Originally posted by kirksey957
I like threads where there is a certain creative quality to them. The arguing is so much more insightful and interesting if one's true nature comes out. Today I attempted to make a parallel with the story of the pharisees in the temple and the widow's mite by wondering if RBHill's church would rather accept a contribution from an Enron executive or ...[text shortened]... tithe from a stripper. I find straight answers to these kinds of questions to be illuminating.
.... and in which thread can I find these illuminating and speculative statements ?
Nemesio -
However, I stand by my claim that giving you information about the kind of thread is very helpful to you in determining what sort
of threads I do and do not like, which is my understood aim of your
question.
Sure, it's helpful, but it doesn't answer this part of his question:
Which threads/debates do you like on the RHP debates forum at present?
He then asked you again to answer this question very politely and you got snotty. At least that's how I see it. I think you misunderstood the fact that he did ask for specific titles, which he did do.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
He asked for the threads you like at present. That suggests that the threads he's asking for are still being discussed and are probably on the first page, or maybe have slipped to the second. That takes a few minutes of skimming the list if you want to bother. This is not unrealistic.
Giving reasons why is a asking for a fair amount of effort f ...[text shortened]... ringing baggage to this thread Ivanhoe? Am I making stuff up there that you aren't also seeing?
You're doing a good job. You're adressing the kind of communication people are having. There is miscommunication. People are playing certain games. On some I can lay my hands on. On some a lot of studying is necessary. However I am not so much interested in the games some people play, but what peoples opinions and stances are about certain subjects. I guess the threads where games are being played and people are trying to be clever are not my favorite ones. Threads that are filled with serious discussions are indeed the best.
There are people however who can lure you into a "serious" debate, when all they want is the opponents head on a golden plate.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThere's no debating this; just some sort of accusation based on personal animosity.
Kirk: "The arguing is so much more insightful and interesting if one's true nature comes out. "
..... and I dare say Kirk that you dodge and flee from so many discussions because you are afraid of just that.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhile he did do this, what I provided was much more
He then asked you again to answer this question very politely and you got snotty. At least that's how I see it. I think you misunderstood the fact that he did ask for specific titles, which he did do.
useful to the person who is genuinely interested in
learning how people think about threads. He can apply
it to present threads, and past and future ones too.
Consider Stammer, for example, who also provided a
list of criteria on the first page. You will notice that
Ivanhoe responds to their general content without requesting
further enumeration. Given that, I chose to post in the same
vein; you'll notice my post is after Ivanhoe's reply to Stammer's.
DoctorScribbles did a similar sort of post to Stammer's. As did
I, although in shorter form. I don't know why Stammer's
response, which was identical in format (though different in
content) was received as an acceptable answer while mine did not.
As for your answer: you chose to interpret the question
as a request for specific thread titles and you chose to
respond to the request for expounding upon the reasons for
those choices. I chose to understand the question as a request
for the kind of debates that interest me (or not).
The fact that he responded to me and DoctorScribbles differently
(and you'll notice he since lost his cool with the latter in two posts
on p. 3) indicates a bit of baggage; he a priori deems our
posts questionable while Stammer's post was accepted. Given the
different treatment, and given that I never intended to provide a
list of every thread that interests me currently, and given that I
believe that I fulfilled my obligation in answering the spirit of the
question of the thread, I felt no need to continue.
You'll notice that, if you read my post to him, I do not get 'snotty.'
Indeed, his use of the familiar 'nemmie' could be construed as
patronizing, no? Could this not be 'snotty' as well? My reply,
perhaps curtly, explains why I felt my answer sufficient for what
I considered the spirit of his question.
In any event, given that he treated Stammer differently than
he treated me, I felt no compulsion to accede to his request,
one which I do not believe fulfills his purpose of determining
whether I would find a thread interesting or not. Had he
responded in kind to Stammer's useful post with a request for
a list, I never would have posted in the first place.
You will notice that he has responded to Kirk and DoctorScribbles
in rather curt ways as well. Why not rebuke him, too?
I tried to provide a genuine answer, and he rejected it, though
he accepted Stammer's. He has rejected Dr S. and Kirk as well.
What does this tell you? I subsequently tried to provide explanations
to this answer in two longer posts. They have been rejected as well.
I see no reason to fulfill what I believe to be a silly request when
the answer I gave is more patently useful.
Nemesio
Originally posted by KneverKnight
There's no debating this; just some sort of accusation based on personal animosity.
You're absolutely right.
Except one assumption: Kirk has dodged and fled many discussions, he simply disappears for a while. It's a fact and it still bothers me ....
... but he has a very big mouth when it comes to RBHILL & friends, especially since he knows he is being covered by his "Forum Wars" friends .... the coward.
Originally posted by ivanhoeGentlemen! There's no fighting in here, this is the war room!
You're absolutely right.
Except one assumption: Kirk has dodged and fled many discussions, he simply disappears for a while. It's a fact and it still bothers me ....
... but he has a very big mouth when it comes to RBHILL & friends, especially since he knows he is being covered by his "Forum Wars" friends .... the coward.
You people have a long history on this site ...
Nemesio -
I am not interested in fighting a long drawn out battle in behalf of ivanhoe, so after this post I will let it go.
what I provided was much more
useful to the person who is genuinely interested in
learning how people think about threads. He can apply
it to present threads, and past and future ones too.
This is only true if he can correctly interpret when you would think a "question or concept...is addressed or criticized" and when you would think "the lead poster basically deflects and scampers, cries foul, or ignores outright" the response.
Consider Stammer, for example, who also provided a
list of criteria on the first page. You will notice that
Ivanhoe responds to their general content without requesting
further enumeration.
That's true. However in your case he did ask for further enumeration.
