Is it still okay to use ATMB for test posts?

A moderator closed a test thread that Ed had started, which I had then picked up on to test my own posts. The mod left a message to the effect that he didn’t know what was going on, and so he was closing it.

I sent the moderator a PM last night at 10:27 PM Eastern asking about this, to which he has not responded, despite that he has posted twice today — as early as 06:37 AM and as late as 03:47 PM.

So I’m opening at thread to ask whether:

(a) We shouldn’t use test threads that already exist on page 1

(b) We should open whole new threads just to test our posts

© Members aren’t allowed to do test posts in ATMB anymore

Or what? Could a mod or admin give the scoop on this?

Liberal. I closed that one last night. I’m the guilty party. I can’t even tell you why, right now. It was late.

Sure, you can use someone else’s test thread. Or, as you have here, start a new one.

mea culpa

Thank you, samclem! You’re a good egg. I’ll just use this one.

Introduction

I said in a recent SentientMeat thread (I’m so very glad he’s back — atheism has no more brilliant an advocate) that I believe that reason and belief in God, when based on experience, go hand in hand. This I truly believe. From my perspective, God has called upon us to come and reason together. And so, that’s why we’re here — those of us who remain, and have persevered since the beginning. We don’t want to argue or fight. We just want to search for the truth together. And hopefully, this deductive thesis will help in that regard.

There will inevitably be those who come in late, challenging our definitions. Let’s be gentle with them because at least some of them will be well meaning. Or will just happen to drop in for the first time. But let’s not allow ourselves to be drawn into debates or arguments about what terms mean. There was ample opporunity for that before. There haven’t been many serious contributors to this series from the very beginning, but two names stand out: other-wise and Mr. Dibble. In particular, I recall how they helped to iron out the essential differences between morality and ethics. And so, this deductive thesis will use the definitions unchanged (or essentially unchanged) as they emerged from Parts I through IV.

The debators will respecfully be asked to accept the definitions as given if only for the sake of argument.

It is not necessary that you use these definitions in your ordinary day to day dealings, just as it is not necessary that you use the term “synthetic” as Immanuel Kant defined it for his philosophy when you’re talking about what material your shirt is made of. No one is asking you to adopt these definitions as though they were the only reasonable way to define the terms, but on the other hand, I am asking that you give only the same leeway you give to other disciplines that borrow terms from the common vernacular and give them specialized meanings that apply only in the context of those particular disciplines and discussions about them.

For those of you who don’t know, this is the fifth in a series of threads, each dealing with a separate component or classification of philosophy. Here they are, for your convenience:

The Aesthetical Jesus - Part I - Aesthetics
The Aesthetical Jesus - Part II - Morality and Ethics
The Aesthetical Jesus - Part III - Metaphysics and Ontology
The Aesthetical Jesus - Part IV - Epistemology

The last thread was the only one with any real controversy, and it had to do with whether I was doing “epistemology” or “exegesis”, the former having to do with the nature and source of knowledge, and the latter having to do with writing out my interpretations of the source material. I beleve that controversy was resolved when I pointed out that it was both the revealing of an epistemic source and an exegesis. The epistemic source was the Book of John (and a few other incidental sources) and the purpose of my exegesis was to express what I infered from what I read.

But this became a real issue, especially with PBear, who, it should be noted also made tremendously important contributions to the series with her arguments in Part IV. I beleve we did pretty much cover the gamut, from who wrote the verses I was quoting — (I think my repeated references to John the Beloved struck a nerve, if only a minor one) — to justification for my epistemological model itself. Her persistent questions in this regard resulted in a much better understanding, I hope, of the context of that thread. Basically, I believe it ended with my saying that it made no difference to me who penned the words, whether it was the Beloved or a committee from the Illuminati. It was the words themselves — the words in se — that mattered to me. And we established that my epistemological model was primarlity foundational internalism with just a bit of reliablism thrown in. Beyond that, and a few questions (both in-thread and by PM) about previously covered topics, like metaphysics, the thread consisted chiefly of passages from the Book of John and my interpretations of them. It is those interpretations that will serve as my epistemic source.

And so, the debate here is not about definitions. Nor is it about interpretations of Biblical passages. Those have all had their opportunity to play out.

This debate is about whether I have been able to prove the following hypothesis by means of informal deduction: Jesus brought, not a message about morality, but a message about aesthetics.

