I noticed I still have some time left, Tomndeb

The BBQ Pit
141

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Liberal: Yes, it makes sense. I agree tomndebb has earned the respect he has and a lot of people want to defend him. I think it’s a bit excessive in this case, and mean-spirited. Especially if you think Valteron is mentally unstable, right? Why taunt the guy?

Oy!: No problem. You’re not being ad hominem or mean, so I could argue with you forever (not that I want to) without it being a problem.

No, didn’t say anything about liking tomndebb. I gave reasons why someone might take issue with his posts, or feel that he is being condescending and dismissive in his religion posts, or worse, an apologist for Catholicism. It’s not personal to me. Maybe it is to the OP, esp. if he thinks the board is condoning that treatment. He’s not the first person to bring this up, btw. Apparently anyone who takes issue with tomndebb is automatically a nutcase to be scoffed at and blown off.

Oh, you’re trying to bait me into getting into a fight with you, aren’t you? Not gonna do it, baby. You’re putting words into my mouth and I think you’re doing it deliberately. Please don’t.

In defense of the OP, tomndebb can be dismissive, and act as if the letter of his dogma is all that matters, ignoring the reality of the situation of how the doctrine is disseminated and implemented in the real world, and who is responsible for that. I have never excused bad behavior on the part of any poster, or advised anyone to promulgate inaccurate information or get emotional in GD. The OP was getting emotional in the Pit, which I think it just fine. Apparently no one agrees with me and thinks it’s fun to kick Valteron around, riding the I LURVE TOMNDEBB bandwagon into the sunset. Lame.

Maybe the OP has acted like a fool in other threads. He isn’t acting like one in this thread. Maybe he should just “get over it,” but who are you to tell him how to handle his abuse and pain? Granted he shouldn’t vent on people who are just trying to offer facts, but it might seem to the OP like just another Catholic doctoring the spin. It happens all the time, it’s belitting, and it’s been a problem with those rebuttinng criticism of the RCC for a long time. Maybe it’s not fair to lump tomndebb in with all that, but it’s a real phenomenon in the world and that could have caused the OP’s reaction. Thought maybe context would help explain the OP’s anger. But hey, if you just want to hate on the guy, nothing I say is going to stop you, right?

Aren’t you just soooo enlightened. When I grow up, I want to be just like you. :rolleyes: Come on, do you really think the absurd pile-on in this thread was decided it would be in like, post #2 is justified?
[/QUOTE]

Most of those who’ve had “issues” with** tomndebb** are, indeed, fair game for scoffing.

You expressed your opinion on all of my statements–but ignored **Valteron’s ** “Crusade.” That particular thread has affected my opinions.

142

[QUOTE=Oy!]
Thank heavens! It’s amazing how often people can’t seem to distinguish between a rational disagreement and a fight.

You are being a tad ad hominem or mean here. I don’t think Lib deserved that. That’s not like you; why don’t you take a break from the thread for a while and cool down? I can easily understand how a whole bunch of people disagreeing with you, and some of them being a tad rude about it might get under your skin - it would certainly get under mine!
[/QUOTE]

Slight correction: That last comment was aimed at me! So Liberal definitely didn’t deserve it.

143

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Liberal: Yes, it makes sense. I agree tomndebb has earned the respect he has and a lot of people want to defend him. I think it’s a bit excessive in this case, and mean-spirited. Especially if you think Valteron is mentally unstable, right? Why taunt the guy?
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. You’re absolutely right.

144

[QUOTE=Oy!]
You are being a tad ad hominem or mean here. I don’t think Lib deserved that.
[/quote]

I think Bridget Burke started with a snotty tone, but hey, whatever.

Everyone in the world could disagree with me and it wouldn’t get under my skin if I thought I was right. I think this thread was wonky from the beginning. However, I am going to bow out now because I think I’ve made the points I wanted to make. Don’t know Valteron well enough to launch into a pitched defense of him. I also like tomndebb and don’t want to go off on him either.

We will now proceed with our regularly schedule trainwreck…

145

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
I think Bridget Burke started with a snotty tone, but hey, whatever.

