Just stop the useless complaining.

POSTED BY: LostInTheVerse
UPDATED: Thursday, November 25, 2004 04:27
VIEWED: 24069
PAGE 10 of 17

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

What I actually said was that to be religious you don't need to be intellegent as opposed having to be intellegent to be a scientist. But, since you seem not to understand this... well, it begs a certain question about you.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

---

Look, at some point thru out the discussion and your arguments. Maybe you thought that you are on shaky ground or something. But there isn't a need to insult the other party just so you can "proof" your intelligence. If the academic rigor of holding a medium'ish in length discourse is a bit much for you - for whatever reason, just say so and we can take a break and talk about it some other day.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

That's great. BTW, how's the GunPowder Plot festivities going on so far today?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NervousPete:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

If we were all in the southern US we could try to not discuss the Civil War

---

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Another verbotten topic to mangle! Thanks!

---

Heh heh! Chat away!

Here in England, it's more like 'The North Will Rise!'

Death to the southern jessies!

*Nyuk*

'tis all in fun, though the English civil war did kill 1/4 of the population apparently - some millions - they're about to release a book on it.

Pete

P.S: My home town was Royalist, in case you're asking. The one I'm living in now was Parliamentarian (the winning side) but changed allegiance to the Royalists just before they lost! How mad is that?

"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash

---

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NervousPete:

Hullo, Connorflynn.

I have a sense of humour. I have one of the darkest senses of humour around. I watch and ENJOY Chris Morris for God's sake, and he is utterly twisted. The only comedian who can make jokes out of child murder and make a point.

But the trouble is, both your's and Greyjedi's comments don't come across as harmless jokes. They come across as something I cannot abide: Gloating. And lack of respect.

I'm proud to call myself a liberal. My grandmother was a conservative, my grandad was a communist (until invasion of Poland and it all sounds unlikely, but, y'know, only in Britain) and I've inherited beliefs from both. Calling me a fag, or a pinko (what the hell is a pinko anyway, it's catchy, but what is it?) or a hippy, or a commie is automatically voiding my arguements and beliefs solely because you view them as leftist.

---

Ya got me all wrong friend. I'm not gloating. I'm lauging at the hilarity of it all and rather enjoying Greyjedi's sense of sarcasm and humor. He goes over the top in a sarcastically humorous fashion all for the purpose of living up to the standards that many of the Anti-American or Ultra fringe folks who post on these boards. Something I can relate to, when all I ever read on these Real World Discussion boards is doomsday notions and frivolous/specious conspiracy theories and Anti-american spew.

I'm a big fan of constructive exchange. I have been labeled a fascist, a nazi, a Rightwing zealot and a Bushie by many on these boards when I disagreed with a topic. Indeed I find that the Deep left are much more intolerant of differing opinions then those centrists of whom I tend to gather together with to discuss politics.

I'm also not an Anti-Liberal Republican. I voted for Badnarik in these elections. I'm a moderate..Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative. Call em a Libertarian if you will. Bush's economic policies piss me off. There is a HUGE difference in my mind between a liberal and a Left wing fringe whacko. Most "Liberals" aren't threatening to immigrate, nor are they slashing their wrists and gnashing their teeth today. I also don't believe I have once attacked any of your posts. Nor have I characterized you as a nutcase Lib.

PS.. Pinko -
A person sympathetic to the Communist Party and Russia during the Cold War but not an outright Communist. Often used by people on the extreme right to describe anyone who doesn't share their views. Probably very similar in meaning but more insulting than "Fellow Traveller". Widely used in the USA and other countries. Used most famously in 1950 by Richard Nixon against Helen Gahagan Douglas: "She's pink down to her underwear". (At the time, women's undergarments, if colored, were usually pink.)

Here is a neat link to all the various political names etc..etc.. from my favorite Online encyclopedia site Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pejorative_political_slogans

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

My apologies, Connorflynn.

I guess it's partly because I was on a less enlightened board than this and the name calling between some people (board had nowt to do with Firefly) got pretty nasty, with all sorts of tarnishings. I guess I mistook yours and Greyjedi's flippant quips as genuine scorn, my fault.

It's easy to mistake people from posts. Further up this one I've been called a Bushie for defending a poster, when actually I'm almost totally against Bush's policies.

I guess it gets a bit confusing to me as a Brit, where we will destroy each other verbally and physically over football and lifestyle, but actually get along reasonably well politics wise despite the differences. We just don't insult people politically over here even in jest, apart from the odd mild Thatcher related jibe, we just don't feel the need. The only intolerance I've met in this country have been from the extreme left, ironically. However, in the US where I've heard broadcasts by Right wing radio commentators, I've been frequently shocked at how they feel they can insult people. I think I'm just terrified of dialogue breaking down to such an extent that I'm possibly jumping at shadows. I remember how on another board I was accused of being a commie because I believed in the national health service and had policies slightly left of centre. A Flexo, "Nah, I'm just kidding, you're great guys!" after a devestating insult is pretty handy.