Let me restate that, just to be clear. This debate is about whether (1) the premises I have taken from my interpretations are true in their context; and (2) whether the statements, comments, or narratives I write follow logically from those that preceded them; and of course (3) whether my conclusion (my last inference) matches well enough with my hypothesis. There is nothing else to debate.

Nothing.

A couple other things this debate is not about. It is not about the existence of God. It is not about the existence of Jesus. It is not about the validity or scholarly acceptance of the Book of John as a reliable rendering of the words and/or deeds of Jesus. This is also not a debate about how to conduct a debate. If anyone cares to open debates on these matters, she or he is free to do so.

I am going to lay this out in a particular fashion. I am going to begin with “undefined terms”. These are terms that are assumed to be generally understood by reasonably intelligent people, and require no special or new alterations. They are not terms borrowed from the vernacular to serve as terms that mean anything other than their ordinary defintions. All deductive treatments do (or should) begin with undefined terms. Peano, for example, did not define the term “successor” for his famous fifth postulate of arithmetic: The Induction Postulate. He knew that reasonable people would know what he meant when he said, basically, that every number has a “successor”.

This is not an exhaustive list of terms, by the way. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of terms that I might use that are never defined and that might not appear in my list of undefined terms, like the term “of” for instance. Or “the”. Or even “postulate”. The reader will not only be expected to know what they mean, but she or he will be expected to consider their listing unnecessary. So that’s where we’ll begin.

Undefined Terms

**Edify **(and derivatives, like “Edification”)
**Convey **(and derivatives, like “Conveyance”)
**Facilitate **(and derivatives, like “Facilitation”)

Next, we have our list of defined terms, all of which were developed either by consensus or by concession. All defined terms are genus-differentia.

Defined Terms

Aesthetics: the evaluation of worth or value
Morality: internalized views of right and wrong, often correlated with a god or conscience
Ethics: external views of what is acceptable and unacceptable, often comprising the cumulative opinions of general society
Epistemology: the study of knowledge and its source
Metaphysics: the study of the nature of reality
Ontology: the study of the nature of existence
Essence: “the what it was to be” — Aristotle; i.e., the nature (or predicate) that identifies a thing before it comes into existence
Existence: the state (in our world) of all emerged essences
Eternity: a timeless state
Necessity: a metaphysical certitude
Reality: that which is essential, eternal, and necessary
Free Moral Agent: an agent whose aesthetical decisions are uncoerced
Goodness: the mutual edification of free moral agents
Love: the means by which goodness is conveyed or faciliated
Evil: aesthetic emptiness (or a null aesthetic)
Sin: the obstruction of love
Freewill or Free will: the ability of free moral agents to make aesthetic decisions freely and volitionally
Spirit: a metaphysical presence
Presence: a state of existence characterized by ubiety and effect
Metaphysical: outside, above, beyond, or over that which is physical
Worship: listening quietly for the voice of God
Physical: Made of atoms. Or particles. Or strings. Or the quanta du jour. A part of the universe.
Truth: an aesthetical revelation (i.e., something of great value that is revealed)
Believe in: trust, cling to, rely on. It is not an intellectual belief, but an essential belief. To “believe in” God does not mean merely to acknowledge His existence; it means to depend on him in the manner that a crippled man depends on his wheelchair.
Life: having the qualities of being eternal, necessary, and essential. Or, put another way, having the qualities of reality. “Life” and “reality” may be considered synonyms.
Aesthetically blind: unable (but not necessarily unwilling) to assess the aesthetic value of goodness
Religion politician: a person who seeks to manipulate people for the purpose of enriching himself, often claiming to have some sort of authority, citing scriptures and revelations from God, or instilling fear of eternal punishment — all as a tactical means of fulfilling his strategy
Way: the route by which something is conveyed
Faith: belief based upon experience
The World: the physical universe, as opposed to the spiritual world
Know: (in the context of knowing God) to relate with intimately
Glory: the acknowledgment of divinity

Incomplete. To be continued in next post.

For the past few months I have been partially preoccupied in a semi-futile struggle to preserve the noble heritage of the village where I have lived, in a state of harmonious discord with everyone else, for about 17 years.

The importance of maintaining local traditions locally cannot be emphasised too much, except by the use of unnecessary hyperbole, and the controversy in which I now find myself an epicentral figure concerns obscure rural traditions going back at least a decade, and those around me who wish to traduce them. The explanation begins at home chez nous.

