In response to kpm & stockton, at manhattan's request (kind of):

The BBQ Pit
1

This particular thread’s brought to the Pit because of what I have to say to one of the bigger jerks on the board, stockton, and also what I have to say about the linked thread’s OP. In said linked thread, manhattan rightly described the discussion as not being of the General Question variety and therefore not to be continued in that thread. Although there is a theological discussion suited to Great Debates, there’s also a rather jerkish comment from stockton which needs a “clue-by-four” provided below.

In this thread, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=115772, kpm posted:

To which I responded:

&

Colibri politely responded to my first with:

I must disagree with Colibri there. kpm didn’t merely request information regarding if the Catholics had dumped part of the Decalogue, he or she asserted it as fact. I challenged that assertion, requested substantiation of it, and received no response from kpm.

I did, however, receive this stupid comment in response from stockton:

Let me apply the patented Monty dissection to it:

Evidently, it’s you who should so do. My handy-dandy dictionary defines a reliquary thus:

I see nothing in there about the relics being considered deities.

I’m not at all interested in what the festering mass of bigots think about a particular practice of a religion they obviously hate. I’m more interested, as Colibri suggests, in the points of theological debate regarding religious practices. Actually, I’m even more interested in a thing called “Comparative Religion” in which an observer, without applying his prejudices to the observed, examines different religions.

Actually, the Decalogue doesn’t say jack about that. Petitioning the saints is a tradition of the Catholic Church for which they have ample reason in their own tradition to practice.

How do you know which day of the week I attend services? As a matter of fact, the church of which I’m a member does have services on Sundays; however, there are Christian denominations which celebrate their services on Saturday. My church has no illusions about the traditional Jewish Sabbath day being Saturday and it, just as those other Christian denominations which celebrate Sunday as the Sabbath, have ample reason in its own tradition to do so.

Nor did you invent being a jerk, but you’ve certainly got damn close to perfecting it here. And, since you seem to be happy throwing a word around and telling someone else to get acquainted with it, let me describe you (and, of course, kpm), with definition:

Now, stocton, how about you familiarizing yourself with:

2

Well, he or she asserted it as fact, and then, in the course of the thread was shown to be wrong. Maybe he or she was just too embarrassed to admit it, or who knows why he or she didn’t respond. That’s sort of what General Questions is for, though; either answering questions that the asker knows he or she doesn’t know the answer to, or correcting misinformation that the asker has. I sort of think kpm is to be congratulated. He or she had learned that Catholics had rewritten the ten commandments to allow the worshiping of idols (which is something that a large segment of certain groups believe), and, instead of not asking anything more about it, came here to figure out why. While kpm’s original assertion was incorrect, I think it’s still a good thing that he or she asked.

With all due respect, Monty, because I do like and respect you as a poster, it seems to me that, in this instance, you were more confrontational than is warranted.

3

Captain, my Captain (hey, I’ve been dying to use that line!),

I think that my confrantational response, especially towards stockton in this thread, is merited.

I agree that kpm was shown to be wrong in that assertion; however, stockton continued the incorrect assertion after that assertion was proven wrong. On top of that, stockton made the snide comments regarding definitions of words.

I might be wrong, but I don’t think kpm is to be congratulated. AFAIC, the OP in the linked thread above is just another “fundied-drive by” posting taking a swipe at, as I said above, “a religion they obviously hate.” I’d be ecstatic if kpm came to either the linked thread or this one and said, “Hey, y’all’re correct. My take on the Catholics’ Decalogue was wrong. Next time, I’ll ask the questions without the prejudice.” If he (or she) does, more power, and respect, to him.

Stockton, OTOH, was just a jerk in that thread.

4

BTW, Captain,

Thanks for the compliment. 'Preciate it.

5

Now you must say 30 hail marys…:stuck_out_tongue:

6

patented monty dissection indeed. dont break your arm, bo.

7

essvee:

It’s a joke. I’ll try to remember to add subtitles for the humour-impaired next time (yes, that’s a joke also).

vanilla:

We don’t say that word. Our curses are more of the “Oh, my heck” type. What’s that? You said, “hail” and not “he…”? Whoops!

8

Before anyone jumps me about the last post, I failed to add “in polite society” after “that word.” But, seriously, a seriously active LDS (the LDS use the term “active” the way other groups use the term “practicing”) wouldn’t use even “heck” in any situation.