If you haven't seen that Futurama ep, hang your heads in shame.


I just hope nobody really pays attention to the bile spewed by Ann Coulter and the like, and those books that keep being released on Amazon that have tons of sales viciously laying into people, even the affable, generally competent but sexually cretinous Clinton is painted as a demon monster from hell. Yup, if people paid attention to Rush Limbaugh's mad comments and Coulter's remarks, that would really depress me.

But then, Michael Moore does a bit as well. I thought he walked on water once with Roger & Me (which was a true work of greatness) and the fab TV Nation that showed on BBC 2. Now I feel he is obsessed with his own celebrity and damages the democrat's cause with sloppily argued points and flip remarks, no matter how serious and sometimes well grounded his allegations are. Noam Chomsky he ain't, and he's no where near as funny as Bill Hicks was in getting his points across.


Anyway, back to the point. It's also possible that I'm too depressed over the election to laugh. I'll get over it, the Serenity for the UK announcement today helped a lot. I'm just down over what I view as a major mistake.

So, we'll agree on the following deal. As far as well reasoned, affably presented and well sourced reports go...

Eg: "The Bush administration was hopelessly naive as to the dangers of disorder in Iraq post-victory and showed incompetence in securing weapons caches and preventing an anarchic, fearful atmosphere conducive to insurgants breaking out. The following reports by Reauters, AP, Amnesty, the UN and Red Cross indicate that blah blah blah..."

Then we shall all stroke our chins thoughtfully, and you might respond...

"Unfortunately the Bush administration misjudged the mood on the ground entirely due to eager to please Iraqi exiles prior to the invasion, who deliberately painted a rosy picture to ensure the invasion took place yadda yadda yadda..."

And we shall see where each other is coming from. And exchange warm firm manly handshakes. And not say anything like, "Bush wants to wipe out Islam! He just loves blowing things up!" or "Why don't you fight in Iraq if you feel they're doing such a bad job of it, pinko (winks at Flynn) liberal! They died for you! etc. etc. etc."

For the above sort of statements, rightous contempt will be displayed. I have to say, I only agree with Ghoulman's POV around 1/6 of the time. Enough to dislike Bush on, but enough to take umbrage about many of the arguements.

But you have done mighty in your calm and lovely reply! I salute you and feed your children! (Or something) And

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
stantly.

>snip<
There is a difference between faith and belief. And just because belief is involved, it doesn't make it a religion. Proof by contradiction: I believe that the internet will work along with my computer. It doesn't mean that it's a religion for me.

---

Alright mister. You just started a religious war. Igod is gonna smack down your ethernet connection faster than you can say Allah Ackbar.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I noticed that you've only quote the necessary portion of my post. I thank you for that, along with all the dial up users here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Look, at some point thru out the discussion and your arguments. Maybe you thought that you are on shaky ground or something. But there isn't a need to insult the other party just so you can "proof" your intelligence. If the academic rigor of holding a medium'ish in length discourse is a bit much for you - for whatever reason, just say so and we can take a break and talk about it some other day.

---

You prove my point. And it is *not* what you say it is. I am *not* proving my intellegence nor thinking I'm on shaky ground. I am proving that you don't know as much as you think you know and as such have been quite misguided regarding this topic. I also pointed out that you didn't actually read my post. Could I have put it in nicer terms? Yes. Oh well, live and learn (science).

But then again, your words kind of lose there weight when you become a hypocrite and do what you say I did (Becoming condescending and insulting). Which from your post above you think is wrong. Perhaps your discorse here isn't as shiny as you think it is. Perhaps this is (to quote you) "a bit much for you".

But then again (again), maybe you just read it that way. Maybe you are just being too sensitive. Perhaps it's just how I wrote it and not what I wrote. Maybe you just should've taken that comment as a hint to be more careful when reading posts here.

I also notice that you haven't even touched on any of my points. Can I assume that we've reached a consensus?


I know my limitations and have stayed out of many conversations here because I wasn't well versed in the topic in question. I definitly read them and have learned a lot from the people here, but I tend only to participate in the discusions that I can contribute to.

I'll also note that I don't doubt that I've learned something from you. Here for instance, our conversation has taught me a lot about the general perceptions of science among the masses and how different it is from reality. It is something that can and should be fixed. Unfortunatly it'd take a national (actually world wide) effort to do, which would require the teachers at all levels to change most of there current system. Somehow I think it's an uphill battle.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hardware:

Alright mister. You just started a religious war. Igod is gonna smack down your ethernet connection faster than you can say Allah Ackbar.

