|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
I go with 2 or 3.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Since I don't see a resolution coming soon, I'd say 2 as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
have the messages posted by any other EvC member at completely unrelated websites resulted in a massive hacking attempt against EvC, simply because I post here?
WTF?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In other words, you're using your well known propensity for intensely pissing people off as evidence of a conspiratorial vendetta. Well, hold on. I never said anything about a conspiracy. I don't think people are collaborating against me, I don't think that there is "behind the scenes" plotting going on on or anything like that. I'm just saying that there's something about my posts - even my completely legitimate, rational, dispassionate ones! - that trigger a disproportionate emotional response in people. It doesn't make any sense to me. Like, let's use the example of the hackers I seem to have pissed off; as it happens, I know exactly what I said that pissed them off. All I said was that I don't think women should be raped. The guy who showed up and hacked your website wasn't even the guy I was saying it to. I can't help it if my words have a magic power to drive people to emotional distraction. All I ask is that I not be the only one in the conversation who is subject to the Forum Guidelines.
What I do see is that you are taking up my time with, however significant and important they seem to you, frivolous issues. Well, look, Percy. I didn't ask you to insert yourself into that thread. I didn't ask you to say that you'd take a look as posts came in to see if I would be misrepresented. I didn't ask you to say that saying that you were going to do so was actually a joke. I didn't ask you to say a "moderator was now on duty" and then decide that actually moderating an issue in progress would be a waste of your time. I've not asked you to do anything you've done in this thread or the other. Everything I've done has been at your request, so how on Earth are you getting the idea that I'm taking up your time? Honestly, all you had to do was say "misrepresentation in this thread is not something that the moderators are concerned about" and that'd be it. I can't take any more of your time than you're prepared to give me. Say your piece, I'll say mine, and we'll be done. We'd have been done, except that you decided to attribute to me a position I don't actually hold. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I'll try to be clearer in the future, consider yourself fully informed about my actual position, now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
WTF? It was just something that happened back in 2010:
We're Back! Message 14:
quote: Message 1 quote: All of this was the result of a single post I had made - not one in a series, just a single one-off comment on a thread at one of the Gawker websites, Jezebel I think - saying that women shouldn't get raped. That was it. I just don't understand how it can be denied that even my reasonable, non-controversial posts cause some kind of dissociation rage in a certain small percentage of susceptible readers. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
From my point of view the problem we had was that your argument ("Jesus wasn't called Jesus Christ therefore he didn't exist") was batshit raving crazy and no sane person could possibly accept it. Any idea that I disagreed with it because you were making it is equally divorced from reality.
So I guess you need to improve your own evaluation of what is going wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Agreed, 2 or 3 is fine; if summation is offered I'll probably only quote my Message 373 which sums up my positions in that thread, anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
From my point of view the problem we had was that your argument ("Jesus wasn't called Jesus Christ therefore he didn't exist") But that wasn't my argument. That's a position you're attributing to me - perhaps unintentionally! - that I didn't espouse or actually hold. And I told you as much. Several times. I have to attribute the fact that you didn't listen to a personal, emotional response. Because you did get quite emotional, at the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well, Crash at the very least you made the argument that it was somehow significant to the idea of Jesus not existing. And that IS batshit crazy.
e.g.
Message 165
When "historical Jesus" proponents actually get around to describing who Jesus Christ actually was, they invariably produce an individual who wasn't named either Jesus or Christ. And the reason I say "wasn't executed by Romans" is because he doesn't seem to have been executed by Romans...
or Message 223
Well, no. We have an utterly implausible story of a "historical Jesus Christ" who wasn't named Jesus Christ, didn't do miracles, may not have been a carpenter, never gave the Sermon on the Mount, didn't magnify the fishes and loaves, wasn't executed by the Romans, and didn't rise from his grave three days later.
And I hope I don't need to go into the silliness of your "doesn't seem to have been executed by Romans" argument. Transliterations and translations are inevitable when you take words from one language to another with a different script. You HAVE to do one or the other. To assign any special significance to them is just silly. Edited by Admin, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Well, Crash at the very least you made the argument that it was somehow significant to the idea of Jesus not existing. And that IS batshit crazy. This is the wrong thread to re-litigate (unfortunately there's no open historical Jesus thread to move this to) but this would seem to be your admission that you were wrong. As your quotes show:
quote: Right, and that was the argument that I was making - when you assert, as the source of a series of stories about a mythological figure a historical figure who bears no significant similarity to the mythological one, it's insufficient to simply say that the historical figure is the source of the mythological one. You have to explain why we should believe that the one is the source of the other, when the one doesn't seem to be the source of any of the meaningful characteristics of the other. As I said repeatedly in that thread, and as you repeatedly ignored, asserting that a figure
quote: is the source of a myth about a figure named Jesus Christ who did miracles, was a carpenter, gave the Sermon on the Mount, magnified the fishes and loaves, was executed by the Romans, and rose from his grave three days later is absolutely every bit as absurd as saying that the historical basis for Santa Claus is a guy named Lou who lives in Brooklyn, doesn't know anything about making toys, and isn't especially fond of children. It would have been a much more interesting discussion if you had actually ever addressed that argument, which I made a dozen times, rather than forcing me to rebut time after time your inaccurate insistence that I was making an argument that the historical Jesus couldn't have been the historical Jesus unless his name was Jesus. Please, PaulK, let's not drive this any further off-topic. If you have a reply to this post, please open a "historical Jesus" thread to do so. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Thank you for confirming my point. Because listing a similarity as a lack of similarity makes no sense whatever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Because listing a similarity as a lack of similarity makes no sense whatever. I don't understand, I guess. Could you start another thread and expand this sentence? It doesn't make any sense to me because I didn't "list a similarity as a lack of similarity" What does that even mean? I'd like you to have the chance to explain but it shouldn't be in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
But crash is right that this is not the place for this discussion. Though if you want to have it, there's always the PNT procedure.
