Spirituality
17 Mar 14
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by moonbusnot quite on punch cards although they were illustrated. I typed my first basic program on a spectrum, it was a horse racing game in which you could try to determine the winner, suffice to say it took me three days and I was so exhausted searching for bugs that I gave out and never tried it again. Now after a hiatus of about twenty years I am learning HTML5, Css and Javascript 😀
Gad, someone else here programmed on punch cards. I don't feel so alone somehow.
Regarding my supposed neutrality: if two bald men were wrangling over a comb, would you take sides?
Edit: yes, the DIY comment was tongue in cheeky.
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by moonbusWell, I think the neutrality of your comments can be adjudged in terms of who is now taking the most comfort from their bromide flavour. 🙂
Regarding my supposed neutrality: if two bald men were wrangling over a comb, would you take sides?
28 Mar 14
" ... what you might mean or might not mean by "getting personal" is unclear."
Two examples of what I mean by getting personal:
1. Calling someone a liar. "Liar" is a very strong term, implying a) intent to deceive, and b) strong moral opprobrium. Some of what goes on here I would classify as hyperbole, and therefore exempt from a charge of willful intent to deceive. In other cases, what goes on here is simply too slapdash to be taken seriously enough to merit being called either "true" or "deliberately misleading and hence prima facie a lie".
2. Calling people morons is personal and impolite, IMO. Anyone who can master the rules of chess is, almost by definition, not of sub-standard intelligence. No one here, regardless of rating, deserves to be demeaned by an epithet implying sub-standard intelligence.
Case in point: RJH has more than once provoked people into calling him a moron--due to the intransigence of his views--but he's no moron, whatever he may believe and however preposterously he may try to defend what he believes. I grant you, his forum descriptor (The Moron Instructor: i.e., the instructor OF morons) implies a disparagement and invites a retort, and he has reaped the retort he was doubtless expecting. [For those whose native language is not English, if HE were the moron, the descriptor would/should read The Moronic Instructor--but HE knew that!]
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by moonbusAh memories....
Gad, someone else here programmed on punch cards. I don't feel so alone somehow.
Regarding my supposed neutrality: if two bald men were wrangling over a comb, would you take sides?
Edit: yes, the DIY comment was tongue in cheeky.
I remember the twin floppy discs with Framework, which was a really good programme. My first HardDrive was 20 Mb. When I upgraded to 250Mb I thought i would never fill that disc!
I still have a computer at home running on Windows 98, which I use basically for Freecell and solitaire....
Anyway, back to this thread - I agree with SG (28/03 at 08.26) that this thread lost much of its interest for me since I have no clue what the PMs and insults and counter-insults are all about! So I've just been watching from the sidelines.
To FMF - I don't participate on any Internet chat groups, so am not familiar with the etiquette there. From what you are saying, looks like I am not missing much. As soon as things become personal, I usually pick up my ball and leave.
Oh, and about the two bald men - I would try to get hold of the comb myself and run! If two bald men are fighting over it, there must be something to it outside the obvious. 😀
Originally posted by CalJustThe forums here at RHP have been for the most part fun during the years that I have been here. Debates used to be much livelier. This Spirituality Forum is the most active of them all at the moment.
To FMF - I don't participate on any Internet chat groups, so am not familiar with the etiquette there. From what you are saying, looks like I am not missing much. As soon as things become personal, I usually pick up my ball and leave.
As for me, as soon as things become personal, I redouble my efforts to keep my eye on the topic and play each ball on its merits, and do not reply in kind to personal insults. This really rubs some people up the wrong way, especially those whose schtick is very heavily dependent on "expedient" ad hominems.
I believe that we are NOT deluded if we believe we can remain "clean" when we interact with people here, even those who openly admit to being "not completely unprincipled [but...]".
It's a shame you and twhitehead fell out: you are somewhat of a breath of fresh air, and he is one of the more thoughtful and heart-of-the-issue oriented posters here.
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by FMFYes, rather - to both comments.
I believe that we are NOT deluded if we believe we can remain "clean" when we interact with people here, even those who openly admit to being "not [b]completely unprincipled [but...]".
