Coldie, my friend, I don’t see your motivations as anything at all. I can’t see motivations, and you can’t either. If you are concerned about me, and therefore would like to help me, I invite you (and only you) to e-mail me. I believe I checked the box that permitted mods to have access to my e-mail address, or you can get if from Gaudere, TubaDiva, or Lynn.
Daniel
Actually, I gave you proof that it was true. So, maybe you’re just blind or something.
Or maybe, you cretin, I understand that one example of admitting you’re wrong doesn’t mean you always do so.
And once again you refuse to address the actual arguments put forward. Are you just leading me on for the pleasure of it, seeing how many chances I’ll give you to debate honestly? Are you like a little kid dropping a spoon to see how many times the parent will pick it up?
Address the fucking argument, Lib. Quit playing games.
Daniel
OK switch off etiquette mode
Libertarian has always seemed to me to be a person with strong views. Some of his Christian views I have agreed with, some of his political views I have disagreed with. None the less I always found his debating skill to be of high quality, and his reasoning solid (even when I might disagree with his original assumptions). Recently what I have read of his has seemed to me to be far less reasoned, and has seemed like the work of someone who is far inferior of the Libertarian I had come to expect on these boards. From my own experience, I tend to be at my worst when upset or stressed. This leads me to fear that Libertarian is upset or stressed out by something. As he is someone I respect on these boards (maybe second only to Polycarp) I hope this change that is to me apparently for the worse in Libertarian’s posting is not due to something bad happening in his life, and that it is temporary.
switch on etiquette mode
Lib you seem a great guy, but recently you haven’t been seeming so great.
I have to admit to your point, although I wasn’t trying to imply that the thread was bigoted-granted I can see that my original wording wasn’t the best.
To tell the truth, I hadn’t read all the goings on of the previous thread (which is my mistake) and my response was a little too casual I suppose.
So let me go back to the original thread, that was linked by the op.
"I would like to nominate this for the 2003 Lebon Award ™ .
Lebon Award would be Nobel backwards. Nobel awards are for people(s) advancing the human race, Lebon Awards are for those who are trying to desperately set humanity back through their uneducated, poorly -if-at all- researched diatribe, fear and ignorance mongerers and general hatred towards humankind.
Please submit your found entries and catagory they should be entered in." (bolding mine)
Now let’s not be pedantic here (by that I mean that it was said that because it said religous nutjob in the title, it doesn’t matter if the OP changed after that, and any attempt to post what the OP asked for is a hijack), and let’s not drag up what Lib use to be like, or isn’t like anymore, since I don’t see the relevance by the link given. The link was titled “Religious Nutjob”, then went on to talk about this award. Clearly they asked for additional entries, and clearly they didn’t expect it to be kept to only religious nutjobs. If that was the case, why ask what " category" if there was only one. I fail to see how Lib’s posts were a hijack of the thread until he started getting his character questioned, since I’d still classify his posts as religious nutjobs, albeit not ‘fundie religious nutjobs’. Again, I fail to see what Lib’s done wrong. If the main issue is genuine concern for his health, I would think a private message/email would be more apropos, instead of questioning it in a place that, as far as I can see, people seem to jump into any character attack, whether warranted or not.
If it’s because some have noticed a change in his posting, then does this justify a pitting?
Svt4him, Lib admitted himself he was hijacking: he said he posted in order to make the very important point that not all nutjobs were religious in nature. That utterly obvious point was irrelevant to the thread. Do you think he was lying when he gave his reason for his post?
And pointing out that the thread title itself says “Religious Nutjob” isn’t pedantic at all: it’s called taking things in context. The fact that you’re able to excerpt from the OP a section that doesn’t mention religion is irrelevant. You gotta take the whole shebang in context to provide proper analysis.
Had the OP not mentioned religious nutjobs, and had lib not intended to hijack the thread, then his post about atheist nutjobs would have been inoffensive. Neither of those things were true.
And he still fails to address the argument.
