Apology

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 14:47
VIEWED: 3818
PAGE 1 of 1

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 29, 2008 1:14 AM

To all,

To clarify some matters of misconception, first let me say it meant nothing to me to lose an argument over the constitutionality of maintaining individual firearms for personal use, in spite of the potential bearing of the abuse of this right.

I care not that I lost an argument at all, or that hostile remarks were thrown my way, and if, and sure when, I responded in kind the error was mine.

By my real transgression was that when people responded in a vindictive manner, especially beyond the scope of the topic, I thought less of them for it. And even more egregious fault was that when such a thing occurred, I let it show.

My motivation for withdrawing from the heat of battle as it were to a lurker status is motivated more by time than by malice towards anyone in this forum.

This is by no means to suggest that my time is more valuable than yours, but that there are many things pressing on my time, and free time is not a commodity that I have in great quantity. If we allow ourselves to be caught in a headlock of views, or worse yet, the exchange of petty insults, then the fault is multiplied, since it is not only my own time that I waste, but yours as well.

To the end of practicality, and to waste no more of anyone's time, I'll be responding only to posts that interest me, and should they fall under assault, I will consider them defeated, and let them lie.

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, December 29, 2008 3:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
To all,

To clarify some matters of misconception, first let me say it meant nothing to me to lose an argument over the constitutionality of maintaining individual firearms for personal use, in spite of the potential bearing of the abuse of this right.

I care not that I lost an argument at all, or that hostile remarks were thrown my way, and if, and sure when, I responded in kind the error was mine.

By my real transgression was that when people responded in a vindictive manner, especially beyond the scope of the topic, I thought less of them for it. And even more egregious fault was that when such a thing occurred, I let it show.

My motivation for withdrawing from the heat of battle as it were to a lurker status is motivated more by time than by malice towards anyone in this forum.

This is by no means to suggest that my time is more valuable than yours, but that there are many things pressing on my time, and free time is not a commodity that I have in great quantity. If we allow ourselves to be caught in a headlock of views, or worse yet, the exchange of petty insults, then the fault is multiplied, since it is not only my own time that I waste, but yours as well.

To the end of practicality, and to waste no more of anyone's time, I'll be responding only to posts that interest me, and should they fall under assault, I will consider them defeated, and let them lie.

Yeah , but what about the part that was supposed to be the apology ?

I'm not sayin' you're an actual sociopath , but when ticking the list of characteristics , you sure have a lot of them...

Probably best that you've abandoned your soapbox/pulpit , and not mention 2nd Amendment among gun-Folk any more...

Just sayin'...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

"...The most distant roots of Emotional intelligence can be traced back to Darwin’s early work on the importance of emotional expression for survival and second adaptation.[1] In the 1900s, even though traditional definitions of intelligence emphasized cognitive aspects such as memory and problem-solving, several influential researchers in the intelligence field of study had begun to recognize the importance of the non-cognitive aspects. For instance, as early as 1920, E. L. Thorndike, used the term social intelligence to describe the skill of understanding and managing other people.[2]

Similarly, in 1940 David Wechsler described the influence of non-intellective factors on intelligent behavior, and further argued that our models of intelligence would not be complete until we can adequately describe these factors.[1] In 1983, Howard Gardner's Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences [3] introduced the idea of Multiple Intelligences which included both Interpersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people) and Intrapersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations). In Gardner's view, traditional types of intelligence, such as IQ, fail to fully explain cognitive ability.[4] Thus, even though the names given to the concept varied, there was a common belief that traditional definitions of intelligence are lacking in ability to fully explain performance outcomes."

PIRATENEWS

Monday, December 29, 2008 5:24 AM

"During the fall of an empire, the plebes get bitchy."
-Aureoleus Maximus

COLE23

Monday, December 29, 2008 6:12 AM

I've read all these post in different threads about this,and i'm not sure I should throw my hat into the ring,but what the hell.
I think subjects like guns,religion,and abortion,etc, are sensitive subjects.You have to discuss them,but alot of times feelings get hurt.I'm been on both sides of that.
Dreamtrove,I hope you don't leave,because you are a hell of an intelligent person.I can tell that by your writing.I have to read some of your post twice to get everything.Haha,I can be a little slow.You can never have too many smart people around.To be honest I don't agree with you on most stuff but enjoyed reading it anyway.
I'm actually new to message boards in general,but this doesn't jade me one bit.I do understand a little about human nature.
I suggest everyone just calm down a bit,maybe step back a little.Nothing you posted was really offensive at all.
I have no idea what a "troll" is but I don't think it's someone who's highly regarded.So I would just ignore them.In my opinion,you stated and argued your case well and some people on the other side did the same thing.There is no magical post that could solve that issue.Nobody won or lost,which is why it's such an interesting topic.
I hope you hang around,as I might want to argue something with you one day.

BYTEMITE

Monday, December 29, 2008 7:27 AM

I think you get more than you give yourself credit for, Cole, that was a pretty smart and wise post.

I hope no one leaves; my experience on message boards has been that if a person leaves, the community looses a source of ideas. No matter how hotly contested the opinions, a thoughtful exchange is what keeps internet communities alive, and the more people providing input, the healthier the community.

'Course, I'm relatively new here and don't know all the group dynamics. Still, in general I'll say it's true and hope I'm not wrong.

HERO

Monday, December 29, 2008 1:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Yeah , but what about the part that was supposed to be the apology ?

I think he's waiting for one...I'll start.

I'm sorry I missed this whole discussion. I'm sorry I don't really know what he's talking about. I'm sorry my beloved Browns went 4-12 this season. Lastly I'm sorry that I make so many of you look bad when I win all the arguments around here with my sharp wit, cool logic, and complete grasp of historical fact and context.