It's a shame you and twhitehead fell out: you are somewhat of a breath of fresh air, and he is one of the more thoughtful and heart-of-the-issue oriented posters here.[/b]
I really think the trouble with that interlude with twhitehead was based on interpretation and understanding of words.
For example, when I say : "You SAID", I mean the literal words in black and white. What I think he means when he says : "I SAID", is : "My actual MEANING, whether it is spelled out in letters or not, and whether it is obvious or not".
I also remember a previous interchange with him which caused me (at the time) much frustration. At issue was "The MAJORITY of whatever feels such-and-such", and my point was that in that instance, about 60% of the group constituted a majority. He countered by saying no, 60% is NOT a majority. When I asked well, what then IS a majority, he said at "least 80 or 90%". I countered that in actual fact 50.1% was a majority, but we fought for quite awhile over that until I gave up! I still remember that....
Again, memories....
😵
28 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWow eff-him , your modesty with regard to using what may be considered expedient is truly humbling especially considering that your general modus operandi is to probe away intent on finding some inconsistency in a persons testimony that you can ruthlessly exploit. Had you on the other hand the honesty to admit that you too sometimes get 'caught up in the melee', I could respect that more, but this self righteousness really is hard to respect.
The forums here at RHP have been for the most part fun during the years that I have been here. Debates used to be much livelier. This Spirituality Forum is the most active of them all at the moment.
As for me, as soon as things become personal, I redouble my efforts to keep my eye on the topic and play each ball on its merits, and do not reply in kind to per ...[text shortened]... of fresh air, and he is one of the more thoughtful and heart-of-the-issue oriented posters here.
Originally posted by divegeesterwhy dont you suck up the statement into your propaganda machine, have your gelid tentacles twist and mold it, depriving it of all humanity and spew it out gloriously covered with lashings of slobbery drool?
Is this the latest JW euphemism for telling a lie?
28 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBe specific, robbie ~ I am calling you out on your "unclean" admission. If I have been "unprincipled", give us the links. What posts do you have a problem with? I do not need "respect" from the likes of you. Just substantiate something. Anything. Can you?
Wow eff-him , your modesty with regard to using what may be considered expedient is truly humbling especially considering that your general modus operandi is to probe away intent on finding some inconsistency in a persons testimony that you can ruthlessly exploit. Had you on the other hand the honesty to admit that you too sometimes get 'caught up in the melee', I could respect that more, but this self righteousness really is hard to respect.
28 Mar 14
5 edits
Originally posted by FMFI provided an instance here FMF, your tentacles twisted the term 'not entirely without principle', into, 'unprincipled' putting a perspective upon it that the writer never intended, an opportunistic and deviously cunning piece of expedient journalism and slight of hand if ever there was one. I hope that's specific enough for you FMF.
Be specific, robbie ~ I am calling you out on your "unclean" admission. If I have been "unprincipled", give us the links. What posts do you have a problem with? I do not need "respect" from the likes of you. Just substantiate something. Anything,
'From the likes of you', wow, could you perhaps refrain from just so much disdainful contempt, I am a human being after all and it makes you sound rather sinister and quite spiteful to be quite honest.
28 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou said this:
I provided an instance here FMF, your tentacles twisted the term 'not entirely without principle', into, 'unprincipled' putting a perspective upon it that the writer never intended, an opportunistic and deviously cunning piece of expedient journalism and slight of hand if ever there was one. I hope that's specific enough for you FMF.
"Anyone who enters a mele thinking that they will come away clean I think is seriously deluded. I wont say that I am completely unprincipled but certainly I use what may be expedient at the time, its a much more reactionary stance rather than a calculating one."
If you think this makes you sound "principled" so be it. I think it makes you sound "unprincipled". Others will decide.
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by FMFah it must be true if many people believe or say it to be true, a rather fallacious argument, oh well, trundle trundle the little caravan moves on.
You said this:
[b]"Anyone who enters a mele thinking that they will come away clean I think is seriously deluded. I wont say that I am completely unprincipled but certainly I use what may be expedient at the time, its a much more reactionary stance rather than a calculating one."
If you thinks this makes you sound "principled" so be it. I think it makes you sound "unprincipled". Others will decide.[/b]