# For the sake of growth... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 3, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767 "2005-03-03T16:49:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/1 "2005-03-03T16:49:18Z")
…I’m staying out of the Pit for a while. Why am I announcing this rather than just doing it? A couple of reasons: 1. I’ve hung out in here a lot because, at one time, it interested me more than other forums. I do realize that people can (and some doubtless will) interpret this announcement as my being full of myself and thinking myself so important that my exit merits announcing, but I do have some actual friends and supporters who hang out here whom I admire, and this notice is for them. Suddenly not posting could raise its own set of questions. 2. It provides a clean break. In the Zev thread, it is possible that multiple responses have accumulated as I type this, and meanwhile there are fascinating debates going on in Great Debates. Only a moron would expend energy on fighting against people who call paraphrases “your own words” while interesting discussion goes on elsewhere. This informs all and sundry that I’m done with it. 3. I want to reassure people, like Left Hand of Dorkness, who are interested in and hopeful for my growth as a nicer, less aggressive poster that I’m genuinely trying. The Pit is not the best place to hang out if you’re looking to avoid snarls and meanness. This provides a bookmark for me, a reminder about what I need to do. Thin skinned? I don’t think so. I think I’ve hung i thee with the best of them. And that’s part of the problem, I think. The challenge of meeting attack with counter-attack is too tempting and too unproductive. I’ll see some of you in the other forums, especially Great Debates. For those who don’t know, Sentient is hosting a great thread on whether memory is physical. There’s too much treasure in there to ignore for the sake of posting in the Pit. A mod can lock this now, as far as I’m concerned. Or you can use it to flame me. Whatever. I may not know exactly where the garden is for me, but I know that it isn’t here. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/2 "2005-03-03T17:00:41Z")
Awww, you’re being an attention whore because someone accurately paraphrased what you were saying and caught you being two faced? That’s so very honorable of you! [Let’s look at this ‘innacurate’ parphrase, shall we?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5906238&postcount=66) Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/3 "2005-03-03T17:13:42Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > 1. I’ve hung out in here a lot because, at one time, it interested me more than other forums. I do realize that people can (and some doubtless will) interpret this announcement as my being full of myself and thinking myself so important that my exit merits announcing, but I do have some actual friends and supporters who hang out here whom I admire, and this notice is for them. Suddenly not posting could raise its own set of questions. I can safely say nobody would have cared. > [@Liberal](#): > > 1. It provides a clean break. In the Zev thread, it is possible that multiple responses have accumulated as I type this, and meanwhile there are fascinating debates going on in Great Debates. Only a moron would expend energy on fighting against people who call paraphrases “your own words” while interesting discussion goes on elsewhere. This informs all and sundry that I’m done with it. No it doesn’t it allows you to ‘gracefully’ back out of a thread in which you were getting hammered. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/4 "2005-03-03T17:27:40Z")
I don’t always agree or disagree with **Liberal** in the threads, but I applaud him for deciding to better himself. ---
**Author:** ![Severian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@Severian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Severian)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/5 "2005-03-03T17:40:47Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Awww, you’re being an attention whore because someone accurately paraphrased what you were saying and caught you being two faced? That’s so very honorable of you! > > [Let’s look at this ‘innacurate’ parphrase, shall we?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5906238&postcount=66) > > Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out. I donno shit about the backstory here, but I do want to say that you’re wrong about panthiests **Finn** , and **Liberal** is right. Polytheists believe in multiple gods. Pantheists believe the universe itself is God. See [here](http://www.pantheist.net/). ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/6 "2005-03-03T17:50:06Z")
Does this mean that we can read a thread in the Pit now, and there’ll be a good chance that the thread will actually _be about the topic proposed by the OP?_ Amazing. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/7 "2005-03-03T18:21:45Z")
> [@Severian](#): > > I donno shit about the backstory here, but I do want to say that you’re wrong about panthiests **Finn** , and **Liberal** is right. Polytheists believe in multiple gods. Pantheists believe the universe itself is God. See [here](http://www.pantheist.net/). Thank you for the correction, you are right. I was using the term in its [second meaning](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pantheism) and was unaware of the first. I’ve heard it used to describe people who believe in a particular [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pantheon]pantheon [/quote] of gods, (ie. Greek, Egyptian, Norse…) Evidently I was in error, thank you for clearing up my ignorance. (I’d still argue, however, that with the exception of ascribing an incorrect definition to pantheism, the rest of my argument was on target) ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/8 "2005-03-03T18:25:01Z")
Damn coding. ~grumbles~ [This was the link I tried to post](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pantheon). I had figured, in error, that if a pantheon was a group of gods, that a pantheist would be the adjectival description of one who believed in a pantheon. I suppose that the standard “pagan” would (perhaps) have worked just fine. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/9 "2005-03-03T18:32:16Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > Does this mean that we can read a thread in the Pit now, and there’ll be a good chance that the thread will actually _be about the topic proposed by the OP?_ Amazing. We can only hope that when he attempts his pedantic bullshit in GD, he’ll be yelled at enough to the point where the only noise he’ll make will be in IMHO, where he’ll lobby for a forum of his very own. And a pony. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/10 "2005-03-03T18:42:42Z")