Our house is a converted cowshed (with the cows taken out of it first, obviously). Of course, it has lost that indefinable ambience redolent of a functional cowshed, that unique bovine je ne sais quoi which emanates from most groups of cows, mainly because the vast majority of the cow-related droppings and other memorabilia were removed along with the cows themselves.

All that remains, as a memorial to every single past tenant who ever lived here, is a lone carton of pasteurised semi-skimmed milk (4 pints/2.272 litres), which stands sentinel in the door of the refrigerator, rather like the Monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey, only smaller and slightly more perishable. Adding insult to injury, cow-wise, the milk didn’t even come from a cow (it came from Tesco).

The property was built in 1856, between the end of the Crimean War and the start of the Indian Mutiny, although this is probably just an otherwise irrelevant unrelated coincidence.

Following a series of mysterious cow disappearances in the East Gloucestershire area (in 1856) a Cowshed Initiative was launched at the highest levels of British Government. All farmers (with cows) were compelled by law to start building cowsheds as fast as they could before the rapidly escalating Cow Deficit spiralled crazily out of control.

So, everybody went rushing around like mad building these sheds, and putting their cows into them at night, in order to pre-empt further inroads into these very same cows by the local branch of the Cow Fetish Society. It was a good idea which was partly 100% successful, but which sadly resulted in the premature closure of the CFS as early as last year.

I was surprised (but not much) at how many people around here regret the untimely demise of the CFS. I had no idea the Society was so popular. My personal philosophy regarding fetishism, the one constant ideal I have held on to in a constantly changing kaleidoscope of changing constants, is that the object of one’s devotion should ideally be smaller than a cow and somewhat more portable.

Anyway, in order to fund the building of these cowsheds, the farmers established a Co-Operative Society called the Organisation For Ungulate Cow Keeping Inside & Tethered, the initials of which were elaborately carved above the door of every shed in the scheme (hereafter referred to as as a Scheme Shed) in order to invest some degree of gravitas in the project. To this day, this acronym reminds the few visitors to our house of its proud historical role in the advancement of Cow-Based Sheltering and Protection Systems.

It is this nostalgic view of the cowshed’s history, and my desire to retain links with the glorious heritage which began and ended almost before it started, which has caused a cultural rift to appear between me and everybody else who lives in the village. It would seem that the reason we have had so very few visitors during the time we have lived here is that other souls, perhaps less sensitive to the preservation of important bovine artefacts, take one look at the commemorative initials carved above the door before stalking off to somewhere called High Dudgeon.

The issue came to a head a few months ago when I received a letter from the local postmaster, who had this to say on the subject of rural properties, postcodes and what is done and not done in the nomenclature department vis-a-vis house names.
.
.
.
Dear Sir,

During a recent audit of house names in this area, it emerged that your present home is now called OFuckIt.

I would be exceedingly grateful if you would change this name to something which might reasonably be construed as being slightly more sympathetic to the needs of the countryside.

Thanking you in anticipation of a satisfactory outcome to this minor contretemps.

Yours faithfully,

Etc.

PS. Don’t forget to take advantage of this week’s Special Offer! You can have Two Mail Deliveries (Yes, TWO!) this week instead of the usual one delivery if you win our Lucky Dip Prize Draw!! Enter now!!! Remember, you’ve got to be in it to win it!!!
.
.
.

Well of course, OFuckIt was news to me. Mon repos (chez nous) was called Rose Cottage when I bought it and, not surprisingly, that is the address I gave to various people when I moved here.

Disconcertingly, not to mention anything else, several days after I had moved in a postman knocked on the door and handed me a batch of letters. In so doing, he informed me that I had to change the name of the house because it had never been registered, and anyway there were too many Rose Cottages around already, delivering mail was difficult enough as things stood without more roses springing up all over the place, he was in a hurry and couldn’t stop and would I change the name by next Tuesday please otherwise my mail deliveries might suffer as a result, would I have a nice day and was I settling in OK, ah! excellent, goodbye for now and don’t forget about the name change sir, thank you.

One hour later, after I had redistributed the letters the postman gave me to the correct addresses, I checked the house name situation with the postmaster, who confirmed that a new name was not only seen as highly desirable in the uppermost echelons of local Post Office circles but was, in fact, the Number One Bullet Point in its Mission Statement for that fiscal year.

