Forum Moderation?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

What is going on in this thread ? ...... I bet Nemmies mother in law is still staying over ...... 😛

A further explanation could be that the poor lad had a very busy time. Christmas time always means a lot of work for organists, cho ...[text shortened]... d -members.

I hope you can chill out a bit now, Nemmy .....

deism   
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the
universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life,
exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no
supernatural revelation.

I wouldn't describe myself as a deist. However, if Ivanhoe wants
to describe me that way, that's a-okay with me, as long as he
acknowledges that I believe such an ascription is inaccurate.

I hope we can back on topic so that Pcaspian can define what he
means by 'Objectively Offensive,' where some words intrinsically
are offensive.

Nemesio

Edit: I am not sure why there is this fascination with what I do
and don't believe and I am especially unclear as to why something
I might say is more offensive if I am a Christian than if I am not.

Originally posted by pcaspian
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]
Nemesio has the answer.

Hehe, no he doesn't Ivan.

I'd love to explain it to ya, but as I'm sure you're aware, I've the IQ of an 'average' 2nd grader. 😉




[/b]

Obviously you're still struggling with your reading comprehension. I said this:

From the content of your posts I'm sure you wouldn't be able to understand my post without somebody of a higher IQ (find an average 2nd Grader they'll do) reading it very slowly to you

Therefore, I said your IQ was below the average 2nd grader and you are overrating yourself. BTW, do you now understand the difference between a "pun" and a "double entendre"?

In You'restillnotgettingitship,

2BitLawyer

Originally posted by nemesio
deism   
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the
universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life,
exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no
supernatural revelation.

I would ...[text shortened]... might say is more offensive if I am a Christian than if I am not.

Nemesio: " ..... such an ascription is inaccurate."

All right, it is inaccurate, but it certainly means you're not a Christian. Otherwise it wouldn't be "just" inaccurate, but simply false.

Nemesio:
"Edit: I am not sure why there is this fascination with what I do
and don't believe and I am especially unclear as to why something
I might say is more offensive if I am a Christian than if I am not."[/b]

Instead of wondering why you could feel flattered, but hey ..... who is the psychologist here ? I'm not ......

Isn't it annoying or troubling in some way for you, Nemesio, to play all those songs, chorals, masses, (Gretshaninov !!) etc. and not share the general meaning and content of the texts with those Christians, who visit the services in which you're playing ?

Originally posted by pcaspian
Ok, so Nemesio refused to reply to my post, his claim , he finds my posts boring.

He did ofcourse avoid my last question claiming :

[i]zzz...

Your redundant posts without content that continually
ignore my points have lost my in ...[text shortened]... ood time to shake the dust off my boots Nemesio ?

regards
pc

I dont have to argue about the meaning of my words, because who would know better than me? And yes it has given me a laugh, you keep on making me laugh each time you read something into it. Your brain threw up Jesus with Mary and their "oedipus complex" not mine, you dont find that funny? 😀

You need to go get a (I was going to say friend but then I thought better of it) non-christian to read my statement and ask them what they think I mean.

Originally posted by no1marauder

Therefore, I said your IQ was below the average 2nd grader
2BitLawyer

Lol .... it's almost as if he's doing this on purpose .

my sides
.
.
.
splitting...

ROFLMAO.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Isn't it annoying or troubling in some way for you, Nemesio, to play all those songs, chorals, masses, (Gretshaninov !!) etc. and not share the general meaning and content of the texts with those Christians, who visit the services in which you're playing ?

You are suggesting that I don't share in the general
meaning and context of the 'songs,' something I've
never said.

I don't know why you have developed this fascination;
my faith tradition (or lack thereof)is not relevant to the
discussion of moderation.

Nemesio

Originally posted by pcaspian
Lol .... it's almost as if he's doing this on purpose .

my sides
.
.
.
splitting...

ROFLMAO.

When you recover, perhaps you could expound on
'Objective Offensiveness.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by nemesio
When you recover, perhaps you could expound on
'Objective Offensiveness.'

Nemesio

Sorry dude, you've shown yourself incapable of actual debate. In an attempt to cease the meaningless name-calling, which no doubt (thanks Cribs) will continue, I'll make this my last post.

Few suggestions in future :
1. Actually address your opponents points, don't simply think that if you don't reply to them, they'll go away.
2. When you're wrong, just admit it, it truely looks stupid when you argue
over something you know you're wrong about. Simply put, if you can't concede even the most insignificant points, it shows a weak character.
3. Stop pretending to be good at grammar, you're not.

Lastly, next time you open up a thread to debate, don't run away again, it's not very dignified.

regards
pc

Originally posted by pcaspian
1. Actually address your opponents points, don't simply think that if you don't reply to them, they'll go away.

I've made an effort to address every single one of your points.
You've made no effort to address the one point I've raised:
Objective Offensiveness.

2. When you're wrong, just admit it, it truely looks stupid when you argue
over something you know you're wrong about. Simply put, if you can't concede even the most insignificant points, it shows a weak character.

I've demonstrated on every point why I think I am right. You just
keep asserting that I am wrong, as if I will concede by force of your
will.

3. Stop pretending to be good at grammar, you're not.

One of my moonlighting stints is as an editor for major publications
in musicology. Your questioning of my grammar (especially when
you are demonstrably wrong) is absurd, and given your limited
understanding of the field, it would be wisest (for the sake of your
own character) to probably drop it.

Lastly, next time you open up a thread to debate, don't run away again, it's not very dignified.

Just because I don't respond within 24 hours of one of your silly
posts doesn't mean I've 'run away.' I've got better things to do
then try to address your convoluted points, but I still make time in
the desparate hopes that your mind will open and you will understand
a fraction of what I've wrote.

You would do well to take your own advice, I might add.

Nemesio

P.S. Do you intend to address the issue of 'Objective Offensiveness?'

Originally posted by nemesio
You are suggesting that I don't share in the general
meaning and context of the 'songs,' something I've
never said.

I don't know why you have developed this fascination;
my faith tradition (or lack thereof)is not relevant to the
discussion of moderation.

Nemesio

Nemesio: "You are suggesting that I don't share in the general
meaning and context of the 'songs,' something I've
never said."

I know you never said that explicitely.
You aren't denying it either, by the way ...... 😉

Nemesio: "...my faith tradition (or lack thereof)is not relevant to the
discussion of moderation."

... that remains to be seen.

Originally posted by nemesio
Originally posted by pcaspian
[b]1. Actually address your opponents points, don't simply think that if you don't reply to them, they'll go away.

I've made an effort to address every single one of your points.
You've made no effort to address the one point I've raised:
Objective Offensiveness.

2. When you're wrong, just admit it, ...[text shortened]... ight add.

Nemesio

P.S. Do you intend to address the issue of 'Objective Offensiveness?'

Pcaspian,

Shall I conclude, as you did, because you haven't responded to my
query that you concede that your stance has no merit and that you
recognize that no word is intrinsically offensive?

Or do you plan to discuss the notion of 'Objectively Offensive?'

I'll give you 27 hours, 19 minutes and 14 seconds to respond.

Nemesio