[/QUOTE]

Oops. My bad. Yes, I think Bridget was a tad snotty in the post you cited. Sorry, Bridget, but there it is.

146

Tom gives long passionless defenses of the R.C.C. Sorry but the church is indefensible, From the castrato singers to caving to European leaders throughout history. Nazi capitulation, just part of doing business. If the church is a religious organization first and a business second then why did they do this crap. ?
Nowadays it is no better. I judge the church by what happens in the streets. Down where the rubber meets the alter boy. In parishes around the country ,the church has covered up the actions of buggering priests and brutal nuns. Paying off kids with twisted futures and bringing the political power of the church down on the whistle blowers. This is fundimentaly wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Now the church is fleeing the cities to the suburbs. The mission of the church is so easily abandoned. when money is part of the equation. I have no respect for it now. How many basket donations did the church waste in lawsuits because they refused to do the right thing. The R.C.C. has lost its moral compass like the giant corporation that it is.
Yet Tom is able to defend this anachronism . Beats me how.

147

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Tom gives long passionless defenses of the R.C.C. Sorry but the church is indefensible, From the castrato singers to caving to European leaders throughout history. Nazi capitulation, just part of doing business. If the church is a religious organization first and a business second then why did they do this crap. ?
Nowadays it is no better. I judge the church by what happens in the streets. Down where the rubber meets the alter boy. In parishes around the country ,the church has covered up the actions of buggering priests and brutal nuns. Paying off kids with twisted futures and bringing the political power of the church down on the whistle blowers. This is fundimentaly wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Now the church is fleeing the cities to the suburbs. The mission of the church is so easily abandoned. when money is part of the equation. I have no respect for it now. How many basket donations did the church waste in lawsuits because they refused to do the right thing. The R.C.C. has lost its moral compass like the giant corporation that it is.
Yet Tom is able to defend this anachronism . Beats me how.
[/QUOTE]

No, tom gives you the letter of the “corporate” law. That doesn’t mean that he personally approves of or defends the way that law is carried out.

Why does everything have to be painted with such a broad brush? Should the U.S. be destroyed because of the many shitty things its government has done over the centuries? If not, why not - because of the good things it has done as well, or because not all members of the U.S. are total shits? Either argument applies for the RCC, and I speak here as a hard atheist.

148

Cite?

I believe you are confusing posts to correct errors of fact, (you know, fighting ignorance and all that), with “defending.”

I suppose that if one’s position is that some entity is so evil that it is legitimate to make false sytatements about it in order to display one’s disgust, any correction of errors is similary offensive, but I prefer to engage in factual and honest discourse.
If it is that evil, the facts will not save it and the lies and errors will not hasten its demise.

149

[QUOTE=Oy!]
Oops. My bad. Yes, I think Bridget was a tad snotty in the post you cited. Sorry, Bridget, but there it is.
[/QUOTE]

Ooh! “Snottiness” not allowed in the Pit!

Thanks for the warning.

150

[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
Ooh! “Snottiness” not allowed in the Pit!

Thanks for the warning.
[/QUOTE]

Didn’t mean it wasn’t allowed - just saying that her snottiness in return wasn’t that out of line.

151

Bullshit. You define discourse as agreeing with your exalted position and any dispute as unfair and ignorant. You are defending a group that has allowed unspeakable acts to be done throughout its history with a wimpy ,its not approved by the doctrine. Fuck that. They have allowed generations of disgusting acts and covered it up. I do not give 2 shits that official doctrine says it is wrong. Once the cover up begins the moral stance is gone. When children are having their lives wrecked ,I expect a religious purge of all the evil doers. It never happened. Not as long as it threatens their income and political power.

152

I don’t think Tom is defending the Church any more than you were defending drunk driving when you recently stated the simple fact that “Big fines and jail time don’t work”.

153

Actually I posted a site that said that.

154

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Actually I posted a site that said that.
[/QUOTE]

Huh? I don’t understand you.

155

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Actually I posted a site that said that.
[/QUOTE]

I think you meant a “cite”.

Also, I don’t think you are reading Tom’s posts for comprehension.