H

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 29, 2008 3:13 PM

Quote:
Out2theBlack
Yeah , but what about the part that was supposed to be the apology ?

I like you actually, I think your posts are insightful and interesting. I didn't get annoyed until you joined in on a 'trolling' post by someone else. That annoyed me, I'm sorry that I let it show. It was unbecoming, and inappropriate.

The part where it was an apology was the part where I said it was all my fault. That's typically an apology.

Quote:
I'm not sayin' you're an actual sociopath , but when ticking the list of characteristics , you sure have a lot of them...

Perhaps you should have looked up Taoism first. It's a core religious belief to not be effected by the whimsical attacks of others. Or, the to put it another way, by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. This does not mean that I don't care about the plight of palestinians, or that of a neighbor.

To not react to personal attacks would be one of the highest virtues. But I'm not a Jedi yet, and so I fall short. Ideally, if a man were to come and rant at me about everything that was wrong with me, and then throw a drink in my face, my proper reponse would be to bring him another. You might recognize this ideal from one of your western religions, I think you call it Christianity.

Okay, that was snide, but also true. You're definition would have pegged Jesus as a sociopath. To say nothing of Lao Tzu, but then, neither one would care. Their followers are less perfect, and might take offense. Just sayin'

Sociopaths are not effected emotionally by things that happen, but they often react to things said to them, not immediately, they tend to wait and exact their revenge at a later date.

Quote:
Probably best that you've abandoned your soapbox/pulpit , and not mention 2nd Amendment among gun-Folk any more...

Probably so. I was on no soap box, merely had seen some friends die over the issue, and had no will to lose more.

Quote:
Thorndike, used the term social intelligence to describe the skill of understanding and managing other people.

Work on it :)

As for recognizing and offense, that would be when someone comes to my country and bombs it. Not when someone poses an internet rant against me.

Quote:
PIRATENEWS

"During the fall of an empire, the plebes get bitchy."
-Aureoleus Maximus

I doubt that was an exact quote, but it will do.
This empire fell a long time ago. So did that one. Empires fall, it is not important :)

Quote:
COLE23

I've read all these post in different threads about this,and i'm not sure I should throw my hat into the ring,but what the hell.
I think subjects like guns,religion,and abortion,etc, are sensitive subjects.You have to discuss them,but alot of times feelings get hurt.I'm been on both sides of that.
Dreamtrove,I hope you don't leave,because you are a hell of an intelligent person.I can tell that by your writing.I have to read some of your post twice to get everything.Haha,I can be a little slow.You can never have too many smart people around.To be honest I don't agree with you on most stuff but enjoyed reading it anyway.
I'm actually new to message boards in general,but this doesn't jade me one bit.I do understand a little about human nature.
I suggest everyone just calm down a bit,maybe step back a little.Nothing you posted was really offensive at all.

And to not be offended is a strength in you, not a lack of weakness in me. I'm sure I have offended, and even acted emotionally and spitefully.

Quote:
I have no idea what a "troll" is but I don't think it's someone who's highly regarded.So I would just ignore them.In my opinion,you stated and argued your case well and some people on the other side did the same thing.There is no magical post that could solve that issue.Nobody won or lost,which is why it's such an interesting topic.
I hope you hang around,as I might want to argue something with you one day.

A troll is someone who posts typically hostile remarks deliberately to invoke a response. My post about Frem being in

YINYANG

Monday, December 29, 2008 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

...

I see it used a lot, there's a user here on the board with the username "Yinyang".

Here, I fixed it for you. The images get screwy when you put the quote tags right up against them.

Edit: I prefer the one that's animated, so I went and found it real quick.

WHOZIT

Monday, December 29, 2008 5:52 PM

No apology is needed when you're dealing with, Big Brained, Opinionated, Long Winded, Know it alls. They'd take it as a sign of weakness, just tell'em to GET BENT!

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, December 29, 2008 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

...

I see it used a lot, there's a user here on the board with the username "Yinyang".

Here, I fixed it for you. The images get screwy when you put the quote tags right up against them.

Edit: I prefer the one that's animated, so I went and found it real quick.

Nicely Done...Xie-Xie , YinYang !

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 29, 2008 7:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
No apology is needed when you're dealing with, Big Brained, Opinionated, Long Winded, Know it alls. They'd take it as a sign of weakness, just tell'em to GET BENT!

Surely you must have realized what would happen if you removed the Whozits from their predator-filled environment, into an environment where their natural multiplicative proclivities would have no restraining factors.

The Vulcan Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 29, 2008 8:05 PM

Yinyang,

I concur, Xie-xie. I don't think anything so nice is said on the show :)

I believe a couple years back you were saying something about the faith based initiative, and I mentioned your faith based screen name. Did you notice since then how much the faith based initiative guys got screwed over by Bush and Co? They were promised 80 billion to help end hunger poverty and homelessness, and got alotted jack.

Personally, I believe in this faith based initiative:

"want, take, have"

I couldn't find the exact clip. So here are some fanvids

the "All The Things She Said" video is much more so, I never realized the show was leaving itself so wide open for Faith/Buffy slash.

Still, a good reminisce for one of Joss' finest creations. Eliza returns 2'13'09 "Dollhouse", to run together with Summer, as "Terminator" returns, 8-10 Fridays, or whenever on Hulu for those of us without television.

Out2theBlack

all is forgiven.

On a personal note, please try not to assume that someone who is trying to abstain from conflict is considering themselves better than others, they're just trying to duck. Also, if someone launches a personal attack, I think it's always best to think twice before piling on. Return fire might come your way instead.