---

Mwah ha ha! You can do no such thing! My god is the all powerful OpenBSD! His minion Puffy will defend me and smite all who attempt to trespass on my domain! Mwah ha ha!!!

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:

The useless bitching I speak of has been going on for 2 years. I think I gave plenty of time.

---

I do see your point. But, to be fair though, they have had cause to bitch for that time. Just because the were seemingly constantly bitching doesn't mean they were bitching about the same thing constantly. It's just that the Bush admin has given a constant flow of things to bitch about.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:

And voting did work. Apparently the majority of the American people agree with him, at least the majority of those who care enough to actually vote. 4 million is not a small number.

---

But when you consider that 115 million people voted that number does become small. Thats < 4% of the people that voted. This makes it a *slim* majority. GW must be *very* careful in the next little while or something bad might happen. He's going to have to tread on egg-shells until he (if he can) unite the people, etc, etc, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:

If the protests were large enough he would have been voted out of office.

---

If the protest were large enough, which they were, then you guys wouldn't be in Iraq and most of the current mess wouldn't exist. Yes, I know it's a moot point, but it needed saying.


But when it comes to who voted and who didn't. That is a thing that has come under much critizism. There are alligations of voter fraud. There is the e-voting thing, people not registered to vote and votes not counting that are all in question. There are many students that couldn't vote b/c they didn't have transport (ie couldn't afford it) to there home town to vote and that state wouldn't let them vote there. etc.

I would think that Kerry just didn't want to challenge these things b/c he didn't want to rip apart the country. Something that would surely have happened if he did. He can also continue the fight in his old job.


'Tis a tangled web and I gather that no-one will ever know that truth about what happened. I just hope that GW doesn't do something stupid. I don't know about you, but to me, history tells me not to hold my breath. Let's just hope it isn't too bad.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

hmmm... So far, from what I gather in your posts, and this is strictly an observation. You either take the view or make the presumption that just b/c other people don't take your hardcore and strict fundamentalist view of pure logic and science that they are non-intellects. On top of that, you seem to "know" and believe that people who worships dieties are not capable of critical and independent thought. In fact, these "others" will never get your "pure" view of science and we will never be able to hold a true discourse about it - since you know so much, and "we" know so little.

I presented a view from another field of study that you might find enlightening. Anthropology and philosphy isn't my particular field of study, but I read about them because it is interesting. I presented ideas that discusses what other people see when they look at how people behave and explain their world around them. It's from another set of perspectives. You choose to remain in your little box of your chosen field - That's fine, people shouldn't talk about and discuss things that they don't understand. But the inquisitive mind can ask questions, not shoot down a foreign idea immediately and smugly. A self-proclaimed scientist who behaves in this way is really in now way a scientist a all. Sure, you might work in the field and you might hold all of that knowledge. But your mind isn't there. In your heart, you are close-minded and sit in your ivory tower taking jabs at people who comes to you with new ideas (that is new to you).

From a scientist to another scientist, learn something about humanities, philosophy, and anthropology, expand outside of your field to see how other people see things. They weren't just little GE classes that you had to get a passing grade on your way to your "real" studies. Not everyone will ever see things as a scientist do, but everyday there are curious people who want to understand science who might never grasp it fully. But at least they won't smugly reject scientific ideas off hand.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I noticed that you've only quote the necessary portion of my post. I thank you for that, along with all the dial up users here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Look, at some point thru out the discussion and your arguments. Maybe you thought that you are on shaky ground or something. But there isn't a need to insult the other party just so you can "proof" your intelligence. If the academic rigor of holding a medium'ish in length discourse is a bit much for you - for whatever reason, just say so and we can take a break and talk about it some other day.

---

You prove my point. And it is *not* what you say it is. I am *not* proving my intellegence nor thinking I'm on shaky ground. I am proving that you don't know as much as you think you know and as such have been quite misguided regarding this topic. I also pointed out that you didn't actually read my post. Could I have put it in nicer terms? Yes. Oh well, live and learn (science).

But then again, your words kind of lose there weight when you become a hypocrite and do what you say I did (Becoming condescending and insulting). Which from your post above you think is wrong. Perhaps your discorse here isn't as shiny as you think it is. Perhaps this is (to quote you) "a bit much for you".

But then again (again), maybe you just read it that way. Maybe you are just being too sensitive. Perhaps it's just how I wrote it and not what I wrote. Maybe you just should've taken that comment as a hint to be more careful when reading posts here.

I also notice that you haven't even touched on any of my points. Can I assume that we've reached a consensus?


I know my limitations and have stayed out of many conversations here because I wasn't well versed in the topic in question. I definitly read them and have learned a lot from the people here, but I tend only to participate in the discusions that I can contribute to.

I'll also note that I don't doubt that I've learne

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME