# pseudotriton ruber ruber: ignorant and intellectually dishonest is no way to go through life **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 31, 2011, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudotriton-ruber-ruber-ignorant-and-intellectually-dishonest-is-no-way-to-go-through-life/594768 "2011-08-31T17:31:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 72
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2011, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudotriton-ruber-ruber-ignorant-and-intellectually-dishonest-is-no-way-to-go-through-life/594768/72 "2011-09-04T23:50:40Z")
In reply to [prr’s post 189](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14214959&postcount=189) in the original thread: > [@Jesus Christ as your fantasy dinner guest](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-christ-as-your-fantasy-dinner-guest/593476/189): > > Accepted. First off, **prr** , you should be aware that my apology was to **tomndebb** for having necessitated his intervention. There’s a nontrival amount of work involved on the part of mods and admins in keeping this zoo running on an even keel. I should have the decency to not add to their workload. Having failed in that, I felt I owed **tom** an apology. I didn’t feel an apology was due you, in view of remarks like “no thanks to RT’ s attempts to turn this into the Pit-lite,” given remarks on your part like > [@](#): > > I seem to have irritiated RT Firefly into a snit good and proper. > > so you don’t get all defensive about your poor picked-on little God > > you go into a snit > > you’re running around chasing your tail, having a conniption fit > > your name-calling and your temper tantrums which I’d detailed in post 165, some 20+ posts earlier. (And there was more of the same after that, of course.) Not that I was innocent myself, but in view of that, it’s hard for me to trust, or want to apologize to, someone who’s trying to dump all the blame on me for the tone of the discussion when they’ve done more than their share of poisoning the well. > [@](#): > > If you’d like to get off to a fresh start, **RT** , I’m trying to figure out on what basis. I meant what I said in the post tomndebb intervened over: when you said > [@](#): > > In my own personal opinion, for which I am being castigated, and Pitted (Oh, the agony!) they would hear a very loud BZZZZT! for this valiant attempt if that’s really what you thought, then you really can’t read, because it doesn’t bother me in the least that you don’t believe that Jesus wasn’t the only begotten son of God. This board’s full of people who don’t believe that, and good luck in finding an instance of my taking anyone to task for it. Alternatively, I suppose, you could be trying to distort my dislike of your logic into a dislike of your nonbelief just so you don’t have to defend your logic. I can’t really determine your motives, but there’s an argument to be made for this, given your reluctance to make a case for the rules of your game. > [@](#): > > I’ll try being clearer and more all-inclusive, in setting forth my understanding of the rules, and you might try giving me the credit I’m asking for in not just playing a gotcha game but rather trying to set a very high standard for historical personages. Why should I? If the premise is that some omniscient entity will return the person invited if you’ve managed to describe exactly one person in history, rather than 0 persons or 2 or more persons, _that’s the essential standard_, and there’s no earthly reason why that wouldn’t be every bit as high as it needed to be. You’ve never tried to explain why additional standards would be necessary; all they could do that the essential standard wouldn’t do would be to exclude actual historical figures who could otherwise be invited, or at least make it considerably trickier to get them to the dinner table. Absent such an explanation, there’s no sense, no underlying logic, to the game. And for that reason, there’s no interest on anyone’s part in playing it. Hopefully you’ve noticed that nobody at all has cared to play your game; you’ve driven everyone off. It’s not just me. I’ve just been more persistent in trying to wrestle with you over this. > [@](#): > > I’ve already stated that I think Jesus is possibly playable, according to those standards, based on his name alone (“Jesus of Nazareth”) and on the facts, such as they are: “A preacher, crucified by the Romans during Pontius Pilate’s rule.” It’s not much, and if someone wants to substantiate that more with facts (I’m not sure of the historical Pilate’s title–proconsul, maybe?), I’ll be fine with that. The remaining question I have concerns whether Jesus actually existed (likely, but far from definitely, to my mind) and if “Jesus of Nazareth” was the only such person with that name in that time crucified for unspecified crimes under Pilate (again, likely though not definitely). I don’t care. The rules make no sense to me, I don’t find their logic interesting, let alone compelling. And no, it’s got nothing to do with whether Jesus actually lived, or your opinion versus mine concerning the likelihood of his having existed. Your continual assertion that that is why I don’t like your game has no basis in anything that I’ve said in the thread, and is totally disingenuous. I’ve got no reason to think you’re going to stop blaming all your problems in this thread on God. Being more clear when you’re clarifying the rules (like letting us know that that’s what you were doing) would have been a good thing along the way, but it’s way late for that. Nah, no point in a fresh start. Sorry. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudotriton-ruber-ruber-ignorant-and-intellectually-dishonest-is-no-way-to-go-through-life/594768)._