Another apology is needed from me however:
My posts are so gorram long they put Pirate News to shame. Ack. If wouldn't read them either! I think I'll try to edit in the future.

I thought I could go find animated symbols of other religions, but I think this is all I have:

Okay, the last one is rastafarianism, I'll let the rest of you sort out the rest

O cult of Aphrodite, how we miss it:

Meanwhile, last night I watched Raimi's new series pilot from terry goodkind's books. Ack. I hope the books were better.

RIVERLOVE

Monday, December 29, 2008 8:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
No apology is needed when you're dealing with, Big Brained, Opinionated, Long Winded, Know it alls. They'd take it as a sign of weakness, just tell'em to GET BENT!

Surely you must have realized what would happen if you removed the Whozits from their predator-filled environment, into an environment where their natural multiplicative proclivities would have no restraining factors.

The Vulcan Chrisisall

The RWED threads have gone downhill since you and a few others stopped creating thread topics. We used to have some good debates here. Now its' mostly juvenile trollish crap. Maybe the election was the penultimate event for these boards. Maybe not a whole lot left to say. Unlike Whozit, most Cons like me don't have much to say these days, either due to our election defeat, or our pledge (like me) to give Obama a fair chance before criticizing him. Anyhow, the threads were much better when you and all the folks I can't stand were more involved. You guys WON the election, but you seem to have lost out on these boards to Whozit's brand of impish silliness.

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, December 29, 2008 9:04 PM

RL - I think some of it is there's a huge, collective breath holding going on right now until the new guy can sign some sh*t and start turning some wheels. We're on the verge of major changes and a lot of people hate change:

1. Especially if they didn't vote for it.
2. Some don't like it even if they voted for it.
3. Here's the crazy one... even if it's for the better.

It's like we're all on a roller coaster... clink clink clink... climbing that giant hill... clink clink clink.... here comes the top Jan 20th... hold on!!!!

WHOZIT

Monday, December 29, 2008 9:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
No apology is needed when you're dealing with, Big Brained, Opinionated, Long Winded, Know it alls. They'd take it as a sign of weakness, just tell'em to GET BENT!

Surely you must have realized what would happen if you removed the Whozits from their predator-filled environment, into an environment where their natural multiplicative proclivities would have no restraining factors.

The Vulcan Chrisisall

Are all those big words your way of telling me to get bent?

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

RIVERLOVE

Monday, December 29, 2008 9:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
RL - I think some of it is there's a huge, collective breath holding going on right now until the new guy can sign some sh*t and start turning some wheels. We're on the verge of major changes and a lot of people hate change:

1. Especially if they didn't vote for it.
2. Some don't like it even if they voted for it.
3. Here's the crazy one... even if it's for the better.

It's like we're all on a roller coaster... clink clink clink... climbing that giant hill... clink clink clink.... here comes the top Jan 20th... hold on!!!!

A lot of truth there friend. For me and my ilk, Jan. 20th represents a nightmarish scenario I could never have even imagined....
Obama
Biden
Pelosi
Reid
Clinton
Clintonistas

With Bush leaving the country in such a huge mess, it's even worse for us because we can't say a word, at least for several months.

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 29, 2008 10:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Are all those big words your way of telling me to get bent?

Herbert.

The vague Chrisisall

YINYANG

Monday, December 29, 2008 10:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Yinyang,

I concur, Xie-xie. I don't think anything so nice is said on the show :)

I believe a couple years back you were saying something about the faith based initiative, and I mentioned your faith based screen name. Did you notice since then how much the faith based initiative guys got screwed over by Bush and Co? They were promised 80 billion to help end hunger poverty and homelessness, and got alotted jack.

Personally, I believe in this faith based initiative:

"want, take, have"

You know, I've typed so many things that I honestly don't remember. I tried using the Almighty Google, but could only find this:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=23201

Seriously, I've been a member of this site for over two years now? Time flies. And I miss some of those people from back then.

Anyway, I never in that thread mentioned faith-based initiatives (though if I had, it would have been to rail against them - why should the religious groups get special treatment? Can't they just go through the same channels as everyone else?). If you can find the thread you're talking about, please link to it. And as far as my username goes: I really like the idea of the yinyang, but I'm a non-religious atheist, so ::shrugs::

RE: Bush - he recently threw his faith guys a bone in the form of "right of conscience" rule.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content
/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121801556.html

Grr. I'm glad I don't have to say anything nice about him in this thread.

P.S. Is it weird that I'm tempted to wax nostalgic about a troll, whose username I will not type lest I inadvertently invite him back?

P.P.S. I love how this thread has been totally and utterly de-railed, but in a nicer way than usual. I think we need more of this in RWED.

---

O WAIT A MINUTE! I think I found the thread!

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=23231

Wow. (I still contend that "existential atheist" isn't an oxymoron, btw. But I've very recently decided to call myself a non-religious atheist, as it is more precise than atheist alone. Not like you needed to know that; just felt like mentioning it.)

Also, thank you for providing the impetus to go Google searching. I have rediscovered some really lovely threads because of it.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:17 AM

Quote:
CHRISISSALL

The RWED threads have gone downhill since you and a few others stopped creating thread topics. We used to have some good debates here. Now its' mostly juvenile trollish crap. Maybe the election was the penultimate event for these boards. Maybe not a whole lot left to say. Unlike Whozit, most Cons like me don't have much to say these days, either due to our election defeat, or our pledge (like me) to give Obama a fair chance before criticizing him. Anyhow, the threads were much better when you and all the folks I can't stand were more involved. You guys WON the election, but you seem to have lost out on these boards to Whozit's brand of impish silliness.

