No, no, Captain Carrot. What he did was to pretend to pay someone to leave. Don’t confuse the two. I’m not especially eager to go, but I never thought there was much danger of it coming to that. I just wanted to show that Liberal was making a phony offer, which I think I’ve amply demonstrated by now.
True, and that now appears to have been a bad assumption. I’d contend it was a defensible addumption based on many eccentricities he has demonstrated amply over the years. Paying money to have you go away would have a lot of unintended consequences, almost certainly including mod action, but I wouldn’t put it past him.
Enjoy,
Steven
Why is the google ad for The Second Coming?
Is this in some way significant?
Is prr Christ reborn?
Does this in some way foreshadow the future?
C’mon, atheism is a very wholesome hobby for children. Let the kid have his fun.
Speculations about what I might have done notwithstanding, Pseudotriton Ruber Ruber, you nullified the offer anyway by posting.
You were irrational to turn me down.
I actually intended for Poly to execute it for me. I know him in real life and trust him. Tris would also be acceptable.
I agree, below is an example where one poster presumes to know more about what happened in someone else’s life than the person it actually happened to:
You’re totally full of shit, and your every post just advertises that fact more and more clearly. If you’d ever intended to involve Poly or Tris, both of whom I regard as honorable (probably far too honorable to get mixed with some bullshit scam of yours), you would have at least mentioned that in your post making the offer. (I notice that now it’s an “offer” again, and not just the possibility of one.) If you had mentioned this part of your fantasy, there would have been no need to present me with an arbitrary deadline or to put a two-year delay on paying me. You could have just given either of those gentlemen the money now, and I would have been content to stop posting for two years, because I would trust them to deliver the money in 2009. In fact, I’ll accept that as your offer right now, provided you can get either of them to agree to involving himself with you, and the two years will start as soon as one of them tells me he is holding $500 in cash from you for me. If you want to choose, Poly’s already got my mailing address, so I’d prefer him on that basis alone.
I know, I know, I ruined your fine upstanding offer by posting, so it’s no longer on the table. I don’t think your best friend on the SDMB or my worst enemy actually believes you were remotely sincere in making your offer. You were posturing, I called you on it, and now you’re trying to weasel your way out, in front of God and everybody, and we’re all laughing at your ineptness, your duplicity, and your apparent lack of five hundred dollars and two testicles.
Go ahead, weasel some more. I’m enjoying this.
“To know” is different from “to suspect,” and far different from to suspect what “probably” happened.
But your general point, and mine originally, is correct: I sometimes find that I’ve argued in a way that drives away agreement with me, rather than, as I wanted, attracting agreement.
As we all know, boys and girls, every time we propose a deal, we work out every single detail first before communicating with the other participant(s). After all, anything else is just not acting in good faith and changing the conditions of the agreement.
Well, he did want me to agree to it --or irrevocably give up any chance of ever getting an agreement–before working out the fine details of stuff like how he’d get me the money, or that the money we were discussing was U.S. dollars, or how he might be assured that I wouldn’t ever post here again–you know, small details like those. And it was critical that we reach this unilateral agreement by this morning because–uh, because-- can someone help me out here? All I’m coming up with is “The whole deal was posturing, empty rhetoric and bullshit from beginning to end.”
In any case, I’m more than willing to work through either of his two intermediaries or any one of a few dozen Dopers I can think of, and not much has changed between this morning and this evening, other than Liberal’s weasel-words. I’m also willing to work this out on the month-by-month basis I mentioned above, wth me voluntarily not posting for a month before I see (or the intermediary sees) a cent. I assure you, this can’t be worked out because the offer was never an offer in the first place. Liberal lied, is continuing to lie, and in defending him, mon capitan, you’re aligning yourself with a liar.
It’s either “mi capitano” or “mon capitain”, take your choice but don’t mix.
Well, I tell you, given his record during the past few months, I’d much rather stand with him than with you. I don’t think he lied (though there have been misinterpretations on both sides, and some of the things he said were kind of poorly-planned), but I do think you’re being a jackass in continuing to argue about this.
Quite frankly, you questioning my actions is not going to cause me to reconsider them.
Oh, snap! :rolleyes:
My French spelling is even worser than my English. I humbly beg your forgiveness.
Anyway, back to my OP for just a sec here, sorta: Do you see how Liberal’s zo-genante* “offer” fulfills what I was trying to discuss here? He tries to prove how noble he is (or something) in offering me crass money to shut my filthy lying mouth, and when I take him up on it, he scuttles away, thus showing everyone his lack of nobility. He wasn’t trying to show his dishonesty, he was trying to show off how earnestly he wished me gone. But he ended up showing that he was lying through his teeth, the exact phenomenon I pointed out in the OP.
Similarly, the trainwreck about punctuality has gotten really good, as various latesters have been setting up landmines right and left in their own path and putting on a hell of a show as they dance through this minefield. It’s strangely beautiful to observe, actually. They’re totally full of crap, yet they keep forcng me to re-define “totally” as they show more and more crap than I had thought there was to be displayed. It’s quite marvellous.
