was true. That's all. I wasn't insulted by it; I wasn't offended by it; I wasn't trying to insult or offend Satan in making the clarification I (clumsily, apparently) tried to make. I grasped, based upon his second paragraph, that he didn't share the opinion he was posting, which led to my question (never answered) of why he would bother to post an opinion he himself did not agree was valid. I never "accused him" of anything greater than imprecision. He took it very personally, but there's not much I can do about that.

2. Satan, if you feel you have been "banging your head against a wall" in dealing with me here, I assure you that I have felt the exact same way in dealing with you. I have tried repeatedly to explain that I understood your point and that I never intended to do anything more than point out that it could have been phrased better. This has, apparently, fallen on deaf ears. I would think the problem was mine alone (that I was not explaining my point sufficiently) if I was the only one explaining it, but I wasn't. VegForLife explained my point; Temujin explained it; Polycarp explained it. If you grasped it at all, you never admitted to it -- which is not a criticism but merely an illustration that you are not the only party who found this entire exchange frustrating.

3. As I said before, this entire exchange isn't even one I broke a sweat about (I was too busy having a conniption about something else). I wasn't (am not) pissed off at Satan or anything he said, and I can't be too concerned about his opinion of me because I've never (to my recollection) had a single exchange with him prior to this one. It's unfortunate that the whole thing just devolved into two people shouting past each other, which is what it was. I certainly take responsibility for my share in that, and I apologize for making a bad situation worse. And that's all I have to say about that.

[Coldfire]

Jesus H. Fucking Christ.

What a load of crap. Now why would The Prince of Darkness pick on Christians ?? Since they break their difficult set of rules all the time (I believe they even have a book for it !), they're Hellbound anyway.

FTR, I'm with you Satan. Some people just hear what they want to hear because they're dumb, narrow-minded, have too much time on their hands and probably are posting here because their pastor/priest/vickar kicked them out of their church because of spewing the same crap over there.

Isn't there a vacant island in the Pacific where we can ship these people ?


------------------
Coldfire
________________________________
"You know how complex women are"
- Neil Peart, Rush (1993)

[pldennison]

Not to belabor the point, Rich, but she did state it outright. After I pointed out for seemingly the umpteen-millionth time that Satan never said all Christians appeared that way to him, after she claimed he did, she replied:

Spare me, Phil. If I say "Jerry Falwell appears to be a world-class idiot," can I then reasonably say "I didn't say he appeared that way [/i]to me[/i]."? C'mon; any reasonable person would impute the opinion to the person stating the opinion, and to try to deny it means (a) you weren't clear enough in the first place; or (b) you're back-pedalling. That hardly makes me a "liar," a word I've noted in the past you seem to be inordinately fond of throwing around and which -- as I've also told you -- would mean more to me if you didn't throw it around quite so freely.

Satan, for you to say "this makes all Christians seem like mind-melding zealots" and try to say that you didn't mean to imply they look like mind-melding zealots to you is laughable. Hey, you posted it; I didn't..

Again, the bolded portion simply doesn't take into account whether or not the person speaking is a member of the group being described. And her sample statement is not at all analogous to what Satan sad, anyway, or poorly analogous at best. Not that I much care in the long run.


------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[VegForLife]

Not that I much care in the long run.
Yeah, me either.

That post was way into the whole mess, and I thought you were referring to the beginning. But whatever.

Rich