# CBS..NBC..Church of Christ commercial **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 1, 2004, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432 "2004-12-01T02:09:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/101 "2004-12-03T21:30:30Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Two posters have already done so before I had the opportunity. Can’t see why anybody’s third attempt would succeed in bringing you any illumination after **Strainger** ’s and **mhendo** ’s succinct explanations failed to suffice. No, actually, **Strainger** ’s and **mhendo** ’s replies made perfect sense when I read them this morning. What I am curious about is how my request for clarification of your original post (which **Strainger** and **mhendo** gave) somehow equals " dropping in out of nowhere just to twist somebody’s words ". That’s the one you can clear up for me. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/102 "2004-12-04T00:44:30Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > No, actually, **Strainger** ’s and **mhendo** ’s replies made perfect sense when I read them this morning. What I am curious about is how my request for clarification of your original post (which **Strainger** and **mhendo** gave) somehow equals " dropping in out of nowhere just to twist somebody’s words ". That’s the one you can clear up for me. You agree that post #80 - the one we’re talking about here - was your first post in this thread, right? ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/103 "2004-12-04T00:56:50Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > You agree that post #80 - the one we’re talking about here - was your first post in this thread, right? Yup. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/104 "2004-12-04T07:31:28Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > You agree that post #80 - the one we’re talking about here - was your first post in this thread, right? So…why, RT? Why did you define my question to you as “dropping in out of nowhere just to twist somebody’s words”. I really want to know. What did I “twist”? Can you tell me? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/105 "2004-12-04T10:33:03Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > So…why, RT? Why did you define my question to you as “dropping in out of nowhere just to twist somebody’s words”. I really want to know. What did I “twist”? Can you tell me? 😕 Now you agree that when you ask for a cite for something somebody said, you’re saying they’ve said the thing you’re asking for a cite for. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/106 "2004-12-04T16:24:01Z")
Are you able to answer my question in plain english, or are you limited to cryptic phrases that make no sense like “Now you agree that when you ask for a cite for something somebody said, you’re saying they’ve said the thing you’re asking for a cite for.” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2004, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/107 "2004-12-06T21:30:13Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Are you able to answer my question in plain english, or are you limited to cryptic phrases that make no sense like “Now you agree that when you ask for a cite for something somebody said, you’re saying they’ve said the thing you’re asking for a cite for.” What’s so cryptic about that? You asked me for a cite. Does that mean you’re claiming I **said** whatever it is you’re asking me for a cite to support, or not? And if I didn’t say it, then why the hell are you doing, asking me for a supporting cite? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2004, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/108 "2004-12-06T21:31:36Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > **why** the hell are you doing That shoulda been ‘ **what** ’. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/109 "2004-12-06T21:39:36Z")
I didn’t ask for a cite. I asked what it was about my request for clarification of your original post that constituted “twisting your words”. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2004, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/110 "2004-12-07T10:28:12Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > I didn’t ask for a cite. I asked what it was about my request for clarification of your original post that constituted “twisting your words”. > [@Weirddave](#): > > Could you please point me to the cite where it explains how the administration was somehow involved in this decision? That’s asking for a cite. And it’s in the post we’re having this conversation about: > [@RTFirefly](#): > > You agree that post #80 - the one we’re talking about here - was your first post in this thread, right? > [@Weirddave](#): > > Yup. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2004, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/111 "2004-12-07T15:14:15Z")
I just saw this commercial for the United Church of Christ on the Discovery Channel. The funny thing is, I’m an atheist and the diversity and community and openness proffered in that commercial made me a little misty. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2004, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/112 "2004-12-07T15:43:37Z")
Yes RT, I did ask for a cite. That was the clarification I asked for. Mhendo and Strainger both answered that request, you basically echoed their explanation, and if you’ll notice, I said " No, actually, Strainger’s and mhendo’s replies made perfect sense when I read them this morning." The question of cites was laid to rest \four days ago\. All I’m concerned with it your assertion that I am “twisting your words”, and you keep ignoring that. So, please, tell me: What words did I twist? If the answer is none, than admit you were wrong, and the matter will be finished. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2004, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/113 "2004-12-07T17:33:42Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > The question of cites was laid to rest \four days ago\. No it hasn’t. What I’m talking about here is the _meaning_ of asking for a cite - what its inherent implications are. There’s only one obvious answer to my question - that when you ask someone for a cite for X, the implication is they’ve said X. Because why would you ask someone for a cite to support something they haven’t said? Agree, or disagree? I will translate any further evasion as agreement. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2004, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/114 "2004-12-07T18:26:20Z")