*my German spelling totally sucks. Apologies in advance.
Since I’m certain that I’m prominent among the unnamed persons alluded to in the third paragraph of the OP, and have a strong suspicion that it’s there just to see what kind of contrary-to-Jesus’s-principles rise he can get out of us, it behooves me to follow my Lord’s instructions, and to do it in a non-glurgy fashion (this being the Dope and all). And others have stressed how much PRR’s “My way or highway” screeds sound like a certain group of Christian proselytizers. So I’m fortunate to have access to the proper response, said by a better man than I, albeit to a quite different target audience:
Peace be with you, Dr. Ruber! 
Again, see my OP. People’s posts often have the opposite effect to what they intend them to have.
And is the point of this post, Poly, to show that in fact it is you who are capable of looking down your nose at me?
Not even close I believe. It looks like **Poly ** was volunteering to be there if you felt compelled to look down on someone else.
As far as Liberal, his offers was silly and useless and his adding conditions that nullified the offer was very weaselly. Bad job Liberal.
Jim
This is certainly true. For example, I used to think you were a relatively even-keeled, witty, intelligent person. Now I think you’re a meanspirited fruitcake. FWIW.
Because on its face, it constitutes a logical fallacy. Ten pages of personal attacks won’t invalidate a claim, but they won’t validate it, either.
There are, however, three flaws to this:[list=#][li]The claims of one Scientologist, or even a dozen Scientologists, don’t necessarily provide an accurate representation of the beliefs of all (or even most) Scientologists.[/li][li]Thought the hypothetical question is why Scientologists believe, the hypothetical and irrelevant response is what Scientologists believe. The question of “why” actually boils down to a relatively small handful of responses generic to pretty much all religions: mankind has a destiny; the universe has a purpose; life continues in some fashion after physical death; the universe in some fashion cares for mankind and watches over mankind, noting good deeds and bad; existence is not random; there is an overall plan, etc. These “big issue” questions have never and likely will never be tackled by science, thus assuming any of them to be true requires an act of faith. The trappings and rituals of specific religions, be they Jesus or Zeus or Xenu, are of relatively trivial importance, meant only to reduce the “big issue” ideas to a relatively graspable set of concepts: Jesus died on the cross for our sins; Zeus is father of the Gods; Xenu’s actions created thetans which affect modern humans. Asking “why” and getting caught up in “what” is a tangent. Following it is giving in to a thread hijack.[/li][li]It is not established that the hypothetical poster needs a justification for his “unsubstantiated ridicule” and “contempt” for the subject matter. There are, however, standards of behaviour. If one chooses to express ridicule and contempt (which again, need not be justified) it is perfectly understandable that ridicule and contempt will form a major part of the reaction (also not needing a particular justification, though it can point at the OP’s statements as clear provocation). The accomplishment of the OP is a tenuous one at best: he expressed contempt, he earned contempt in response, he feels renewed contempt for the respondents, who feel renewed contempt for him… what benefit to anyone does this escalation serve? What is the goal of the hypothetical OP? To reassure himself? There is a useful rhetorical tool known as “Socratic irony”, defined by asking a series of seemingly-innocent questions to allow an opponent to talk at length about his views and trap them in contradictions and fallacies, but that isn’t what your hypothetical OP is doing. Rather, it’s “I have contempt for your views; please explain them so my contempt is validated and deepened.” There isn’t even a pretense of seeking information; only ammunition.[/list][/li]At this late date, your contempt for religion is quite well established; so much so, in fact, that any thread you create in the near future that touches even slightly on religion will earn responses from posters who will cheerfully point out that they’re aware of your contempt and that nothing positive is likely to result from the discussion and that you must realize this yet comically persist, inviting ridicule. It hardy matters if any of this is true or not - it is the reputation you have cultivated by your actions. There may be some meta-significance to this process, i.e. you consider yourself above the level of those who ridicule you, and those who ridicule you are missing your point and you’ve managed, by getting them to ridicule you, to get them to ridicule themselves, but the value of this alleged success is of no measurable value - believing in it is, ironically, an act of faith with no definable benefit beyond some emotional satisfaction.
To the specific issues of people complaining about tardiness who themselves have flaws, or those who kite checks and complain about the results, your “discovery”, such as it is, is that people aren’t perfect. I don’t see what’s not to “get”, nor how pointing this out constitutes an insight or even how it demonstrated the need for this thread, but you’re a fully-paid member in reasonably good standing and as far as I know, you can start threads about anything you like (bound only by the basic board rules that all of us must abide). The connection tardiness complaints and check-kiting have to atheism are a bit too tortured and tenuous for me to take seriously, though, nor do I see them as a cultural flaw of the membership of this message board.
I am, I feel I should point out, making an honest attempt to avoid personal attacks. If you feel I’m not succeeding, I’ll make increased efforts in future.
As for the Brian/Bryan thing, I wasn’t concerned about it since it happens quite often.