156

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
You posed a hypothetical situation (later described by you as an analogy.) I simply asked whether your hypothetical was a unique situation, or did it apply to any other situation. It was a yes/no question.
[/QUOTE]

For the eighty-five-thousandth time, the hypothetical was illustrating a fake, imaginary, irrelevant, meaningless number only to illustrate the meaning of a word. It had nothing to do with the actual issue. You then tried to extrapolate the number to the issue that it didn’t belong in. Never will.

157

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
For the eighty-five-thousandth time, the hypothetical was illustrating a fake, imaginary, irrelevant, meaningless number only to illustrate the meaning of a word. It had nothing to do with the actual issue. You then tried to extrapolate the number to the issue that it didn’t belong in. Never will.
[/QUOTE]

No it does belong in the issue–your point appears to be people should consider that someone who is late could have ADD and we should consider that first as the likely cause before we label them rude assholes. If the percentage of someone who has ADD (who also exhibits this running late behavior) is .000001 of those with ADD or 100% of those with ADD is relative to your claim that we should take that into consideration. If the percentage of people who run late are just plain assholes is 50% then that is also a factor to consider. The contention we hold (if I can speak for the others) is that the likely reason someone runs late is rude behavior and the chances of them being late for ADD causes is so miniscule to not even a consideration.

Contrapuntal (and from my reading of QED above) and myself felt you did NOT answer the question asked of you. You can bray all you want that you did–but the reality is that you did not. You did the same thing in that thread where Jodi handed you your ass—and you did it in the thread with MrDibble, etc. You stake your position and you hold it regardless of what anyone says to you. All that is fine (we all do that to some extent), but when you do it in the face of many posters saying you did not answer it–you end up looking like Magellan or any of the other posters I personally hold in the same regard

So to paraphase you in your so familiar style

You. did. not. answer. the. fucking. question.

158

Supposing you’re right — and I’m just asking here is all — why is she obligated to answer someone’s specific question? I mean, I’m asking you a question right now, and if you just left it be, I wouldn’t bring it up every time I saw you post in a thread. I like Contrapuntal and Quid both, but I don’t understand why the matter can’t just be dropped. I’ve seen her practically hounded about this in several different threads, and as far as I can determine, she has answered the question to a fare-thee-well and forty ways from Sunday. What answer could she give that would satisfy people?

159

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
That is your citation that i have defended the RCC?

Seems typical.

Just curious: have you ever spanked a child?

160

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
For the eighty-five-thousandth time, the hypothetical was illustrating a fake, imaginary, irrelevant, meaningless number only to illustrate the meaning of a word. It had nothing to do with the actual issue. You then tried to extrapolate the number to the issue that it didn’t belong in. Never will.
[/QUOTE]
No, it wasn’t. You keep trying to make it seem that way, but that dog won’t hunt. You were caught in a ridiculous exaggeration, and rather than cop to it, began your campaign to blow smoke up our collective asses. Won’t work. Your words are still there, deny them as you may.
You’re a coward who does not have the courage to admit when she is wrong, or take note when a valid point has been made. In short, you’re a punk. You called me fond of the word ‘liar’, and when that was shown to be an ignorant misunderstanding based on a cursory search of the SDMB files, did not have the ovaries to own up to it. That is your style. Pull cites out of your ass, claim that you did not say what everyone knows you did, and ignore evidence to the contrary, no matter how overwhelming it is. It is weakass chickenshit blathering. Take it the fuck out of here.

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Supposing you’re right — and I’m just asking here is all — why is she obligated to answer someone’s specific question? I mean, I’m asking you a question right now, and if you just left it be, I wouldn’t bring it up every time I saw you post in a thread. I like Contrapuntal and Quid both, but I don’t understand why the matter can’t just be dropped. I’ve seen her practically hounded about this in several different threads, and as far as I can determine, she has answered the question to a fare-thee-well and forty ways from Sunday. What answer could she give that would satisfy people?
[/QUOTE]
One way to get me to stop would be to refrain from potshots like the one upthread in her response to you. She is not being hounded. She is asking for it.

She may have answered it to a fare-thee-well, but by no means forty ways from Sunday. She has only answered one way.