Well, as long as **Lib** ran away once he started getting called on his bullshit, I figure past examples are now fair game. [This is the last time I handed him his head](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5860526&postcount=99) [You will notice that after that, he didn’t even respond or post again in the thread, and, go figure, ran away. Just like now.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=303026&page=2&pp=50) **Lib** is obviously intelligent, but when he gets into full bullshit mode all you have to do is stand up to him and he runs away. Kinda reminds me of a schoolyard bully. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/11 "2005-03-03T19:17:20Z")
Well, **Liberal** , I think it’s very communist of you to take a break from the Pit. While the Pit serves its purpose, it’s probably best for the boards as a whole when the members don’t hang out here too much; while there’s a place for letting off steam, constantly pitting each other doesn’t help us all come together as a community. _Oxford English Dictionary_: " **communism** 3. Community of feeling; the spirit of a community. _rare._ **1870** _Daily News_ 18 Nov., A tribunal where the natural bias of mercantile communism could not influence the judgment of those who had to decide the question." ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/12 "2005-03-03T20:02:41Z")
I don’t get why people have to come in here and “announce” they’re taking a break from the Pit. I take regular breaks from the Pit - every time I lose my temper or just need a break, in fact - and I never come in here to announce it. Do you think we care? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/13 "2005-03-03T20:35:53Z")
I think it’s good that **Liberal** is finally going to grow up. 🙂 Maybe he’ll even come back with a less deceptive handle… ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/14 "2005-03-03T20:55:35Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Maybe he’ll even come back with a less deceptive handle… Or maybe he’ll just finally switch out the “B” for a “T”. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/15 "2005-03-03T21:01:27Z")
At the risk of hijacking this thread (since I have neither Havana nor any other destination in mind), can I insert a bit of a _practical_ observation regarding the other thread? In the thread which touched off the current unpleasantness, **Liberal** posted the following regarding the Pitted poster: > [@](#): > > Rwjefferson isn’t playing at anything. He isn’t talking about beliefs. He isn’t even (from the linked post) saying that you are Christians. He is merely saying that the truth that arises from all religions points to one and the same entity. He may call It Christ, you may call It Yahweh, others may call It Allah, Vishnu, the Universe, whatever. Despite that we sometimes see these matters in terms of some sort of competition between Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed does not mean that they themselves see it that way. The Christ and the Buddha are not captains of opposing teams. If their respective followers lined up in opposition to do battle, the two of them would mourn. Note that his specific observation is intended to provide an understanding of the Pittee’s perspective on the world. (This is hardly an unusual event in the **Pit** and can hardly be deemed a hijack, at this point.) **Czarcasm** responds: > [@](#): > > I know some very good people who do not worship what Christians call “God”. It’s not that they worship him under another name-they do not worship him at all. > Period. > How would some of the devout Christians here feel if I insisted that, because they have shown anger and/or selfishness and/or jealousy and/or doubt they, in their own way, worship Satan. now, they may call him Loki, Coyote, Hades, Ctuthlu, Weakness, or Human Emotion, but in reality they are, in their own way, followers of Satan and he will welcome them as true believers after they die. > > I do not follow your god under any name, and I do not like it when people put me under their umbrella of “all-inclusiveness”. Indicating that regardless of the Pittee’s motives, **Czarcasm** still finds the manner in which the pittee posts upsetting. Still no hijack. To which **Liberal** responds: > [@](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > I know some very good people who do not worship what Christians call “God”. It’s not that they worship him under another name-they do not worship him at all. > > Period. > > It often seems to be the habit of materialists to attach to one definition out of dozens and use it equivocally and summarily, whether it’s a discussion about the heart, or love, or worship. But worship can mean “To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion”, a synonym of “revere”. (American Heritage). I know many atheists who regard the universe reverently, and with a sense of devotion and wonder. SentientMeat is a perfect example with his “I am made of stars!” soliloquy that he shares from time to time. > > > [@](#): > > > > How would some of the devout Christians here feel if I insisted that, because they have shown anger and/or selfishness and/or jealousy and/or doubt they, in their own way, worship Satan. now, they may call him Loki, Coyote, Hades, Ctuthlu, Weakness, or Human Emotion, but in reality they are, in their own way, followers of Satan and he will welcome them as true believers after they die. > > I would feel in agreement. > > > [@](#): > > > > I do not follow your god under any name, and I do not like it when people put me under their umbrella of “all-inclusiveness”. > > Who has done that? Sure, there are people so ascerbic and reckless that they simply despise the objects of people’s worship, or as you once put it to me, would draw a sword upon the sight of what they revere and run it through. No one is including you or anyone else who wishes to be excluded. So, now, **Liberal** , we have a problem. The obvious answer (to me) to the first quote is that however **Czarcasm** felt about the Pittee’s views, your actual words were only intended to explain the (religiously based) views of the Pittee without endorsing those views or expanding them beyond the notion that the Pittee held them. In other words, neither of you really _needed_ to say more on the topic. However, you then attacked **Czarcasm** ’s post on semantic grounds–and needlessly confused the issue. Regardless how many meanings “worship” might convey, the Pittee intended to say that all good people worship the one true god and **Czarcasm** was simply stating that he disagreed. Your final paragraph in the second quote actually does agree with **Czarcasm** and was all that was needed without any further comment: [ul][li](Pittee believes X of all people.)