Thank you, Dopers and (eventually) Pitters!

[Liberal]

@What Exit

You do not need to agree with my observations, but you fully appeared to have behaved very immaturely and in bad faith in this particular thread.

That’s what happens when you get a brief glimpse of an elephant from a quarter inch away. Let me give you the bigger picture.

Pseudotriton Ruber Ruber has barked, brayed, and bellowed ceaselessly for some time now all over the board about how ignorant, stupid, and irrational people of faith are. Mind you, he puts forward no supporting argument, but merely the claim. The whole of his case is chest thumping and wailing.

He does not limit his wild animal behavior to the Pit. He cackaws his way into IMHO to hackle the faithful, where he is called out. You can search yourself for similar instances in Great Debates as well.

Always, it is the same — a backhanded slap to introduce his topic, followed by full-on insults and accusations when people begin responding. The claims are always the same — we faithful are incapable of reason, a danger to ourselves and to society, and hopelessly tuned out of reality. The supporting argument, too, is always the same — empty.

In addition to all this, he does not read the responses to him. Or more precisely, he mines the responses for buttons he can push, words he can twist, and language that he can paraphrase into something unrecognizable. What made your chastisement so surprising to me was the fact that this particular trait of his is indeed visible right here in this thread!

Look back yourself, and you will see that I raised a possibility, which he called an offer. I then made an actual offer that he rejected. He called his rejection my withdrawal — all the while making it crystal clear that a bit of cash would silence the views that he had always maintained were put forth for noble causes. Imagine my shock when you turned your guns at me.

The last time I attempted to actually engage him was after his claim that faith is a choice, and that we could simply choose not to believe. And yet, when I challenged him to choose to believe in God, he tap-danced for a bit and then finally declared that he simply didn’t want to. When cornered, he demured that he could believe if he chose to, but simply wasn’t to be bothered.

I’d just had enough. Simple as that. Nothing is going to shut the dumbass up. I raised the possibility of bribing him to shut him up only because all else had failed. If he were making arguments like SentientMeat or Voyager or any number of other atheists, I would never even consider such a thing. But he brings nothing but garbage. Trash. Worthless rhetorical vomit. He is, in fact, a net negative for the atheist argument.

And frankly, I suspect that Zoe is right. Pseudotriton Ruber Ruber’s command of the English language is at the level of ninth-grade college-prep — not even the advanced classes. He has the social maturity of a ten-year-old. The intellectual honesty of a Soviet bureaucrat. And the reasoning skills of a lobotomized lab rat. If he is a college professor of English, then he is at the extreme low end of the bell curve, representing every failure and pitfall of our educational system.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

No one, least of all me, Frank, is asking for (or finding reasonable) a fresh start from absolutely neutral with each blessed post. You know better than that.

But it would be utterly unreasonable to engage with every poster primarily on the basis of past issues with that poster, too, wouldn’t it?

It’s not established that this is happening with every poster, or even most posters, though. It does happen with posters who have become inextricably linked with a particular issue. Like it or not, any post of yours with “theism” in it carries a particular stigma and carries the risk of a particular brand of derisive response, much like EvilCaptor and “bondage”, Reeder and “Bush”, Sevastapol and “capitalism”, handy and “medical advice”, Aldeberan and “US’er”, and Aeschines and “the”.

Well, maybe that last one is just me.

I don’t see the point of encouraging people in general to begin engaging with any poster PRIMARILY on the basis of that poster’s past or of poor perceptions of that poster, etc. If I started shit here, sure, I’m going to deserve to catch some shit coming back my way, but why not let me say at least one truly offensive thing before getting offended?

If I may advise, you’ve accumulated quite a large account of past offenses. I suggest a self-imposed moratorium on use of the word “theism” and related concepts for a few months to the point where if you start a thread on kittens or weather or something and someone says “yeah, but aren’t you the guy who thinks Christians are idjits?” you could plausibly give him a rolleyes smiley for his irrelevant statement and might actually get some defenders. It’ll take some time.

[Captain_Carrot]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

If it were fine and dandy to apply that standard, then you’re claiming that if Poly starts a thread on biology, say, it’s fine for me to come on and fulminate on his selective reading of the New Testament, not because it makes any sense to do so there, but simply because I have an issue with him on that subject in some previous threads?