As for the matter at hand. I don't think any form of actionable misrepresentation is taking place that I have seen. It seems to me that what's happening in general is that people are trying to show what they feel are flaws in crash's argument by showing were they feel it breaks down. If they are wrong about where crash's argument breaks down, that isn't misrepresentation. For example let's take Message 402, which is claimed to be a misrepresentation. Looking at the post as a whole, it seems hooah's understanding of crash's position came from Message 325 where crashfrog responded to an example that hooah had constructed where black people had privilege and were discriminating based on race which crashfrog said wasn't racist. He was saying this runs in contrast to crashfrog's stated position that a situation like that where ' where the black man had more racial privilege than the white person, that would be racism.' Personally, I think that crashfrog misunderstood hooah. Either because in hooah's example wasn't sufficiently clear or some failing of crashfrog's or both, it doesn't really matter. Hooah was trying to point out what he felt was the difference in the ideals crashfrog was espousing and the way crashfrog was applying them to examples being raised. That seems a legitimate debate course to take, even if we want to criticize hooah's execution of it. I've held off from commenting previously because crashfrog isn't exactly a fan of my moderator actions/comments. However, he did ask for another moderator to take a look at the situation. If crashfrog has a preferred moderator he'd like to take a look, he should probably PM that person. Though I would say one further thing, as related to the topic the discussion may well be, it seems to have become something of a topic in its own right and maybe someone wants to try making a new topic dedicated to it...though if it brews more bad blood that might not be the wisest course of action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It seems to me that what's happening in general is that people are trying to show what they feel are flaws in crash's argument by showing were they feel it breaks down. Well, ok, but the argument they show breaking down has to be my argument, or else isn't it a form of misrepresentation? Actually, that's something I'd like a moderator ruling on, since none of you have said one way or the other. If I respond to an argument my opponent didn't make, but I do so in a way that I'm implying like he made it, or at the very least I'm acting like he made it, is that a form of misrepresentation? Intentional or otherwise, just for the record - would that be a form of misrepresentation?
crashfrog responded to an example that hooah had constructed where black people had privilege and were discriminating based on race which crashfrog said wasn't racist. This is inaccurate. Hooah did not construct an example where "black people had privilege." So he could not have been responding to my response to an example that wasn't given.
Personally, I think that crashfrog misunderstood hooah. Could you be more specific about what I misunderstood? Did I misunderstand him when he called my statements lies in that message? Did I misunderstand him when he attributed to me the position
quote: or was it that I misunderstood that he was attributing that position to me? That doesn't seem to be the case, because I did ask him if he was attributing that position to me (this was in Message 408) and he, in Message 410, confirms that he was. Are you sure you didn't misunderstand (or, perhaps, misrepresent) Hooah's post, here?
That seems a legitimate debate course to take, even if we want to criticize hooah's execution of it. Has anybody criticized Hooah's execution of it? The only one anyone seems to want to criticize is me. Once again, Mod, I'm forced to conclude that you're doing a great job of moderating an internet board - just, by any indication, a completely different one than EvC.
However, he did ask for another moderator to take a look at the situation. I appreciate your look, but you don't seem to be done, yet. Is it your contention that every one of the seven examples I've given so far has just been a "misunderstanding"? Are you sure that's the case? Before you arrive at that conclusion, could you please look at each one, and consider them as a pattern and not merely individual isolated cases each to consider in the light of the maximally generous interpretation for my opponents?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
While I'm sympathetic to the idea of starting a new thread for a full discussion I really don't see the need to do so for an obvious and trivial point. Names and titles derived through transliteration and/pr translation should be counted as at least similar to the originals (usually they'd be accepted as the same, unless there was an error). And that's because one or the other HAS to be done when going from one language - such as Hebrew - to another - like Greek - with a different alphabet. So if we are dealing with something that is the result of transliteration and/or translation it should count as a similarity. So why list this similarity as a lack of similarity ? Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic hidden
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024