I don't know why Stammer's
response, which was identical in format (though different in
content) was received as an acceptable answer while mine did not.
Ivanhoe never said your answer was unacceptable. He just asked for specifics. It's not like you and Stammer are classmates and the teacher unfairly gave you a harder question than Stammer. Why the comparison? Ivanhoe wasn't insulting when he asked for specifics.
As for your answer: you chose to interpret the question
as a request for specific thread titles
Because that's what he said. The word 'which' is key here. In addition, he reinforced and clarified that request by explicitly asking for specific examples. I think you responded to this by getting unreasonably offended.
The fact that he responded to me and DoctorScribbles differently
(and you'll notice he since lost his cool with the latter in two posts
on p. 3) indicates a bit of baggage; he a priori deems our
posts questionable while Stammer's post was accepted.
Again, I think you're seeing nefarious motives where there weren't any necessarily there. Maybe he thought your response more interesting than Stammer's.
given that I
believe that I fulfilled my obligation in answering the spirit of the
question of the thread, I felt no need to continue.
LOL. You have no obligation. You're not under contract. I just thought you were unnecessarily rude.
Indeed, his use of the familiar 'nemmie' could be construed as
patronizing, no?
Yeah, it's possible, but not obvious. Maybe there's some history between you two where using "nemmie" is clearly patronizing; from my perspective, it isn't necessarily. If you think so you're not giving him the benefit of the doubt but assuming insulting intent where it may not exist.
You will notice that he has responded to Kirk and DoctorScribbles
in rather curt ways as well. Why not rebuke him, too?
I thought DoctorScribbles was being obnoxious by expounding in length why he won't list a couple thread titles. He's not saving himself any time as he's writing a small essay so he can avoid skimming the first couple pages and copy-pasting those titles he's enjoyed participating in.
I don't think he was that curt with Kirksey. Maybe he was a little bit. This is understandable though as I feel he'd made it clear he would like specific titles, and Kirksey posted in the same manner as you and DrScribbles - without specifics - which he'd already made fairly clear was not what he wanted.
He has rejected Dr S. and Kirk as well.
What does this tell you?
Nothing particularly. I'm not seeing any vicious motives behind this. He didn't happen to ask Stammer for specifics. Maybe it slipped his mind.
This disagreement really isn't that important to me so I will step out of it now. I hope you're not one of those people who takes this to heart and has it fester in your soul until you hate me with a lifelong obsession like some folks out here, because I like you nemesio.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Nemesio -
I am not interested in fighting a long drawn out battle in behalf of ivanhoe, so after this post I will let it go.
[b]what I provided was much more
useful to the person who is genuinely interested in
learning how people think about threads. He can apply
it to present threads, and past and future ones too.
This is on ...[text shortened]... ntil you hate me with a lifelong obsession like some folks out here, because I like you nemesio.[/b]
Thanks ATY, at least now I know my words can also be interpreted in a positive and friendly way ....... 🙂
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf I happen to flee a discussion it is because I may not have anything to contribute. For example I have said on many occasions that the when it comes to understanding arguments of logic that Doctorscribbles and Bbarr discuss, I am out of my element. Can you point out an issue or discussion I have evaded as I would like to know.
You're absolutely right.
Except one assumption: Kirk has dodged and fled many discussions, he simply disappears for a while. It's a fact and it still bothers me ....
... but he has a very big mouth when it comes to RBHILL & friends, especially since he knows he is being covered by his "Forum Wars" friends .... the coward.
I know you to be an intelligent person, but I must say that I am stunned that you seem to flee the room when we hear a comic book interpretation of the Gospel from the likes of Blindfaith. I have every intention of pointing out their folly in the truest sense of the Old Testament tradition of validating the fool as such.
Finally, if they don't like my posts, I am happy to hear from them. Hardly the thing you would expect from a "coward."
Originally posted by AThousandYoung"I don't think he was that curt with Kirksey"
Nemesio -
I am not interested in fighting a long drawn out battle in behalf of ivanhoe, so after this post I will let it go.
[b]what I provided was much more
useful to the person who is genuinely interested in
learning how people think about threads. He can apply
it to present threads, and past and future ones too.
This is on ...[text shortened]... ntil you hate me with a lifelong obsession like some folks out here, because I like you nemesio.[/b]
"Coward"
"You should be ashamed of yourself."
"Now we know who's obsessed with sex."
Originally posted by kirksey957
If I happen to flee a discussion it is because I may not have anything to contribute. For example I have said on many occasions that the when it comes to understanding arguments of logic that Doctorscribbles and Bbarr discuss, I am out of my element. Can you point out an issue or discussion I have evaded as I would like to know.
I know you to be an ...[text shortened]... e my posts, I am happy to hear from them. Hardly the thing you would expect from a "coward."
There are many. However I do not keep records of these instances. I remember one discussion about the interpretation of the "Young Rich Ruler".
Kirk: "I have every intention of pointing out their folly in the truest sense of the Old Testament tradition of validating the fool as such."
Now you are even referring to the Old Testament, the Word of God, to explain and get approval of your and your friends's unworthy and shameful actions.
Originally posted by kirksey957You are indeed a coward.
"I don't think he was that curt with Kirksey"
"Coward"
"You should be ashamed of yourself."
"Now we know who's obsessed with sex."
You should indeed be ashamed of yourself.
You are calling other Christians obsessed with sex, but as we all can read and see how your attitude towards the subject is, you should be more introspective regarding this matter and maybe you will find the truth someday.
You are constantly hiding yourself behind some travesty. Sometimes I get the impression your whole Christian faith is one big travesty.
By the way the correct quote of my observation should have been: "Guess who is preoccupied with sex ?"
You are Kirk.