I resisted the temptation to remind the postmaster that I had already, in preparation for my relocation, sent upwards of Fifty Fucking Letters to various people informing them of the name of my new home, at a personal cost in stamps of over £15.00 sterling, which revenue had doubtless been tossed carelessly into the Post Office coffers thereby boosting its share price, and going some way towards ensuring a less disastrous trading period than usual for the second quarter of that financial year.

Employing a similar restraint, I also refrained from pointing out the existence of the PostCode, a postal addressing system invented by the Post Office which has been in use across the UK for the past Thirty Five Fucking Years, and which claims to identify each property in the country to within a few yards (12.87 metres).

Instead, I printed another 50 letters advising the recipients that my address had now changed from Rose Cottage to some other name which I had not yet decided upon, and which would be communicated to them at a later date, notwithstanding the eccentricities of postal delivery timetables.

I have been more than somewhat distracted between that time and this. I have had to a) watch 4 World Cup competitions (including qualifying games) b) gradually assimilate the effects of a disappointing performance by the so-called New Labour Government over the past 12 years and c) cope with the logistics involved in locating sufficient quantities of top quality hashish to keep me ‘spaced out’ for long periods of time after OD’ing on a) and b).

In the consequent induced lassitude I have experienced, especially when reading Party Election Manifestos, I may have inclined towards a policy of not giving a shit about anything at all, especially annoying demands from the Local Postmaster.

However, my negligence in failing to act more precipitously in this matter has now reaped a golden reward. The Postmaster made a bad tactical error in informing me in writing that our house is, in fact, called OFuckIt. His letter confirmed beyond doubt that OFuckIt had been registered as the property name by a Post Office apparatchik sometime in the dim and distant past. OFuckit was now official, rubber stamped by the Post Office itself and forever enshrined in print as a beacon of resistance to the Post Office Jackboot.

What joy.

Now, much of what precedes this paragraph is true, although I would be hard pressed to remember which bits those are at this late stage in the proceedings. Whether the Cow Keepers Union carving was already above the door when I took up residence here, or whether I carved it there myself with a Swiss Army Knife I got for my birthday in 1991, as a swipe at the Post Office following the despatch of the second batch of fifty letters, injuring my right thumb in the process and so necessitating emergency surgery at the local butcher’s shop, I cannot quite recall with 100% accuracy.

Clearly, I am now unwilling to relinquish the cachet which attaches to the property now that it has such a cool name. Therefore, since late May, I have been engaged in a meaningless battle of wits with the Postmaster in which he won’t read my letters because they are all headed ‘Re: OFuckIt’ (followed by a unique thirty seven digit reference number) and I won’t read his replies, even if there are any, because he refuses to adhere to orthodox letter referencing procedures by failing to reference my unique thirty seven digit reference numbers (preceded by ‘Re: OFuckIt’).

In order to strengthen my undisputed position on the moral high ground in this issue, I have also been motivated to do some historical research on the year 1856 and the events thereof. I have so far found mention of the birth of a Mr. Woodrow Wilson, the discovery of a Neanderthal Skull in Feldhofer cave (near Dusseldorf) and the first recorded instance of pure cocaine being successfully extracted from cocoa beans. Sadly, I suspect that these events occurred ‘abroad’ and are therefore of no interest to me in my quest for knowledge (except for the cocoa beans).

I have thus far failed to find any detailed records concerning the Great Cow Deficit of 1856 but this does not mean it didn’t happen. Many events in many countries are ‘hushed up’ at the time by The Authorities and the full details not released for about 500 years in case unwanted revelations embarrass the politicians involved, such as T. Blair, G. Bush (Sr. & Jr.), Gaius Julius Caesar, Rameses II (aka Ozymandias) and all the rest of them as far back as Gilgamesh of Sumer, who carved all his secrets in cuneiform form on a tablet so if he caught you reading them he could beat you to death with the stationery.

I continue the search for Truth, not only in the fusty surroundings of the local library but also by digging the garden furiously in the hope of finding another, more plausible bovine artifact dating from the period in question. So far I have unearthed nothing more interesting than a set of sacrificial tools for use in a Black Mass, a bottle with a note saying Help inside, and an Unexploded Bomb dropped on the village during the Sheep Wars of 1976, which I conscientiously wrapped in brown paper, tied with some coloured ribbon and mailed to the Postmaster for his urgent attention.