Actually, there was some of that before I left. I was serious to creds to Auraptor for most improved. Finn seems to have lost contact with civilization. Too much time out by the rim. Personally, I avoided all boards for the elections season and focused on work.
a) I knew the outcome. I think every election outcome since Watergate has been preordained by TIME magazine and thugs, err, Co. I'm just glad I beat them to the punch. I knew they'd want a yesman govt, which meant democrat, and then democrat who could actually win, that cut the field down to two. Edwards loudly announced his dislike of the NWO and CFR which meant "oops, time to get him drunk and send him a hooker" but I have to say, in his total lack of defense, he came up with the stupidest defense I have ever heard: "My wife's cancer was in remission at the time [I was out boinking a hooker]."

Quote:

PIZMOBEACH

RL - I think some of it is there's a huge, collective breath holding going on right now until the new guy can sign some sh*t and start turning some wheels. We're on the verge of major changes and a lot of people hate change:

1. Especially if they didn't vote for it.
2. Some don't like it even if they voted for it.
3. Here's the crazy one... even if it's for the better.

It's like we're all on a roller coaster... clink clink clink... climbing that giant hill... clink clink clink.... here comes the top Jan 20th... hold on!!!!

Oh, mark me down for "expect some surface change in wedge issue policies, and the usual downgrade in competence that seems to have come with each new president"

Quote:
WHOZIT

Quote:
Surely you must have realized what would happen if you removed the Whozits from their predator-filled environment, into an environment where their natural multiplicative proclivities would have no restraining factors.

Are all those big words your way of telling me to get bent?

Okay, since I've reclassified a whozit as a non-troll, but still attention starved, I'll respond to it, at my own risk.

WHOZIT, meet me at camera 4.

1. Chrisisall's comment was very funny. I almost responded to it, but I couldn't think of a witty comeback.
2. Chrisisall's initials are CIA. That's his slim cover. He has fun at everyone's expense. If he wanted you gone, you'd be gone already

3. Take a chill pill, go with the flow, and try to me less of an irritant.

Step one, kill your signature line. It's a red flag saying "I'm pretty f^&king immature, and just a little bit creepy, so if you're female, you might want to keep your distance, and oops, I just jizzed in the creamcheese."

Quote:
RIVERLOVE
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

A lot of truth there friend. For me and my ilk, Jan. 20th represents a nightmarish scenario I could never have even imagined....
Obama
Biden
Pelosi
Reid
Clinton
Clintonistas

With Bush leaving the country in such a huge mess, it's even worse for us because we can't say a word, at least for several months.

River, love, think of it this way. It's one giant holiday, when conservatives, now completely out of power, will get blamed for nothing.
And, here, as an added bonus, with the list of pure talent you just rattled off, the new administration will f^&k everything up beyond your wildest dreams.
By, the time they're through with the United States of America, assuming t

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Quote:
CHRISISALL
Originally posted by whozit:
Are all those big words your way of telling me to get bent?

Herbert.

Okay, that was zen.

Thank you.

The Kwai-Chang Chrisisall

KWICKO

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:25 AM

Quote:

With Bush leaving the country in such a huge mess, it's even worse for us because we can't say a word, at least for several months.

Sure you can - swing away! And while you're at it, please PLEASE drop a word to your Congressmen (and women), to tell them EXACTLY what you will and won't support in this administration.

As for me, it's like was said before - a huge holding of breath, hoping that change is for the better, hoping they don't screw things up even worse (hard to do, but never underestimate the Democratic party's ability to fuck up!).

I really, sincerely wish that the Congressional leadership would've thrown Pelosi and Reid over the rail, though, and started fresh with some new leaders.

For the rest, I'll wait a bit and see how it shakes out.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I really, sincerely wish that the Congressional leadership would've thrown Pelosi and Reid over the rail

You just don't like them 'cause they're inept.

The non-prejudiced Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:41 AM

Quote:
KWICKO never underestimate the Democratic party's ability to fuck up!

I'll drink to that.

Quote:
Chris on Pelosi and co: You just don't like them 'cause they're inept.

I think it's safe to say that they're evil

YINYANG

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:53 AM

Quote:
But the idea that the govt. should not give money to religious groups is silly, it's been funding hospitals and colleges of religious groups for ages. Unless you're opposed to the govt. giving any money, or having any, I'd support that :)

I don't want to shut out the faith-based groups, I just don't see why they should have a special avenue to get funds. It shows that the government favors religious groups over secular ones, and implicitly (IMO), religion vs. non-religion. I don't like that. Plus, I think the Constitution has my back on this one.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I italicized the part that was relevant to my point, but I like the whole First Amendment. Since I'm a word person, freedom of speech is one of my pet issues. And I'd like to see a whole lot more peaceable assembly, or maybe even some assembly, peaceable optional. I'd like for people not to die, but people tend to die when they assemble and the government doesn't like it; and, if forced to choose, I'd rather see demonstrations get out of hand than nothing at all because people were so concerned about harming others that it led them to inaction.

I guess I'll add the Tao te Ching to my ever-increasing list of books to read.

Quote:
But considering that I just spent two hours watch the legend of the seeker, or 90 min, there are a lot worse wastes of time out there, even for pure entertainment value.

I would advise you to stop watching that horrendous TV adaptation of The Sword of Truth series and pick up the books. Richard is not supposed to be small and Hollywood pretty. Though I'll warn you, the series gets really weird into Objectivism, and a lot of people die and get raped on-screen. The first book's alright, though, as it has less of all that**. Besides, Zedd is totally awesome.

Quote:
It makes me gag to agree with Bush on anything, but I'd agree with that bone.