[/li][li]\*\*Liberal \*\* explains belief of Pittee _in context of_ Pittee’s world view.[/li][li] **Czarcasm** rejects Pitteee’s worldview.[/li][li] **Liberal** assents that **Czarcasm** has a right to do so.[/ul][/li]However, by dragging in other meanings of “worship,” (none of which had been used in the thread), in a clear attack on **Czarcasm** ’s post, we now find multiple posters inferring all sorts of things about what has been posted and implying (and declaring) the purported intents of other posters. I agree, **Liberal** , that in your final declaration in the quoted exchange, you asserted that no one should be dragged kicking and screaming into a belief or an afterlife in which they do not believe. However, it was _your_ insistence that various atheists might use the word “worship” in multiple ways, in a hostile comment on **Czarcasm** ’s post, that created the confusion. You are right throughout that thread that you never insisted that anyone was going to be forced to go where they did not choose. It is just a bit ingenuous, however, to claim that they should read only your final remark in the exchange I quoted while somehow ignoring any number of implications (or, perhaps inferences), drawn from your earlier “semantic” paragraph. On the other hand, given that, following the “semantic” digression, **Liberal** did, indeed, post “No one is including you or anyone else who wishes to be excluded.”, it would seem that any number of subsequent respondents might have taken the time to note that he was accurate in saying that he had not intended to force a belief or an afterlife on anyone else. If everyone decides to bring their favorite hostilities and preconceptions to a thread, we can pretty well always be guaranteed a hostile thread. ---
**Author:** ![lno](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a8b319/32.png) [@lno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lno)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/16 "2005-03-03T21:27:46Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > If everyone decides to bring their favorite hostilities and preconceptions to a thread, we can pretty well always be guaranteed a hostile thread. Yeah, well, so’s your mother. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/17 "2005-03-03T21:46:22Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > I don’t get why people have to come in here and “announce” they’re taking a break from the Pit. > > Do you think we care? Perhaps you didn’t read the OP? Liberal has his own, often abrasive style of arguing, this is true. However I’ve seen very little, if any direct hostility coming from him directed at specific posters. You guys call him a schoolyard bully, yet in my experience I’ve seen him take a hell of a lot more shit than he’s dished out. I suspect many (not all) of you who have trouble with Liberal aren’t familiar with classic, general, or any kind of specific philosophical doctrines, and thus aren’t accustomed to being argued at from those standpoints. This is not your fault of course, it is more the result of cultural differences and/or your preferences of educational pursuit, but it is in my very humble opinion unfortunate (for all parties.) I think he brings something of value to many of our great debates (not all of which occur in the forum marked “Great Debates”.) Good luck in your cooling down period, Lib. I’ll still be around the pit occasionally, as I find it less hostile than some of our other forums :D. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/18 "2005-03-03T21:49:53Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Or maybe he’ll just finally switch out the “B” for a “T”. No I’m betting on Liberace next 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/19 "2005-03-03T21:51:58Z")
That would be “various **materialists** ” for “various **atheists** ” and **dis** ingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767/20 "2005-03-03T22:02:37Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > You guys call him a schoolyard bully, I am not you guys, I am me. > [@Cisco](#): > > I suspect many (not all) of you who have trouble with Liberal aren’t familiar with classic, general, or any kind of specific philosophical doctrines, and thus aren’t accustomed to being argued at from those standpoints. I’ve heard this argument before, and didn’t buy it then. Essentialy, it goes that anybody who’s got a problem with his style of argumentation simply must not be able to get it. Well, after close to six years in the ivory tower and many philosophy classes, I have to say I’m well aware of the paradigms involved. > [@Tomndebb](#): > > On the other hand, given that, following the “semantic” digression, Liberal did, indeed, post “No one is including you or anyone else who wishes to be excluded.”, it would seem that any number of subsequent respondents might have taken the time to note that he was accurate in saying that he had not intended to force a belief or an afterlife on anyone else. He never retracted his original claims that all spirituality lead to ‘the garden’ and that ‘the garden’ was Jesus Christ. Without that being retracted, I see his claims that he’s not trying to force anything on anybody as mere obfuscatory rhetoric, talking out of both sides of his mouth. ‘You don’t have to believe in what I believe, or hold the metaphysical doctrine that I do, becuase you already do and you just don’t know it.’ Pardon me if I don’t take that a ringing endorsement of difference and individuality. If all spiritual paths lead to what is essentially (and essential) Christian dogma, then it doesn’t matter what you say after that about not forcing people, you’ve already boxed them into your dogmatic worldview. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-sake-of-growth/292767.md?page=2)