While I perspire freely at my labours with spade on soil, I cannot help but think of the inherent irony which permeates this entire scenario as I note that my only observers are three cows in the field opposite which keep looking at me as though I personally have rendered them homeless.

I do believe they are talking about me behind my back.

What on earth are these posts testing?

How long and drawn out a post can be? How to post a tldr thread?

Who knows? You? Me? Anyone?

Probably formatting and length of thread–there’s a maximum number of characters allowed per post.
< insert comment here about any two sdmb regulars being characters and thus over VB’s limit >

That’s exactly it. Plus the formatting can be a bit queasy at times, and I needed to test it out. From here on out, I’ll delete the test posts so that they don’t take up precious DB space. I actually meant to delete the one above, but got distracted and arrived back too late. (Although some databases do not reduce the amount of space they take up when deletions occur. MS Access is one example. I don’t know about MySQL.)

@ Chez Guevara

Because you chose to write so much, and because it was so well written, I actually did read your whole post. It comes across to me as an almost brilliant satire of my writing style — but with the unfortunate and conspicuous absence of m-dashes. On the whole, though. Bravo!

My favorite phrase: “a constantly changing kaleidoscope of changing constants”

Before the board experienced some problems in the spring of 2002, resulting in the loss of 3 months data, the maximum limit was something well over 10,000 characters. I know this because when the forums were once more accessible in March of that year, I tried to post a 10,000+ character message, the fate of which was truncation of the cruelest kind. Naturally I complained about this to the higher echelons, who were good enough to double the limit to 20,000.

This was a time when I would measure my posts in inches, and sometimes feet. Post #5 is roughly 2 feet in length. Although it is not the longest message I’ve ever submitted here, it is the longest I could find (it’s from the summer of 2002) bearing in mind that one post measuring about a yard disappeared in the circumstances described above.

Incidentally, judging by the responses to such posts, it seems there is a correlation between post length and the level of discomfort they caused to the reader. Six inches often seemed to satisfy whereas twelve inches has been known to cause some pain. Three feet would propel people out of the door screaming in agony, or so I am told.

Anyway, I was curious to know any revised limit on message length following the more recent upgrade to vBulletin version 3.7.3, since which time I haven’t posted anything longer than about a foot. I now know I can go to 2 feet plus, notwithstanding the guilt I would feel in so doing.

How kind!

Thank you.

What does fully committing a test post achieve that only going as far as the preview stage does not?

There are certain subtle formatting differences. The final page takes space in the margins that that the preview page does not. A line of text, for example, may be a single line in preview, but split into two lines upon posting. This is partly due to the fact that preview does not include the same cascading style sheet that the real page does.

(Neither, incidentally, does the reply page. Notice that the font in the reply window is the far more readable Verdana, while the font on the real page is the horrible and disreputable Trebuchet. Here in the reply window, I can clearly tell an “l” from an “I”. But after posting, they will look very similar. Bolded text is more bold in Verdana. But on the final page, the SDMB uses Trebuchet.)

I’ll give you some examples:

Trebuchet MS (the page font): I like **BOLD **and italic letters.

Verdana (the reply window font): I like **BOLD **and *italic *letters.

I have asked the powers that be (i.e., TubaDiva) to make the default font Verdana rather than Trebuchet, but one or two dissenters mysteriously liked Trebuchet better, and I was pretty much told to go take a hike — i.e., my idea would not be implemented.

Someone then provided me a CSS sheet that put everything but lists in Verdana, but it was destroyed when I installed IE8. Not ony that, but the bright white background severly strains my eyes, and the style sheet I was given made the background a much more readable gray. Much like the background in the reply window. At any rate, the word “change” seems to bristle the hackles, and so I just have to live with what we’ve got.

And testing is required therefore.

And one more thing. At one point in time, I began to force all my own posts to be in Verdana font, like this one. But believe it or not, complaints about this practice arose. (I think I was even Pitted for it.) And so that’s when someone stepped in to offer the appropriate style sheet.

For comparison:

And one more thing. At one point in time, I began to force all my own posts to be in Verdana font, like this one. But believe it or not, complaints about this practice arose. (I think I was even Pitted for it.) And so that’s when someone stepped in to offer the appropriate style sheet.

The first paragraph is in Verdana.

The second is in Trebuchet MS.

Chez Guevara wins the internet.