Please expand on this point. In what way do you agree with Bush on this issue? Because I interpret it in a way that makes me want to disagree with you vehemently, but I don't want to jump all over you for something you didn't mean.

Quote:

Trying to guess your troll. Antimason? I miss him, he wasn't really a troll.
Oh, I love this username:
"KANEMAN is tagged as offensive. My IP is 71.234.239.182"

No, Antimason wasn't a troll. But you got it anyway. And I guess I shouldn't be so quick to feel fond about him, because IIRC he got pretty nasty towards FutureMrsFillion.

Edit: **Oh, wait, I'm very wrong - I forgot about the Mord Sith that tortures Richard for a fair chunk of the book. But even with that, it's still better than the ones that follow, IIRC (because I'm not going back and reading them).

Edit2: Putting the asterisks in the right place.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 1:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I think it's safe to say that they're evil

I have come to re-define evil, as I was so quick to whip out that phrase on a whim in the past concerning Bush...doing things that have severely negative consequences can be the stuff of evil, but to say that a person is evil is to say that their every effort is put towards the pain & torment of their fellow man, and there are very few, IMO, that qualify for that label.
Stupid? Self interested? Grandiose Personality Disorder? OCD? Bad?
Maybe.

The precise Chrisisall

YINYANG

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Chris on Pelosi and co: You just don't like them 'cause they're inept.

I think it's safe to say that they're evil

Mark Twain ftw!

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."

"...I never can think of Judas Iscariot without losing my temper. To my mind Judas Iscariot was nothing but a low, mean, premature, Congressman."

http://www.twainquotes.com/Congress.html

ETA: I agree with Chrisisall - people can be bad, but I see evil as absolute, and no human is absolute.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 1:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
no human is absolute.

Except Whozit, who is absolutely irritating.

The momentarily non-Shaolin Chrisisall, heh heh

YINYANG

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 1:29 AM

Nah - RWED has seen worse. Whozit at least only posts a line or two when he's being annoying.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Nah - RWED has seen worse. Whozit at least only posts a line or two when he's being annoying.

I actually sorta like Whozit, like a puppy that chews your shoes...

The bad dog Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:32 AM

Quote:
YINYANG
I don't want to shut out the faith-based groups, I just don't see why they should have a special avenue to get funds.

They already are, through colleges and hospitals, why not through other charities? I mean a lot of these churches run homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc. I'm not a christian, but when I look at what some of what these groups are doing with their time and money, and then what the govt. is doing with theirs, I have to say "why not?" I mean sure, within reason. They shouldn't be allowed to use funds to prostheletyze etc. But that wasn't what people like David Cho were asking for. These were some pretty decent people, and Bush screwed them, and I say that from what I think is an objective outside perspective.

Quote:
It shows that the government favors religious groups over secular ones, and implicitly (IMO), religion vs. non-religion. I don't like that. Plus, I think the Constitution has my back on this one.

Sure, but, as I said, we're already doing it. I don't think handing out cash is the line, telling them what to do is the line. The govt. just handed out 326 billion to SaudiGroup, aka Citigroup. And as for religions, we're openly supporting theocracy on both sides in the middle east: Israel and Saudi Arabia, and throwing buckets of cash at them. If there's going to be a clean break, then I agree, but lets make it a clean break. No religious institutions, no corporations, etc. But otherwise it's one religion or corporation favored against another. That's not a free society.

No argument on the constitutional issue. I just was in a huge constitution fight on this one, and my brother is a professor of constitutional law, and he shot me down. I still don't support the right of gangs to carry assault rifles, but yeah, sure, the constitution does. Separation of church and state is broken all over the place. What was all that during the campaign about Obama denouncing Islam, and now he's swearing in on the same christian bible as Lincoln. The point of the swearing in is that the people being sworn in, like lincoln, actually believed that their immortal soul was in danger. I don't think Obama does, no offense to him, but if he did, he might have defended the Rev. Wright. I didn't have a serious problem with the Rev. Wright, as wacky preachers go. I don't think it meant a thing to Bush either. Maybe they should've made Bush swear in on his golf clubs, or a bottle of Jack Daniels.

So, specifically, no law to respect an "establishment of religion" was required. This was a ref to Church of England and things like that.
But my brother would back you up, so I know I've already lost this one.

Personally, my Faith Based Iniative is "Want, Take, Have."

I encourage everyone, catch up on Sarah Conner, Summer Glau makes a good Terminator, and it's a good anti-establishment storyline. Start at the begnning, which is on DVD, netflix has it, and the second season is on Hulu.com. It's going to run right before Joss' Dollhouse, staring Eliza Dushku 2-13-09.

Quote:
Since I'm a word person, freedom of speech is one of my pet issues.

I'm a writer also. I hail the coming true free press of the internet, the censorship my published sybs have run into in the MSM is harsh. They have no trouble getting published, but anything they say that the oligarchs of media disagree with gets banned.

Quote:
And I'd like to see a whole lot more peaceable assembly, or maybe even some assembly, peaceable optional. I'd like for people not to die, but people tend to die when they assemble and the government doesn't like it; and, if forced to choose, I'd rather see demonstrations get out of hand than nothing at all because people were so concerned about harming others that it led them to inaction.

There is a third way. As I said in another thread, I'm a chess player. I plan to fight, but no one has to die.

Quote:
I guess I'll add the Tao te Ching to my ever-increasing list of books to read.

Good choice, and Lol, I know what you mean, they stack up. I have o

YINYANG

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I actually sorta like Whozit, like a puppy that chews your shoes...

... in preparation for humping them.

Okay, that felt good (maybe too good); and, I'm done now.

Must resist... dark side...