I think Frank is saying that people approach the post knowing what you or Poly have been like in the past, not the specific topics you’ve discussed. If Polycarp started a thread on biology, it would be perfectly appropriate for you to respond to what he says keeping in mind the beliefs he’s displayed in the past: not focusing on them or addressing them, mind you, just using them to help tailor your post.

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

I’m well aware that my manner of engaging people strikes some as ineffective.

Dude, it strikes virtually everyone as ineffective. Yelling at people and insulting them from your superior position is not the way to get them to consider what you’re saying.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Bryan Ekers

If I may advise, you’ve accumulated quite a large account of past offenses. I suggest a self-imposed moratorium on use of the word “theism” and related concepts for a few months to the point where if you start a thread on kittens or weather or something and someone says “yeah, but aren’t you the guy who thinks Christians are idjits?” you could plausibly give him a rolleyes smiley for his irrelevant statement and might actually get some defenders. It’ll take some time.

So your advice is to tolerate having my positions intentionally misrepresented for the indefinite future? If someone claims that I believe Xians are idiots or stupid or brain-damaged, which I’ve never claimed as far as I can recall (if you have an example, please cite it and I’ll promptly apologize for misrepresenting my beliefs), when I have started a recent thread specifically to assert in the negative my answer to “Are Xians stupid?”, you would advise me to allow this misrepresentation to stand, more or less endlessly? I think I’ll leave the SD first, and now I’m not leaving the SD until I get paid properly. (And to think that yesterday morning, I was considering leaving without any payment, until Liberal raised the possibility that my permanent withdrawal could be financially rewarding.) If this consistent misrepresentation of my views is the price I have to pay for voicing support for an unpopular poster, then I guess I’ll have to pay it, but I will insist on pointing out where I’m being misrepresented and maligned in the future. But (and this is sincere) thanks for the advice, even if I prefer continued conflict to submission.

FTR, I’m not sure what damage my low reputation can sustain at this point to lower it further, but I’m glad to see the new depths that such people as **Liberal ** and Zoe are sinking to in continuing to pile on. As I said above, I can’t make this shit up.

[Frank]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

But it would be utterly unreasonable to engage with every poster primarily on the basis of past issues with that poster, too, wouldn’t it? It would seem that you’re encouraging stalking and harassment as a virtuous practice by taking that absurd standard, which I’m guessing is not (despite the above-quoted post) representative of your actual view.

I didn’t say primarily. I said informed by.

I suspect I could talk with (for instance) you about (for instance) baseball, and have a more or less clean slate, until the moment the topic of the singing of God Bless America in the seventh-inning stretch came up. At that point my side of the conversation is going to become influenced by my knowledge of your views on religion. Can’t be helped. That doesn’t make it stalking or harassment.

[Polycarp]

PRR: Thanks for your response in post #108. You and I seem to have different standards for what constitutes “civil discourse” vis-a-vis misrepresentation, vitriol, red herrings, stalkerish behavior, etc. And having a personal awareness of what that sort of abusive argument feels like on the receiving end, I sympathize with how you apparently feel.

To which I can only add: change your approach. If it appears that you are coming across as a supercilious twit who cannot be bothered to substantiate his allegations, tone down the evaluative comments and ramp up the substantiation underlying your assertions. I’m never afraid to tackle tough questions in a fair even-handed exchange. If, on the other hand, you (generic “you” not PRR in particular) care to bring up something stupid I said five years ago, insist that I stand by the precise wording of something I said that was expressed poorly, etc., as Badchad appeared to do, whenever and whatever I ventured to essay a comment on a religious thread, or choose to switch arguments in midstream and levy a few dozen more accusations, and to create a fantasy of a monolithic Christianity that adheres to the same standards, as Valteron seemed fond of doing, then I would claim you are not arguing in good faith. Likewise with taking a writing by some extremist and holding it up as if it were a consensus statement of faith. Even if what you are saying is in fact your own firm views, you’re playing the rhetorical equivalent of three-card monte. There have been occasions, Dr Ruber, when I reacted negatively to your comments because it appeared that (one or more of the above, which are collectively a “what I find objectionable in opponents” summary) was just what you were doing. For that, if you did not intend it in that manner, you have my apologies.