9

Wow! A pit thread with MY NAME in the title! Woo hoo. I’m honored :slight_smile:

Nice rant. I give it a 2.2… I would have gone as high as 3, but your chest-pounding wasn’t loud enough. Probably pretty difficult to reach around up there with your head up your ass.

Here’s how I see it:

  1. A poster asks a very interesting question and makes an assumption based on his (her?) reading of the documents in question.

  2. Several wise and thoughtful and mature dopers explain the reasons for the apparent discrepancy.

  3. Monty jumps up on the coffee table and starts swinging his dead cat around screaming for a cite (he was asking a question, it was already cleared up as a misunderstanding).

  4. Monty is roundly ignored, as “don’t be a jerk” are the words we live by 'round these parts.

  5. Monty is unsatisfied with this lack of attention to his testosterone-fueled braying and pisses in the punchbowl again, screaming for attention.

  6. Stockton is annoyed by this boorish behavior and (while he is no theologian or biblical scholar) chimes in FOUR other vaugely strange things that might seem to go against the commandments in question.

  7. Stockton finishes with this admonition:

“Put that thing back in your holster, sonny. This ain’t the pit, and catholics didn’t invent God or write the bible.”

  1. Stockton is drawn-and-quartered in the pit, referred to as “one of the bigger jerks on the board” and “bigot.”

  2. Monty is a raving lunatic psycopath with a persecution complex, too much free time, a chip on his shoulder the size of Delaware, and a severe anger-management problem.

Get a life, jackass. Go interact with a human sometime and act this way, and you’ll be looking for your teeth up in the alley somewhere. Why don’t you go do “the patented Monty dissection” on your hyperaggressive smug name-calling posting style, and leave me the fuck out of it.

Figure this out: My response in the first thread was NOT to answer or address the OP. It was to clue you in that you were acting like a spoiled child. Thanks for proving my observation correct. Now, go have your “my dictionary is bigger than YOUR dictionary” pissing contest with someone who gives a shit. Seriously, you REALLY need to get a life. CITE: This thread. Go poop in someone else’s sandbox.

“one of the bigger jerks on the board?” How can you type that with a straight face?

There are 8 posts in this thread and five of them are YOURS. Get out much?

10

stockton yet again proves 'tis he who is naught but a jerk. You posted little, if any, truth above.

11

you’re right - you’ve now posted 6 of the 11 posts in this thread.

12

“I’m rubber and you’re glue?”

“I know you are, but what am I?”

That response is a bit of a letdown. I’ll keep my fingers crossed for more fireworks.

13

CITE? CITE? Can I get a CITE for that? Oh, sorry, just channeling that jackass Monty.

Bump your own threads much?

Jeez, you’re shameless. It appears that you bump your thread once about twenty minutes after someone posts, and a second non-post about twenty minutes after that to keep your diatribe prominent.

I’d leave Manny’s name out of it next time.

He did NOT request that you drag your bitterness about the lack of attention paid to you to the pit. He told you to knock it off.

Teemings: Read the thread referenced. Look at little Monty. See him rage. Throw him a bone or something.

Maybe we can compromise: I’m the biggest jerk on the board (In ONE POST! A new record!) and you’re a pathetic little weasel with an attitude problem and some major insecurities. There! We can AGREE to DISAGREE!

I look forward to seeing you bump your thread a few more times. Get outside more often.

wring: HA! Sorry, it’s a moving target (and I’m not helping much by playing along).

14

I’ll see what I can do about getting a bridge named after you.

Wasn’t a rant. Since you’re in love with dictionaries, go check out the word “observation.”

Your opinion has no value to me.

There was no chest-pounding involved.

This is something you should have immense knowledge of, and I would have none.

Again, your opinion is of no value. But since I like fiction, provided it’s good, I must discribe your bad fiction below:

The person did not “make an assumption.” The person made an assertion that was devoid of fact. (Yet another thing you should be familiar, nay, even practiced with.)

There’s no apparent discrepancy. The OP asserted that the Catholics had “gotten rid of” one of the commandments in the Decalogue. The fact is they didn’t.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

Too bad you don’t follow your own comments.

Since I’m getting tired of typing “bullshit,” I’ll call this one “horse apples.”