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:56 AM

Quote:
CHRISISALL
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think it's safe to say that they're evil

I have come to re-define evil, as I was so quick to whip out that phrase on a whim in the past concerning Bush...doing things that have severely negative consequences can be the stuff of evil, but to say that a person is evil is to say that their every effort is put towards the pain & torment of their fellow man, and there are very few, IMO, that qualify for that label. Stupid? Self interested? Grandiose Personality Disorder? OCD? Bad?
Maybe.
The precise Chrisisall

Oops. My faith calls on me not to believe in evil. I guess the existance of Darth Cheney has shaken my faith.
If I were to define evil, I would say "that which so deeply believes itself to be good that it is unwilling to compromise"
Which is in keeping. If Good is discovered, than Evil is Found.
Good creates Evil, because Evil is defined as a result of defining good. It's real early on in "the better book"

OCD?

Quote:
YINYANG
Things are going to get much, much worse.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Chris on Pelosi and co: You just don't like them 'cause they're inept.
I think it's safe to say that they're evil

Mark Twain ftw!
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."
"...I never can think of Judas Iscariot without losing my temper. To my mind Judas Iscariot was nothing but a low, mean, premature, Congressman."
http://www.twainquotes.com/Congress.html

ETA: I agree with Chrisisall - people can be bad, but I see evil as absolute, and no human is absolute.

Agreed. I would see there are those who see themselves as ultimate good. Under a true Taoist interpretation I think a human possesses doubt, and cannot be evil. Lex Luthor is merely misguided, whereas superman is evil. He has no doubt. He is certain that he is the ultimate good, and possesses ultimate power with which to enforce. Were the conventional western God to exist, I suppose it would be evil as well for the same reason. The two are of course on and the same. I've been trying to parse the translation from the original Hebrew of Kal-El, I've seen Mouth of God, Hand of God, Machine of God, Sword of God. I don't know whether the name itself is old enough to date back to the original prophesy of the warrior messiah, pre-christian, or whether the creators of the comic invented the name. Knowing that would help secure the translation. I don't think that the roots of fascism are fair, or the Nietsche connection, or the Nietsche connection to fascism, knowing that his sister wrote Will to Power from his remaining notes, and she herself was a fascist and antisemite, he abhorred both ideas. But I digress. I cannot believe in evil, or I create good and the forces of good must therefore destroy the forces of evil, and death would result, sacrificing the sanctity of life. You can see where I have a problem with Legend of the Seeker and stuff like it. I love Lord of the Rings in spite of this. I think it is founded on a deeper inner truth than good and evil. Recursively this goes back to Will to Power.

I have great hopes for Cameron in Sarah Connor, because I see the potential for extreme abiguity, and the question of the definition of life.

Quote:
CHRISISALL
Originally posted by yinyang:
no human is absolute.

Except Whozit, who is absolutely irritating.

lol

Quote:
The momentarily non-Shaolin Chrisisall, heh heh

lol x 2.

considering penalty points for laughing at your own obscure in joke ;)

Quote:
YINYANG
Things are going to get much, much worse.
Nah - RWED has seen worse. Whozit at least only posts a line or two when he's being annoying.

Humbly I submit that whozit is not 15 but 12. I think as soon as he stops ejaculating on challah, and posting new threads every time a random thought-li

YINYANG

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
And as for religions, we're openly supporting theocracy on both sides in the middle east: Israel and Saudi Arabia, and throwing buckets of cash at them. If there's going to be a clean break, then I agree, but lets make it a clean break. No religious institutions, no corporations, etc. But otherwise it's one religion or corporation favored against another. That's not a free society.

I find myself largely in agreement.

Quote:
Separation of church and state is broken all over the place. What was all that during the campaign about Obama denouncing Islam, and now he's swearing in on the same christian bible as Lincoln.

Not to mention the "Committed Christian" flyers...

...and the inaugural prayer (Rick Warren is just icing on the cake here) and benediction. And the Saddleback Forum. And the Compassion Forum. And "God Bless America" at the end of every speech.

I could go on, but here's a video instead.

And that's just this election cycle.

Quote:
No one should be "forced" to do anything, it's an assault on free will. People should be allowed to practice medicine, without having to do things they would find abhorrent. There is no shortage of physicians. I avoid abortion arguments, but if a cop can refuse to break down a church door, and a soldier can refuse to take up arms against an invading enemy, than a doctor has a right to refuse to violate his own principles.

I would argue back that such a force of law would violate separation of church and state. If someone can not refuse to do something because their faith forbids it, then that means they are forbidden to be in medicine because of their faith.

Well, they could always become dermatologists, or oncologists, or something non-morally objectionable. And, see, the two situations you mentioned I see as fundamentally different; they're not making a decision which directly involves the rights of others. When a pharmacist says, "Nope, I refuse to give Plan B," it means that someone else's right to get Plan B is restricted. And I think the rights of the patient should trump the rights of the doctor because medicine is patient-centric. Although situations like these are easier to resolve because all you need is someone else on staff who will give Plan B (although if there's only one pharmacist in a rural area, and you're too poor to get to the next pharmacy XX miles away... see response below).

Quote:
Freedom of choice is the most basic freedom for everyone, including physicians. My doctor, for example, will not prescribe many medications, because he lacks faith in the medical system. If I wanted that treatment, I would have to go to someone else. It is his right.

What about people who don't have the ability to go to some other doctor? I guess they're just shit out of luck.

I'd turn down the snark but I see this "right of conscience" issue as stupid (but you're not stupid for arguing it); there's a reason Bush snuck it in so late. And, gee, most of the cases that come up seem to be about abortion and birth control, but that's not suspicious at all. It's because, like Intelligent Design advocates, most "right of conscience" people seem less interested in medical worker's rights than their own agenda.