[Crotalus]

There was some question above about the source of the antipathy that some feel toward Pseudotriton ruber ruber. For me, and perhaps for others, it began in this thread , where he was condescending and rude in CS, followed up by this Pit thread he started in response , in which he essentially got his ass handed to him on the very subject he had been condescending about. A subject on which his academic credentials should make him something of an authority, at least outside academia. That’s when he went from just another frequent, verbose poster to a flaming asshole in my opinion.

[cosmosdan]

IMHO PRR is just trying to follow in the footsteps of his hero badchad He’s not quite as abrasive and blatant in his insults, but neither does he raise actual interesting points. It’s just an attention game. He has no intention of having an honest discussion in any thread I’ve seen him in. My suggestion is to make very few attempts to have a serious discussion with him. It seems futile and a waste of what might be an interesting thread.

[wonky]

@Crotalus

That’s when he went from just another frequent, verbose poster to a flaming asshole in my opinion.

That’s when I noticed him for the first time, and that first impression has never gone away. It left a very bad taste in my mouth for someone to say, essentially, “I have evidence of my point but I’m not gonna tell you.”

This is the same trick he’s pulled in every incident with tomndebb since then. “I could show you, but you wouldn’t believe me/aren’t ready to learn/don’t deserve to know.”

[Colibri]

@Crotalus

There was some question above about the source of the antipathy that some feel toward Pseudotriton ruber ruber. For me, and perhaps for others, it began in this thread , where he was condescending and rude in CS, followed up by this Pit thread he started in response , in which he essentially got his ass handed to him on the very subject he had been condescending about. A subject on which his academic credentials should make him something of an authority, at least outside academia. That’s when he went from just another frequent, verbose poster to a flaming asshole in my opinion.

Same for me. My impression of prr before those threads was mainly positive. My opinion of him fell drastically after that.

With regard to the religion/atheism issues, although I don’t often get involved in the threads I do sometimes look at them. Even though I am a strong atheist, I think prr’s approach is counterproductive. Even if I may agree with him on some of the issues, I don’t think acting like a jerk so persistently helps the cause.

[What_Exit]

@Frank

I didn’t say primarily. I said informed by.

I suspect I could talk with (for instance) you about (for instance) baseball, and have a more or less clean slate, until the moment the topic of the singing of God Bless America in the seventh-inning stretch came up. At that point my side of the conversation is going to become influenced by my knowledge of your views on religion. Can’t be helped. That doesn’t make it stalking or harassment.

Nope, not baseball. I got into a fierce argument with him and some other Bill James/SABR disciples over whether clutch players existed. This was not as loud as the Theist debate, but just as vehement. So depending on what side of this debate, it could get ugly. BTW, Baseball is as close as I get to a religion an I found it possible to forgive him his point of view and abuse about my intelligence.

@Crotalus

There was some question above about the source of the antipathy that some feel toward Pseudotriton ruber ruber. For me, and perhaps for others, it began in this thread , where he was condescending and rude in CS, followed up by this Pit thread he started in response , in which he essentially got his ass handed to him on the very subject he had been condescending about. A subject on which his academic credentials should make him something of an authority, at least outside academia. That’s when he went from just another frequent, verbose poster to a flaming asshole in my opinion.

I never saw this one, but then I do not wander into poetry threads. He did appear out of line. I cannot speak to how this disproves his credentials. I am most definitely not qualified for anything to do with poetry.

Jim

[Bryan_Ekers]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

So your advice is to tolerate having my positions intentionally misrepresented for the indefinite future? If someone claims that I believe Xians are idiots or stupid or brain-damaged, which I’ve never claimed as far as I can recall (if you have an example, please cite it and I’ll promptly apologize for misrepresenting my beliefs), when I have started a recent thread specifically to assert in the negative my answer to “Are Xians stupid?”, you would advise me to allow this misrepresentation to stand, more or less endlessly?

Pretty much, yes. The issue at hand is not critical enough to warrant your current course, as far as I can tell.

I think I’ll leave the SD first

Well, it’s entirely possible you may end up not having that choice. Of the users I cited, several were banned or suspended because they couldn’t let a pet issue go. If you can get your $500 from Liberal (an ill-considered offer if ever I saw one), I suggest taking it, if you’re unwilling or unable to modify your posting habits. I’m pretty sure Reeder and December didn’t get a dime.

