Don’t worry, Bill, I wouldn’t nail you unless I had a couple of beers in me first(and if you’re reasonably handsome.) 
I’ll vouch for that.
At least Daniel can write better than Wildest Bill. How old are you, Bill? Ten?
(I apologize to all the ten-year-olds I have just insulted.)
See people that is why I stayed a lurker for so long. I learned who’s Wheaties not to piss in before I ever even posted.
He doesn’t have one, as he never registered. But he read, and continues to read (well, until the last month or so). Extensively, for a while.
He guessed due to your name and posting style. You have a fairly distinctive tone on both boards, and oftenuse the same expressions (and, with no offense meant, you misspell some of the same words).
He has no idea why he’s speaking of himself in third person.
Hey, jab! Where’ve you been hiding?
I don’t believe there is a piano.
Since I don’t think there is a piano, obviously I don’t care a wit about those who don’t think there is one either. But, some people do think there’s a piano, no?
The wind blows this way, the wind blows that. This guy is telling me this text shows there is a piano and what must be done to move out from under where it will land. Why is my personal interpretation as to where this piano will land mean? I know I could espouse the all-dogs-go-to-heaven if-you-love-gummi-bears you-love so-we-are-all-one-in-love philosophy or the even-if-you-don’t-love-gummi-bears the piano isn’t that big a-few-months-in-hospital and you’ll be-fine philosophy, and makes lots of friends and get lots of hugs. I know people can have radically different ideas about this piano they believe in, but they generally all seem to hold this text in high regard.
So you are unequivocably against dogmatism?
You can buy a copy of the text in question at most major bookstores, in fact.
Hey, I consider it literary interp. They are the ones that think my interpretation of a 2000 year old doc implies they are going to get squashed by a few hundred pounds of wood, catgut, and ivory. That is their problem, not mine.
I’m sure I’ll get my reward. There is probably some 3rd world cult which bases its beliefs on the text of Shakespeare’s Hamlet that even as we type are coming into possession of some essay I wrote in college and putting a price on my head for not properly respecting their beliefs and not being humble enough about the meaning of Hamlet’s soliloquy. Oops. :rolleyes:
Now I know why you call yourself jab. You get a real quick one in. And yes I am 10.
Andros,
I am stil misspelleng the the same words crud I thout I was gettting too be a beetter speler.
And they have their own interpretation of it that tells them how not to get squashed. Then you come up to them and insist they’re wrong and the really will get squashed, even if you don’t believe they’ll really get squashed because you don’t believe the piano exists. Quite frankly, I have trouble understanding why someone who doesn’t believe in the piano would spend so trying to prevent people from getting squashed by it. Are your conversations like this?:
“The piano’s going to fall! The piano’s going to fall!”
“What piano?”
“Oh, the one that doesn’t exist. You’re going to get squashed by it! Repent, sinner!”
“Oh, I have a piano-detector. I won’t get squashed.”
“Yes you will! Your piano detector is wrong! You’re going to get squished!”
“But in my piano-detection-book it explains how not to get squashed.”
“You’re reading it wrong! I think it’s just a fairy-tale, but my interpretation is the only right one! Repent or be squashed, and give away all your money while you’re at it!”
“I don’t agree with your interpretation. I won’t get sqaushed.”
“Yes you will, sinner!”
“By what?”
“The piano that doesn’t exist!”
Okayyyyy…
Why does this thread seem like a family reunion…
Come on guys this is the pit…
Duke it out…
Slipping… I say… Slipping…
Satan, you can’t argue with Daniel. I realized a while back that he never reads a full post. He’ll skim it, and lock onto a few key words and then reply like he knows what he is talking about.
In the GD thread about milk being bad for you, I posted a link that supported my claims. Daniel said that they were not proven. I said that I didn’t like to be called a liar and asked him to support his claims. He apologized for calling me a liar, but never supported his claims.
When he started a thread here in the Pit I mentioned the same thing. Again he apologized for calling me a liar but still hasn’t defended his claims. I’ll bet that if he reads this he’ll apologize yet again.
Me too. Vastly different from all the people who just call the people who think there is a piano idiots all day.
More like:
Dude: I believe in the Grand Piano, but because I merely love gummi bears, I don’t have to worry about the piano hitting me, even though I admit, incidentally, to not moving out of the way of where the piano is going to land.
Me: So, you think loving gummi bears will save you from the piano?
Dude: Yep. It is all right here in this book.
Me: Oh, that book. I’ve read that book. You should know, by the way, that it doesn’t say merely loving gummi bears will save you from the piano.
Dude: It says no such thing.
Me: (tiredly digs out a worn copy of the book) No, look. It specifically has the great Gummi saying “not everyone who says they loves the Great Gummi will be saved.”
Dude: You are an evil and judgemental person.
Me: I’m just saying is all. It says you need to move out of where the piano will land also.
Dude: No it doesn’t.
Me: (pointing at a text) Says it right here.
Dude: Ah, but look over here. This one guy in the book didn’t move out of the way of the piano, and he was still a follower of the great Gummi.
Me: That doesn’t negate the fact that the text clearly says you need to stand over there (points) in order to be saved. The great Gummi says that himself.
Dude: Oh, but that doesn’t apply to me. That only applied to that one guy. The part that applies to me is the part where it says, by the grace of the great Gummy, I’m saved from the piano.
Me: Ahem, putting aside for the moment the Great Gummi said to stand in that one spot to all his followers… It says, by grace, you are saved by obeying the teachings of the great Gummy. That one about standing over there seems to be one of his teachings.
Dude: Ah, but it plainly says that with the Keyboardist, all things are possible.
Me: Including ignoring the teachings of the Great Gummi?
Dude: Well, I think this thread should be moved to IMHO unless you are going to present some facts to back up your case. I know where the piano is going to land because my friend Pastor Bob said so.
Me: Right…
Dude: What do you mean by that? How dare you take such a condescending and judgemental tone with me!
At which point an atheist shows up and wonders why I’m being mean.
I used to play the piano, but I’ve forgotton most of it.
A few days later Dude2 shows up:
**Dude2:**I just want to say this was an interesting if pointless thread. jmullaney presented some good ideas, but he completely ignored the point that the important thing isn’t not standing in the shade, but rather not loving standing in the shade.
**Me:**But it says you should stand in that spot over there.
**Dude2:**Oh, no. That spot is too sunny. I could never stand there.
**Me:**But I thought you didn’t love standing in the shade.
**Dude2:**Who are you to judge? You are standing in the shade.
**Me:**I’m not judging anyone. I’ve stood in the sun and it wasn’t that bad.
**Dude2:**Well, I don’t believe I’m really standing in the shade, since I don’t love the shade.
**Me:**Huh? But you admit you aren’t standing in the sun?
**Dude2:**In sun or shade we are all one in the Great Gummi
**Me:**You don’t seem to be making any sense.
At which point the atheist shows back up, shocked that I’m calling Dude2 irrational and implying he is evil for standing in the shade. :rolleyes:
Lordy, and i have only been gone for a while. Sheesh. Yes, we have ‘slammed’ Christians for being assholes, and they have been, also- sometimes. But sometimes some of you have slammed someone who is only being annoying, as if he was an asshole, and it appears that the reason why is because he was a Christian- eg FoG & Jenkinsfan. Maybe I am wrong, and I am just kinda sensitive on this, heck, I know I have almost never been slammed for my faith, and those few time I have been, it was by some asshole, and usu someone who had no idea who I was, but figured “anyone who can quote the Bible must be a fundie”. But, it is still my opinion we are less tolerant of Christians who simply say “my religion is good”, than we are of the other faiths.
And, satan, ol bud, you did not think first. I know I irritated you, but Izzy is right about you misunderstanding what I said about the Jewish folk here. I hope you have cooled down. The post was not meant as an attack, just my opinion- and I could be wrong. Again, I am sorry if I made you mad, that was not my intention.
Thanks to all that supported me, and thanks even to those who did not, at least I learned something.
Adam: well, i guess you did not understand me. I at no time said those studies were 'wrong". BUT, those types of studies have no scientific validity. Yes, you can take two sample groups of folks, and find out one has weaker bones than the other. You can then ask who drinks more milk. But, if group A, the milk drinkers, has weaker bones, that does not show that milk drinking leads to weaker bones. You must make sure the sample is truly random -or you end up with Dewey beating Truman. You must make sure those gathering the data are completely unbiased- usually by havinga 'double-blind". And, most importantly, you must make sure all other possible cause are ruled out- such as: smoking, less sunlight, more junkfood, more pollution, city living, less exercise, & more stress. All of these are known causes of calcium deprivation. And, most of these would be expected to occur more often in your group “A”. The study could be right, but it has no scientific validity at all.
Let me give you another example: you tell me that catsup is more popular than mustard, and you give me as an example your close group of freinds, who prefer catsup 3-1 over mustard. I say your “poll” or study has no “validity”, as the sample was not random, the question might have been “loaded”, there was no “control”, and the researcher was not “blind”. Have I proved you wrong? No- catsup may very well be more popular than mustard- but your “poll/study” cannot be used to show it.
OK? Now do you understand? I really did read your post & cites with care, and my saying those studies have no validity does not prove you or them 'wrong", just that they are poor “ammo”.
**
Aside from a rogue poster or two, please show me evidence of this.
This is no less than the third time I have asked for evidence of this.
I repeat: People are treated as they DESERVE to be treated. Religious or not, that has always happened here.
I have shown you people who were not Christians treated as they deserved to be treated. I have told of Christians - even very fundamentalist ones - who have been treated with respect. I have shown you people of other religions who have been slammed.
You.
Are.
Wrong.
**
Goddamit, man, prove it!
I don’t give a fuck if this is The Pit. I have shown evidence, and others here have shown you evidence, that you are wrong.
I have already brought up the fact that a Muslim was pretty much run off the board for spouting nonsense. As pldennison pointed out, some New Age spammer got torn a new one. As of now, a Pagan is about to be written off as a hit-and-run poster who also got criticism for unsubstantiated claims and a martyr complex.
You.
Are.
Wrong.
**
You are the one not thinking, or at least not answering.
**
So I misinterpreted ONE TINY THING about your shit you spewed. You said that Orthodoix Jews are treated fine. I retract that. I’ll admit that you didn’t say otherwise. My bad.
But what about the rest of the shit you peddled?
You.
Are.
Wrong.
**
Jesus, man, don’t you get it? It was not about an attack. It was about an erroneous statement that almost everyone here sees that you have made - a generalization about this place and how it en masse treats a certain grouup of people which is not present at all and this opinion is backed with evidence while you have provided none - and you STILL have not retracted the statement. Unreal.
How hard is it just to say, “You’re right?” I’ve done it and I’m as stubborn as they come. I did it in this very post above for the love of Allah.
I will repeat:
You.
Are.
Wrong.
Obviously, admitting when you’re wrong is not one of them.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, three weeks, two days, 17 minutes and 54 seconds.
5800 cigarettes not smoked, saving $725.06.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 3 hours, 20 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
Then I go and look at the Pagan thread that started this all, and I see you with this response:
Now, I don’t know if I read this right, but it seems to me that you are saying that this thread is “Christian Bashing.”
If I am wrong, please do explain what you mean because I don’t know what you mean aside from stating that I flamed you.
Assuming I am not wrong, goo fuck yourself. This is NOT “Christian Bashing.” This is YOU bashing. And this is further proof that you don’t seem to realize the difference.
You’re not being flamed because you’re a Christian. You’re being flamed because you’re an asshole.
Any questions?
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, three weeks, two days, 43 minutes and 20 seconds.
5801 cigarettes not smoked, saving $725.15.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 3 hours, 25 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
“But sometimes some of you have slammed someone who is only being annoying, as if he was an asshole, and it appears that the reason why is because he was a Christian- eg FoG & Jenkinsfan.”
Uhmmmmm…scuse me, but since when is there a difference between being annoying and being an asshole? Annoying people ARE assholes, dipshit. They are annoying for the following reasons:
-Make unwarrented claims
-Draw absolute conclusions.
-Refuse to debate
-Never provide evidence
-Refuse to admit they are wrong
-“Hit and Run” posting
Now, lets examine your posts.
-Claim that everyone on the SDMB trashes Christians, and only Christians, and only because they ARE Christians (that covers the first two)
-Didn’t provide any evidence to support claims (There go the next two)
-Can’t bear to come out and ADMIT that you were wrong about points, when you post in response at all. (THere’s the last ones)
In short, Danny, you are annoying. And therefore, you are an ASSHOLE. Because of that, you have attracted out attentions. NOT because you are Christian. Hell, I’M Christian, and I’m flaming your ass.
Now, I don’t know if I read this right, but it seems to me that you are saying that this thread is “Christian Bashing.”
If I am wrong, please do explain what you mean because I don’t know what you mean aside from stating that I flamed you.
Satan
**
[/QUOTE]
I hope it was clear that by “the thread of Christian bashing”, I meant the thread where we we discussing “christian bashing”, ie here. Are you just being extra touchy recently, Ol’ satan?
And it IS my perception (and that of not a few others) and my opinion, that the Board is somewhat intolerant of Christians. I really DO think that, so how can i be “wrong”, or are you saying that is is NOT my perception & opinion, ie I am lying about this, somehow?
Satan, even tho we DO disagree on a lot of stuff, I do respect you, and your opinions. I do not think your opinions are “wrong”, even tho they differ sharply (sometimes) from mine.
jester- go away Boy, you bother me.