Quote:
Quote:
I forgot about the Mord Sith that tortures Richard for a fair chunk of the book.

Okay, this is back on Sword of Truth

Quote:
IIRC (because I'm not going back and reading them).

lost me

Well, they're big books and I'm not going back to read to figure out if I'm right. I've also discovered that over time I've become increasingly sensitive to rape and torture - not from personal experience, just from an expanded awareness of the world.

But, Zedd's still awesome.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:56 AM

Quote:
No, Antimason wasn't a troll. But you got it anyway. And I guess I shouldn't be so quick to feel fond about him, because IIRC he got pretty nasty towards FutureMrsFillion.

No offense, anyone might get angry at FMF. I like to think that I have overcome anger, and I think I have. I find FMF self-righteous, hence my recent Giles quote to her commentary. Part of the problem is that for some people, I know people so much like them, that I think I actually may know them, FMF and Finn are people I suspect I know in real life. This I have suspected for years, but never mentioned before. Nothing has disuaded me of this notion.

Except that you don't. As for self righteous? Me? What a hoot! Thanks for the giggle -it has been a boring night.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 4:02 AM

I wondered if a mention of FMF would prompt a rebuttal. Never been to Kansas then. Ah well. Your bots are scanning well to catch an fmf on the fly.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 4:08 AM

Since Kansas, like Idaho, does not exist I would be hard pressed to go there.

And I don't need bots being omniscient and all.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 6:01 AM

Quote:
YINYANG
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
And as for religions, we're openly supporting ... But otherwise it's one religion or corporation favored against another. That's not a free society.

I find myself largely in agreement.

Quote:
Obama denouncing Islam, and now he's swearing in on the same christian bible as Lincoln.

Not to mention the "Committed Christian" flyers...

Good God. Or, technically, Vengeful God. I was talking to my mom earlier today and we agreed that it would be awsome if once in office Obama said "oh, btw, I'm really a secret muslim."

Quote:
...and the inaugural prayer (Rick Warren is just icing on the cake here) and benediction. And the Saddleback Forum. And the Compassion Forum. And "God Bless America" at the end of every speech.

Ya left out the insertion of "under God" into the pledge, and "in God we trust."

Quote:
I could go on, but here's a video instead.

And that's just this election cycle.

I'm going to go with a mixed reaction to this.

1. McCain is a moron. I believe in "officially recognized religions" but there is a list, and Islam has been on it since 1850. Church of the FSM should be elligible for a faith based initiative.
2. Huckabee and Romney are religious men. No one should be barred because of their faith, either way. Hillary and McCain are total fakers.
3. I don't know Kay Hagan, but I'm suspicious. I know the Godless Americans. They stand for "freedom from religious favoritism." They know it's a deathknell endorsement. They contact campaigns, if they say no to this, they endorse them. They must have contacted her, or her office.
4. Faith groups should meet, just as union leaders do. Atheists can be a faith group. Many religions have no God, such as my own.

Quote:
Well, they could always become dermatologists, or oncologists, or something non-morally objectionable. And, see, the two situations you mentioned I see as fundamentally different; they're not making a decision which directly involves the rights of others. When a pharmacist says, "Nope, I refuse to give Plan B," it means that someone else's right to get Plan B is restricted.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the core issue here, but put I hope you take these points earnestly.

Freedom of choice. Any profession. A psychiatrist can prescribe no pharmaceuticals. A surgeon shouldn't have to being willing to kill in order to make an organ transplant. If a christian OBGYN doesn't want to do abortions, then that's his choice. People should be aware of this, but there's no shortage.

Counterpoints. Freedom of choice is the only freedom ultimately we have.
1. Medicine is not part of the govt. Medicine is not a right. It never was. I cannot go to a hospital and force a doctor to even take an X-Ray.
2. Freedom to refuse action in the US armed services can be declined on the basis of faith. If I were drafted, I would serve, but I wouldn't kill.
3. You can ban federal funds from physicians who make that choice, as a compromise, even if that conflicts with 1. and 2. above.
4. A law banning someone from practicing medicine on the basis of my faith which would be religious discrimination, you've recursively defeated your constitutional point.
5. There are always other doctors. Everyone should have the right to practice medicine regardless of their faith.
6. My doctor refuses lots of care on the basis of belief. It's not a religion, it's a personal moral skepticism of his own field. That's his right. I happen to think it's his very sound judgment. He's a very informed man.

Quote:
And I think the rights of the patient should trump the rights of the doctor because medicine is patient-centric. Although situations like these are easier to resolve because all you need is someone else on staff who will give Plan B (although if there's only one pharmacist in a rural area, and you're too poor to get to the next pha

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

RIVERLOVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

River, love, think of it this way. It's one giant holiday, when conservatives, now completely out of power, will get blamed for nothing.
And, here, as an added bonus, with the list of pure talent you just rattled off, the new administration will f^&k everything up beyond your wildest dreams.
By, the time they're through with the United States of America, assuming there is a United States of America, the words liberal and democrat won't be worried about being tied to socialist and communist and other sinking ship ideolies, they will be worried about being tied to liberal and democrat.

Dreamtove is all, basking in the blameless snow of the coming apocalypse is all

Sorry, but I cannot get on that bandwagon. I am NOT going to cheer if the Democrats screw things up worse. I have always put country first, then Party second. If America is going to spiral downwards it will affect me and everyone else regardless of political views. We need strong leadership now to get America back in the blue. Obama may be the right man at this time, I hope. I already know that Pelosi & Reid are 2 useless political hacks with dangerous thoughts and power. I think Obama is too smart to allow them to shove far-left demented ideology down his throat. He wants two terms, he'll be a pragmatist at least until the second term. Meanwhile, rejoicing in Democrats' failures will not bring me any happiness, and I will not engage in that finger-pointing, gotcha-mentality that has been the trademark of Democrat whiners for a long time.

RIVERLOVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
With Bush leaving the country in such a huge mess, it's even worse for us because we can't say a word, at least for several months.

Sure you can - swing away! And while you're at it, please PLEASE drop a word to your Congressmen (and women), to tell them EXACTLY what you will and won't support in this administration.

I can't and won't do that. I've been called a lot of things here, but I don't believe "hypocrite" has been one of them. Losing an election to the MoveOn Dems is a very sobering reality. It makes my positions moot on many levels. This wasn't a problem for Dems when Bush was elected because there was that whole shadow of legitimacy surrounding him. Now it's Dems, all Dems. Sitting back and screaming out gotchas & acting like Republicans won something is not my style. As I've said before, I think Obama is entitled to at least 6 months before he becomes fair game for criticism. And with the election loss also comes a new self-examination of all my heart-felt beliefs and principles. I think that's a good thing; to try to be more open-minded, and to try to understand why the other 50% in this country see things 180 degrees opposite from the way I do.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:34 PM

Quote:
RIVERLOVE
Sorry, but I cannot get on that bandwagon. I am NOT going to cheer if the Democrats screw things up worse. I have always put country first, then Party second.

Oh, I gave up on Party a long time ago. I think it was somewhere in the torture and killing.

Here's the truth: it's not a party that's power, it's a gang, and that gang has changed parties. They took off their red shirts and put on their blue shirts. The guys in the back room are many of the same guys, and they are all the same thinktanks. This means that instead of discrediting the right, they'll discredit the left. The will be a refreshing change.

Sure, I'd love to stop the globalist unithought kill everyone who disagrees mindset, but not likely to happen. I've run into some people here who have very bad ideas on how to do that.

As for supporting country first. I think you're confusing country with government. A creature set itself up in Washington DC a couple hundred years ago and has killing ever since. It's never done a damned thing for it. I like to think of it as Cthulu. If you go to near it, it will eat you too.

America is going down no matter what because there's way too much greed over in Cthululand, and they're not about to give up on the credit economy. My only real hope is that it becomes so broke that it can't kill, but I suppose they could always bring back the draft.

Quote:
If America is going to spiral downwards it will affect me and everyone else regardless of political views. We need strong leadership now to get America back in the blue. Obama may be the right man at this time, I hope.

Ah, the audacity of hope.
I don't fault Obama, I think president is a position of very little power. I think Bush showed that. And people can say "Oh Cheney had the power," but really, the cronies had the power, and they're the same people. Look at Obama on the campaign trail pick a cabinet. He said
Secretary of State: Richard Lugar
Secretary of Defense: Chuck Hagel
Secretary of the Treasury: Warren Buffet

Did he suddenly change his mind? No, Those were excellent choices, and Obama undoubtedly really wanted them, and then he got steamrolled by Clintonistas and globalists, who wanted their own people in, and got it. This is because they hold all the power in DC, they know all the guys, and hold all the cash.

Quote:
I already know that Pelosi & Reid are 2 useless political hacks with dangerous thoughts and power.

I agree. They're not going to go away. Of course, useless depends on who you are. Useless to us, but then, we're not trying to bully democrats into all supporting bad legislation.

Quote:
I think Obama is too smart to allow them to shove far-left demented ideology down his throat. He wants two terms, he'll be a pragmatist at least until the second term.

He can be Einstein and it's not going to help. I don't think there's far left ideology coming. The far left is already furious at Obama, and can't stand Pelosi and Reid. It's globalist agenda, and it's going to go through.

I agree, they'll try to not ruin the country too quickly, because they want to be re-elected.

Quote:
Meanwhile, rejoicing in Democrats' failures will not bring me any happiness, and I will not engage in that finger-pointing, gotcha-mentality that has been the trademark of Democrat whiners for a long time.

Wasn't suggesting that you should. Just you don't have to be the punching bag for what will be in fact the exact same globalist agenda with a few surface wedge issue changes. Out with the christianity and in with the gay marriage. Big deal, still going to be big borrow and spend militaristic agenda.

I was just seeing the glass as half full. I've already said "I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt until he does something moronic like invade Pakistan." It doesn't matter what timeframe he does it on.

Personally, I'm going to be glad of Obama for two things, and since I think they won't last long, I plan to use them to their fullest:

1. He's good PR because the world thinks th

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:47 PM

River,

Have some fun with it.

They had a blast at our expense for 8 years. Nevermind that Bush basically stole the primary and 2 elections and never did anything really "conservative" but he wore the red badge, and the rest of us were the but of every joke.

I think there will be great comedic opportunity coming up. I'm much more likely to lampoon it, as I have lampooned Bush, than to salute it.

Still, I understand where liberals are coming from, I know a lot of them, and I'm related to a lot of them.

Seriously, it's a programmed ideology that people get largely from university professors who spout it, and then they become convinced that its true. People don't realize the damage nation wide caused by the reverence to the professor. He/She has become the guru of knowledge. If you should happen to proven them wrong, their eyes grow wide, and flame flows from their ears and then they stone you. The truth is, outside of politics, the university canon of knowledge is wrong often. It's our new catholic church. And about 20 years ago or so it created an idea called "politically correct." Now that religion has mindless followers, our own jihadists, believing in a packaged set of ideals that have no bearing on their own lives, and mostly are there to control them, and the nation as a whole.