If this consistent misrepresentation of my views is the price I have to pay for voicing support for an unpopular poster, then I guess I’ll have to pay it, but I will insist on pointing out where I’m being misrepresented and maligned in the future. But (and this is sincere) thanks for the advice, even if I prefer continued conflict to submission.

This may sound all noble and honourable and such, but it’s somewhat undercut by you saying you’d take Liberal’s money to go away. “I’ll fight to the last drop of my blood, or until the check clears, whichever comes first!” Anyway, if you don’t want to be misrepresented (and you won’t drop the subject entirely), is it possible for you to take a few minutes and write up a detailed essay describing your views as accurately as you can, without actually insulting anyone? And by not being insulting, I mean making a really serious effort to say “this is what I believe” without adding or implying “people who believe otherwise are ignorant”. Then you can refer back to this essay any time you feel you’re being misrepresented and not get into endless quarrels.

Heck, I’d even help you edit it into final form before you post it, because I enjoy a good intellectual exercise now and then and an articulate atheist manifesto (atheisto?) is something I was thinking about writing, myself.

[Zoe]

A Challenge for Pseudo ruber ruber:

First, your statements:

Zoe and Liberal, two very abusive and insincere posters. I wouldn’t shut them up for the world, because I think they put on display their own worst qualities the more they post. It is (as I’m sure you’ll agree) distasteful to be repeatedly correcting malicious statements about oneself that get repeated despite one’s previous corrections, so it’s true that I wish they’d move on rather than simply keep repeating the same tired and thoroughly discredited memes…

I will insist on pointing out where I’m being misrepresented and maligned in the future.

I’m glad to see the new depths that such people as Liberal and Zoe are sinking to in continuing to pile on.

Then there is no time like the present to begin pointing out where you are being misrepresented and maligned by anything I said about you in this thread. Why not look at my accusations one by one and ask for cites from me? After all, you have said that one’s arguments are more important than being civil, right? Part of a good argument is being able to provide cites for one’s claims.

Or you can provide cites of your own, of course.

Now, my statements. Which of the following has been thoroughly discredited, misrepresents the truth of what transpired, or unfairly maligns your presence at the SDMB?

1.Nothing that I have seen has convinced me that he is a member of the teaching profession.

2. A certain level of language arts skills are expected of English teachers. (Have I not given you examples of such disasters in your posts as incoherent sentences, run-on sentences, single sentence paragraphs, misuse of elipses, and use of the wrong person pronoun with the gerund?

3. And 100% of the academics that I have met remember what their doctrates(sic) [doctorates] were in. That isn’t something that slips the mind over two or three decades unless they suffer from dementia or brain damage. Isn’t it true that you have been confused here about what your doctorate was in? Creative Writing, European Literature (or was it English Lit?) and American Literature have all been possibilities at one time or another.

4. He is considerably naive about the responsibilities and powers of department chairs. He doesn’t seem to know how classes are selected, organized, funded, etc. (Why do you teach classes on subjects in which you have no training? That is unthinkable! With an English department of seventy teachers, this university has to be accredited. There are rules about that sort of thing!

Do you really think that departments would be in the position of electing the person who would be able to fire them? Do you think that the methods that the teachers are required to use have to change with every chairman? You have admitted to being lazy. Why would a department elect a lazy chairman? How can you possibly have so much time on your hands to spend at the Dope? How much time do you spend preparing for each hour of class? Describe the accreditation process committees.

5. His responses to criticism and even correction (example: Bryan’s correction on spelling his name) indicate to me that he would not hold up well in an academic setting where criticism from peers is expected and even encouraged. Criticism from students might provoke a very unprofessional response. Over time, I don’t think he could deal with the reality. Therefore, I don’t think that he has ever been a classroom teacher. That’s just my opinion as a twenty year veteran of “the front lines.”

(In other words, you don’t handle criticism and correction well. You are even paranoid when someone says something humble to you.)
If your sentences were not so frequently poorly constructed, I might believe your claims that you are the chair of a large English department.

We can use this thread as an example and I’ve tried not to pay any attention to your syntax. Yet, I fully admit that you really are gifted with words. You make the mistake of writing the way you talk.

:
PRR: 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…

Zoe: I think there is some truth in that, but I don’t know Liberal’s motives.

ruber, you have a flamboyant style and a good storytelling ability if you would just exercise a little control. Have you ever looked into oral storytelling traditions, folktales, etc? They seem to be growing in popularity. Theater is another possibility. You do have the gift of gab. It just doesn’t translate well to the written word. I would think that you would make an entertaining host but a difficult roommate.

And how are these statements “memes”?

Why do you try to use humiliation as a teaching technique?

Why didn’t you discuss Emerson with me? You said he was your hero. You claimed that he had more in common with your point of view than the Christian point of view and challenged me to discuss it. But when I brought up the Transcendentalists and their beliefs, you just dropped it.

I’m sure that a lot of people don’t know me here, but a few people know me well. I have memory problems – short term and long term. I don’t remember how I came to be on this board in the first place. Don’t even know how I found it or was told about it. Whatever. I can’t afford to be “insincere.” I would get caught too easily if I started telling tales. And it is very confusing to me when people deceive me. It’s hard enough to keep up with the real stuff.

So, ruber, which of those things that I’ve said has been “previously corrected”? Provide a cite or they are not going to believe you.

I wish that you felt good enough about yourself that you didn’t have to build a false self.

What Exit?, you’re okay. Glad you could see my kidding. Teachers are as protective of their profession as doctors and lawyers. No one is pickier than an English teacher. (I really do know how to spell doctor and therefore, doctorates, but I have a horrible time with spelling in general. If you think that people are paranoid around English teachers, think how an English teacher must feel!)

[Liberal]

@Zoe

I think there is some truth in that, but I don’t know Liberal’s motives.

He balked at the terms I gave him. How is there “some truth” to the lie that I “scuttled away”? A person would have to be insane to pay him in advance for something he hasn’t yet done. He was to get his bribe after what I thought was sufficient time to prove he was really gone. Why would you join him in twisting the facts as they exist in this thread?

[What_Exit]

@Liberal

He balked at the terms I gave him. How is there “some truth” to the lie that I “scuttled away”? A person would have to be insane to pay him in advance for something he hasn’t yet done. He was to get his bribe after what I thought was sufficient time to prove he was really gone. Why would you join him in twisting the facts as they exist in this thread?

**Liberal ** putting aside the question of whether you weaseled or not, do you understand the offer you made should never have been made except maybe as a jest. It was pretty foul and twisted. How would you react to an offer of $500 to go away? Maybe we would have to up it to $5000 to get your attention. Either way, would you not consider it to be in very bad taste?

Your offer was nasty. Just call the man a jerk and a troll and be done with it. That is how things get done around here. Your offer, your bribe of $500 plays right into the hands of your own detractors that have claimed you have tried to buy special treatment over the years. It was a very ill considered thing to do.

Jim

[Zoe]

Liberal: Why would you join him in twisting the facts as they exist in this thread?

That is one of the most bizarre straight lines I’ve read on the Dope. I missed refuting two words that he said about you, so now I have joined him “in twisting the facts as they exist in this thread.” My point was that I was agreeing with PRR that he has a “filthy lying mouth” (his words).

[Liberal]

@What Exit?

**Liberal ** putting aside the question of whether you weaseled or not, do you understand the offer you made should never have been made except maybe as a jest. It was pretty foul and twisted. How would you react to an offer of $500 to go away? Maybe we would have to up it to $5000 to get your attention. Either way, would you not consider it to be in very bad taste?

Your offer was nasty. Just call the man a jerk and a troll and be done with it. That is how things get done around here. Your offer, your bribe of $500 plays right into the hands of your own detractors that have claimed you have tried to buy special treatment over the years. It was a very ill considered thing to do.

Jim

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8248116&postcount=121

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Liberal

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8248116&postcount=121

“Hackle the faithful”? In that instance, he’s just hackling you, on an issue that has nothing directly to do with faith, except in the sense of financial offers made (I expect) in bad faith.

[Liberal]

@Bryan Ekers

“Hackle the faithful”? In that instance, he’s just hackling you, on an issue that has nothing directly to do with faith, except in the sense of financial offers made (I expect) in bad faith.