Daniel
Then what did the OP mean when they asked which category they would fall into, it the only category was religious nutjobs? Do you see how it could be a bit confusing then if you only stuck to the title? I think the context of the linked OP was not so much religious nutjobs, but people deserving of this lebon award, but if you choose to read it otherwise, I don’t believe you are any more right or wrong. If I said I believe so and so would fall into the category of teenage nutjob, have I changed the context of the OP? Maybe I’m getting pedantic, but it seems to be ‘religious’ should have said ‘Christian’ and the whole award thing should have been left out, especially the ‘which category’ part. And I did mention it got hijacked, but it seemed to me it didn’t happen right away, as some claimed.
Svt4him, Lib admitted what he was doing. No semantics-games will change that. I’m totally uninterested in what you’re arguing now.
Lemme put the question before you: do YOU see a problem with a thread on religious nutjobs, given the arguments in this thread? If you do, please address the arguments.
Daniel
Daniel
What argument? A dog howling at the moon is not an argument.
You do not speak for me; therefore, do not present your words as my own. Making a relevant comment is not hijacking a thread.
Bippy
I do appreciate your concern, which I know for a certainty is genuine. Sometimes, we do not hear the argument a man is making over the din that swallows it.
I have already invited anyone interested to show why I am mistaken, and I have proved many times that I am willing to admit any error. Nothing in that regard has changed.
I invite you, in particular, if you have found a weakness in my argument to point it out to me.
Again with the lies, libertarian. Are you saying my post to minty was equivalent with a dog howling at the moon?
You’re a piece of shit. I’m done here.
Daniel
Lib, that apology was pretty gracious. Your initial post didn’t erk me, just the later ones that claimed that the Church was justified in claiming that condoms were completely ineffective against fighting aids. If they’re effective even only 84% of the time, they’re still better than nothing.
Aha, hadn’t read that bit. Lib, I think he’s referring to the argument that hijacking the thread was tantamount to hijacking a cat story thread with dog stories, or claiming that a thread where silly cats were highlighted insinuated that all cats are silly.
The dog howling at the moon comment? Duckery at it’s finest, as far as I can see.
Thanks Lib your reply has done much to allay my worries. I doubt I can find any misstakes in your posts, and even if I did find something that was a deffinate misstake it wouldn’t be important (god knows I make plenty of misstakes). My worries were more based on how your posts came accross to me, and that being very subjective is hard for me to point out by citing particular posts. I have seen several posters seem to be Lib hunting recently, and that is unjustifiable, and I know I wouldn’t react well to that sort of atmosphere myself.
[Buddhist Monk]: “Libertarian, don’t look at the finger pointing at the moon, look at the moon.”
[Libertarian]: “Okay, sure.” [looks at moon]
[Monk takes advantage of the opening and backhands Lib across the face with his upraised hand.]
Bippy, Lib hunting? I’m sorry, but when Lib explodes in a thread where it’s uncalled for, (this wasn’t an explosion, by my classification, although he did become very unreasonable in late-thread) and he’s pitted, that isn’t Lib hunting. That’s pitting Lib for going way out of line, just like a lot of other posters would’ve done. Some people are getting a little tired of Lib’s attitude, but Lib-hunting? Something tells me that a similar term wouldn’t be applied to a less-respected poster who had stepped out of line multiple times recently.
Is Libertarain OK?
No. Libertarian is pretty fucking far from “OK.”
Libertarian is a shellshocked footsoldier of truth and goodwill wandering dazed and stupified across the battlefield of human frailty, a falstaffian hero both noble and total putz.
His journey symbolizes the inner search for truth and light that all of us would take had we only the reserves of courage, inner strength, compassion and total putzitude of this falstaffian clown.
Say again all after “what the fuck.” Over
So, Scylla, he’s a fighter-clown against ignorance who’s stumbling around on a frail battlefield? What what what?
Explain in language that a gadfry could understand, please.
Amazing…simply amazing. I mildly indicated in a thread that someone I met in the line of work was off center, and got pitted for it by some lamebrain. Now here you all are calling people “nutjobs” and this guy is nowhere to be seen. The humanity! 