Pure bullshit. You made a snide comment directing me to familiarize myself with reliquaries and a further snide comment about definitions of other words. The fact (that would be part of reality) of the matter is that the assertion was that the RC had dumped one of the commandments and then renumbered the remaining 9 to make them look like 10. That’s just pure fiction.

I’m not your son, thank God. I made no pitish comment in that thread. I did not assert that the Catholics wrote the Bible nor that they invented God. Nor am I the jerk you certainly are.

Your foolish and trollish “admonition” above in the wrong thread proves you are one of the bigger jerks on the board.

Care to post your degree, you offal?

Since I have not acted as a jerk, I’ve no worries about how I interact with humans. Now, if you’d bother to come out from under that bridge, let’s see if you got the guts to put your brave words into action.

Because you posted stupidity after said stupidity posted by another was already proven to be stupidity. Next time, read the thread.

Bullshit.

You are, yet again, incorrect.

So, what you’re saying here is that you don’t want to discuss a dictionary definition after you indicate a dictionary definition? What a jerk!

Got one.

Incorrect citatation.

It’s not your sandbox. You are not a moderator. Fuck off.

Because truth keeps my face straight, jerk.

So what?

Yep. Do you ever think?

Interesting “name-calling” style there.

Nope.

Bullshit.

Appearance aren’t always reality. Check a mirror. It might appear that you have a brain.

Pure bullshit. He directed that a theological discussion not take place in a thread in GQ. I had no bitterness nor any concern about lack of attention. That you read that into something shows a tad about your cognitive skills or lack thereof, though.

Ah, plea to the masses. Cute.

I make no quarter with foolishness.

Never said you were; I merely indicated that you’re one of the bigger ones.

Hmm…still waiting on that degree.

I agree that you’re a jerk. You disagree with that. Fine.

Posting something valid doesn’t constitute a bump.

So, you’re calling this…what’s another term for fishing?

15

Monty’s back to bump his thread again! Everyone look!

You are a sad, bitter little man. I’m sure glad I didn’t spot your name-calling (are you illiterate or just stupid? is a fine example) in this thread or I would have known what a petty little hate-obsessed tyrannical emotional midget I was dealing with:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=115621

And you call the OP “bitch” (a guy). Nice. You kiss your dog with that mouth?

I could cut-and-paste your posts into little context-deprived nuggets and feed them back to you with the rejoinder “bullshit!” after each one, but apparently you already own that franchise: The patented Monty dissection. That’s some fine reading, there.

To recap the FACTS, you twisted tiny fist-shaking cretin:

A poster asked a QUESTION that included a misinterpretation of fact. There was obviously no malice there, and Captain Amazing and Surreal and tomndebb AND OTHERS cleared up the apparent discrepancy as would 99.9 percent of our rational, mature, educated, friendly dopers.

Then Pope Monty I jumps into the thread with:

kpm: Care to prove your assertion that the Catholics “got rid” of the commandment forbidding idols?

This should be entertaining since THEY DIDN’T!

Wow! In GQ no less. Twelve hours later, dying to start a pit thread or get some attention, with NO OTHER POSTS IN THE THREAD, Monty-Wonty bumps his own challenge (which has been totally ignored) with:

kpm: Enquiring minds are still waiting on substantiation from you regarding your assertion about the Catholics dumping the prohibition against praying to idols.

Better yet: admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.

IN GQ! Um, dumbass, if no one cares about your first challenge (which has already been discussed RATIONALLY), why post the second bump? Possibly the most assholic move I’ve ever seen in GQ.

Five more NORMAL people post sound and valuable information concerning the OP.

Then stockton wanders by and sees your pissy-pants hollering.

Hey, I’VE always wondered about the 10 commandments thing. During my first stay of residence (6 weeks) inside the Vatican walls in 1983, I wondered about several things that seemed to contradict the decalogue. About praying to saints, about the icons and reliquaries, etc. I learned that (as you noted) tradition and compromise and papal infighting brought about the practices in question, and that’s just the way things are now. So I decided to post in a thread even though I had nothing to offer the OP. After reading your posts, I assumed you were some 13-year-old that didn’t have the manners or the info to actually HELP ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION, so I offered THIS mild provocation to get your little brain moving and simultaneously engage your etiquette control panel. No luck.