“Pseudotriton Ruber Ruber has barked, brayed, and bellowed ceaselessly for **some time now all over the board ** about how ignorant, stupid, and irrational people of faith are.”

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8248116&postcount=121

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Bryan Ekers

Anyway, if you don’t want to be misrepresented (and you won’t drop the subject entirely), is it possible for you to take a few minutes and write up a detailed essay describing your views as accurately as you can, without actually insulting anyone? And by not being insulting, I mean making a really serious effort to say “this is what I believe” without adding or implying “people who believe otherwise are ignorant”. Then you can refer back to this essay any time you feel you’re being misrepresented and not get into endless quarrels.

Heck, I’d even help you edit it into final form before you post it, because I enjoy a good intellectual exercise now and then and an articulate atheist manifesto (atheisto?) is something I was thinking about writing, myself.

Thanks for your offer. Sounds like a worthy project.

FTR, though, I think we’re all ignorant, and that “ignorant” is not so much an insult as people take it to be. And I believe almost any assertion by anyone can be taken to imply “I think my position is the correct one and that other people’s positions are incorrect,” but an oversensitive reader may choose to infer all sorts of insulting implications that aren’t particularly important to a speaker’s confident tone.

That said, I agree: such a manifesto would be clearer if it omitted insulting remarks. It would begin with the bland assertion that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and then proceed to classify theistic belief as an extraordinary claim.

For all practical purposes, we can call that chapter one of my manifesto, because I think that classification rankles most believers in religion. I don’t see much use in proceeding further (though I too enjoy tasks that are not very useful) because i suspect that now, two sentences into the manifesto, I’ve already divided us sharply into two warring camps, the atheists who think my two statements are simply accurate, and the theists who feel that I’ve insulted them to the core of their souls.

If we break irrevocably into opposed camps at this early stage, there’s really little need to move on into detailed discussions of fine points about Xian doctrine, the historicity of the New Testament, and all that other stuff. I’m a hard-liner on this basic stuff–I absolutely refuse to budge an inch off the contention that the existence of a sentient being who precedes the known universe is an extraordinary claim.

I suppose chapter two would entertain the notion that all sorts of evidence has been put forth to argue for the possibility of such a sentient being, but that none of this evidence remotely qualifies as “extraordinary” evidence. Some of it is very weak, some of it is arguably plausible, but none of it is extraordinarily persuasive to any party approaching the issue with an open mind.

But I argue for now that chapter two would be getting into dangerous territory, because many theists are probably offended that their claims of evidence are being rejected out of hand, while they “know” (through personal revelation and the like) that this sentient being does exist and that his existence is the single most important thing to understand about this universe. IOW, they reject chapter one’s validity because this one extraordinary claim requires no extraordinary evidence to be validated.

The breakdown, to my mind, is very simple–there are complicating strains to it, of course, but the first two sentences of the manifesto places the burden of proof clearly on the theists, and they pretty much reject the validity of those two sentences, which are little other than rational. They wish to apply a standard which is essentially irrational. I don’t intend for “irrational” to be anything other than descriptive but my descriptive term is often taken as insulting fighting words by theists, and the fight, alas, is on.

Would you like the manifesto to begin at a different point from the one I choose to start with? Why? (And if you’d like to cut-and-paste this into another thread, perhaps in GD, feel free. It may be the way to go.) There may be mainly political chapters to write in this manifesto, about how wrong it is (given the weak foundation of theistic belief) to privilege theistic beliefs in our society above atheistic ones, but I think this may extend the simple and elegant argument for atheism into another contentious area, that of temporal politics, and that may not be appropriate for a manifesto justifying atheism. Atheism exists in the context of theism and its millions of advocates whose assumptions about the universe influences the way most people on this planet are compelled to live their lives, so I’m not sure there’s any way to couch a more intricate and detailed manifesto without rubbing some theists the wrong way.

The argument “Atheists, just shut up already” translates into “Atheists, live as marginalized, disrespected and oppressed members of a theistic culture and shut up already” but I contend that my first two statements aren’t very much yakking and already I can see theists stopping their ears at the end of my sencond sentence, so “already” means “after saying almost nothing at all.”