Well, it’s good to know that you agree with yourself, and you can take “further evasion” for a performance of the Nutcracker Suite by dancing elephants accompanied by a muskrat orchestra for all I care, but in here in the real world, asking for a cite is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, without hidden “meanings”, it’s simply a request for more information, one that usually gets one of three responses: The cite, weaseling because there is no cite or clarification that a cite is not necessary coupled with an explanation of why. Two other posters clearly saw that the later was appropriate, you preferred to toss out a little passive/aggressive shot at me, and now you’re dancing like Rove on a hot stove to avoid admitting that you made a mistake. I wonder why? ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2004, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/115 "2004-12-07T18:53:30Z")
I was raised UCC, and though I have been more agnostic than anything since leaving home at 18, I’m somewhat proud of “my” church and this commercial. I think that, for a TV commercial, it embodies the true spirit of Christianity more than any other I have seen. Go UCC! :marching bands, cheerleaders, cheering crowds: ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2004, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/116 "2004-12-07T20:23:42Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > here in the real world, asking for a cite is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, without hidden “meanings”, it’s simply **a request for more information** , one that usually gets one of three responses: The cite, weaseling because there is no cite or clarification that a cite is not necessary coupled with an explanation of why. The “more information” you mention is generally **verification**. A cite may indeed sometimes provide _more_ information, but the fundamental purpose of a cite - and of the request for one - is to _ascertain_ that the poster has backup for what he’s saying, that he isn’t just making it up. As was the case here: > [@](#): > > Could you please point me to the cite where it explains how the administration was somehow involved in this decision? From where I’m sitting, it looks like the networks made this poor decision on their own. The “more information” you were asking for was the cite (whose existence you were skeptical of) that would have said “the administration was somehow involved in this decision.” That’s **verification** , friend, not **clarification**. OK, now that we’ve established that (over your objections, but you’re a crybaby who descends to the second-grade playground technique of turning an adversary’s name into a taunt when the argument doesn’t go his way, so who cares?), what we have here is a twisting of words: the request for a cite that the Administration was involved in this decision was, in effect, a pretending that I had said such a thing. And since it was your first post in this thread, it was essentially ‘dropping in out of nowhere’. Ergo, you dropped in out of nowhere to twist my words, without evidencing any intention to get involved in the debate _per se_. Talking to you is almost as much a waste of time as debating fundies, and for a lot of the same reasons (blinders are blinders, no matter what they’re made of), so seeya 'round. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2004, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/117 "2004-12-07T21:23:21Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > OK, now that we’ve established that (over your objections, but you’re a crybaby who descends to the second-grade playground technique of turning an adversary’s name into a taunt when the argument doesn’t go his way, so who cares?), Pretty ironic considering that I have launched not one insult your way in this thread, a claim which you can not make in light of the above posts amongst others. Sadly, this is the continuation of a posting style you’ve adopted lately; launching insults at people out of the blue instead of discussing what they’ve posted. Pity, really, you used to be a fairly intelegent debater, it’s sad to see you floundering away with nitpicks and insults instead of substance and facts. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/118 "2004-12-08T15:26:43Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Pretty ironic considering that I have launched not one insult your way in this thread False. Other than when two people are emotionally close to one another, one’s addressing another by a diminutive form of their name is generally regarded as an insult. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432/119 "2004-12-08T18:07:19Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > False. Other than when two people are emotionally close to one another, one’s addressing another by a diminutive form of their name is generally regarded as an insult. What, now you don’t love me anymore either? I’ll try and keep that in mind. Considering that it’s your name and all, what’s the big deal? If you hate your name so much, perhaps you should take it up with your mother. You wanna call me Davey? _shrug_ big deal, it’s my name after all. Davey, Dave, David, whatever floats your boat. If your skin is that thin, maybehap you shouldn’t go around insulting other people in a forum like the pit. Usually they insult back. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-nbc-church-of-christ-commercial/277432.md?page=5)