Here it is folks, the post that made me “one of the bigger jerks on the board” and a “bigot:”

You should familiarize yourself with something called a “reliquary”

Then look up “catholic idols” on google.

Then get acquainted with the various petitions to saints and the virgin. (PROHIBITED in the 10 C’s)

Also check out which day is the “seventh” (Saturday) and learn why you go to church on Sunday.

Put that thing back in your holster, sonny. This ain’t the pit, and catholics didn’t invent God or write the bible.

Call me a bigot in person, and I’ll clean your fucking clock, you petty little pointy-tongued waste of skin.

In your OP (JUST THE FACTS, little ranting Monty) you say “I’m more interested, as Colibri suggests, in the points of theological debate regarding religious practices.”

That shoehorns well with your posts in the GQ thread. Sounds like you were looking for an ARGUMENT or someone to respond to you so you could start this thread, but in either case you’re making an ass out of yourself in the wrong forum. Go make an ass out of yourself in GD if you want to debate religion.

Captain Amazing is trying to be nice when he says: “With all due respect, Monty, because I do like and respect you as a poster, it seems to me that, in this instance, you were more confrontational than is warranted.”

Nope C.A., I call 'em like I see 'em. Spoiled child.

When I called you “sonny” in the original thread, I did not think you were my son. I’m sorry you’re stupid enough to think that’s what that meant. It actually meant “you’re behaving like a little child in GQ and I don’t have any respect for someone so ill-mannered and unruly.”

If you were my son, you’d have a full, rich life away from your little keyboard and some fucking manners. You’re obviously not my son.

Dissect away, Dr Monty. I know you need the bump like a junkie needs a fix.

I’ll repeat: What happened to my molehill? Answer: Monty wanted to make a pit thread. Bump away, bumpity-bumpity bump-boy.

16

That’s hilarious! Come threaten me in person, then, fool.

BTW, I did get a laugh out of you appending “Dr” to my name after I asked you for your credentials re: your diagnosis of me.

Another addendum: The response “I’m nor your son” to some jackass calling one “sonny” is to make a point.

17

Monty is not “roundly ignored” as you say.

Sometimes, we get kindof SQUARE on him

Five NORMAL people? Are you counting me as one of them?
Becasue i am NOT “normal”, thankyouverymuch.

paid for by the Montyisokayinourbooks committee…

18

Nice bump, monty.

Vanilla, you’re cool in my book, and I enjoyed your rational and friendly contributions to the thread.
I will concede that you’re a freak, but a human and even-tempered one. I didn’t say the little moron “IS” roundly ignored, I said his ranting challenge WAS roundly ignored in the thread.

Notice I did not include myself in the “normal posters” listing either.

Monty-bumpy: I didn’t notice you posting YOUR credentials when you blathered:

"kpm: Enquiring minds are still waiting on substantiation from you regarding your assertion about the Catholics dumping the prohibition against praying to idols.

Better yet: admit you don’t know what you’re talking about. "

Why the fuck should I believe that you know what YOU are talking about, Rev Monty?

Bump it again. I DARE you to get a life. I DOUBLE DARE you to NOT get the last word.

Good God, if you’re married or have kids, I pity them all and their bruises and fractured psyches. You are a road-rage keyboard jockey with a poor sense of timing and a reckless insulting mouth. If I EVER meet you in person, I’ll hand you your asshole in your hubcap.

My last contribution to your inane ravings. Please investigate viagra and the great outdoors. Bump your thread away, you misfit mutant monitor jockey. Go kiss a girl, or have sex or something. Get a life. Fifth request.

OH: In response to everything you said: BULLSHIT (don’t blame me, I learned that debating technique from Montybumper, the expert of dissection). You wanted to post a pit thread. I wandered into your web. You’re an asshole.

FACT, FACT, FACT.

19

Sorry, you’ve caught me blindsided again. I’m not familiar with the word “nor” in this context. Illiterate jackass. Maybe you could go look it up and get another night’s pleasure out of downloading dictionary definitions and bumping your thread.

20

It’s obviously a type. Kind of like your prejudice against police officers showed when you made your comment about them and donuts. Anyway, where exactly did I make a diagnosis?

Vanilla: As always, you’re a grand contributor.