Originally posted by FMF Are you seriously saying you don't see the relevance of my comments thus far? If you are feigning it, I can't quite see what you think you will achieve.
Your comments are a deflection from the initial observation, which initiated your comments in the first place.
I am merely trying to get you back on point.
Either address that point or admit you're at a loss... as it is appearing the more you post.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Your comments are a deflection from the initial observation, which initiated your comments in the first place.
I am merely trying to get you back on point.
Either address that point or admit you're at a loss... as it is appearing the more you post.
Your apparent 'pretending not to understand' how my point is totally on-topic seems to rely heavily on you insisting on a very narrow definition of what Grampy Bobby's modus operandi is and on you ignoring what the actual criticisms of it have been in the past.
twhitehead explained it well a few weeks ago:
"[Conclusion: You (Grampy Bobby) are trolling]. On the basis of your past behavior and the content of your OP. You carefully pick topics that you know will get a strong reaction (usually because they are so obviously wrong) and then you carefully avoid discussing them properly. Then when you do comment, it demonstrates that you have chosen to ignore anything you have been told in the past - which again tends to get a big reaction. Now you are piling it on by pretending that that reaction that you have so carefully engineered is 'anger' - and if you get a reaction this time you can pretend it just confirms your OP."
This thread appears to be somewhat of a departure from Grampy Bobby's modus operandi. This will be why the reaction to it is somewhat of a departure from what it often is.
Originally posted by FMF Your apparent 'pretending not to understand' how my point is totally on-topic seems to rely heavily on you insisting on a very narrow definition of what Grampy Bobby's modus operandi is and on you ignoring what the actual criticisms of it have been in the past.
twhitehead explained it well a few weeks ago:
[b]"[Conclusion: You (Grampy Bobby) are trolling] ...[text shortened]... operandi. This will be why the reaction to it is somewhat of a departure from what it often is.
Are you high?
He is constantly harangued for cutting and pasting (at least, that is the complaint).
Here, he cut and paste.
The difference, of course, is that this cut and paste contained content which others could agree with.
The same other who had previously and repeatedly complained about cutting and pasting HERE had no problem with cutting and pasting.
That brings up a question in the reasonable person's mind: why would there not be a complain, if he is doing here what he always does?
Could it be the content?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Are you high?
He is constantly harangued for cutting and pasting (at least, that is the complaint).
Here, he cut and paste.
The difference, of course, is that this cut and paste contained content which others could agree with.
The same other who had previously and repeatedly complained about cutting and pasting HERE had no problem with cutting a ...[text shortened]...
Could it be the content?
I'm guessing that it was nothing but the content.
What say you?
Yet again you are relying on your own very narrow definition of what Grampy Bobby's modus operandi actually is. You are also simply ignoring what the actual criticisms of his modus operandi have been. twhitehead put it very succinctly.
Originally posted by FMF Yet again you are relying on your own very narrow definition of what Grampy Bobby's modus operandi actually is. You are also simply ignoring what the actual criticisms of his modus operandi have been. twhitehead put it very succinctly.
If my definition is--- as you claim--- narrow, then, by all means, correct and broaden where you see fit.
As I have claimed, and as is fully supported by even a casual perusal of his posts... and the initial complaints therein... he gets tagged for the cutting and pasting without his own commentary.
Here, we saw a different reaction, despite the same tactics on his part.
You cannot explain it, so you use a different hue.
Bully for you.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH If my definition is--- as you claim--- narrow, then, by all means, correct and broaden where you see fit.
As I have claimed, and as is fully supported by even a casual perusal of his posts... and the initial complaints therein... he gets tagged for the cutting and pasting without his own commentary.
Here, we saw a different reaction, despite the same tactics on his part.
You cannot explain it, so you use a different hue.
Bully for you.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby Originally posted by Grampy Bobby SG, do you think Red Hot Pawn's new member, Herb14, would focus on topics objectively and pose thoughtful questions in search of answers in sync with truth or would the Noobie rant with a rehearsed agenda of questions he was dying to refute?
SG, why does a simple question concerning a fictional site member's ...[text shortened]... ology for pursuing a definitive reply. If not, is "being good at debate" the only acid criteria?
The answer to your first question is "I don't know."
Originally posted by wolfgang59 How did mankind think before language?
How does a baby think?
How do deaf people think?
Originally posted by wolfgang59 How did mankind think before language? [The first man and then later together with the first woman conversed daily with God. If your premise is evolution, I can't help you.]
How does a baby think? [At birth an infant immediately begins learning to associate sounds and empirical experience with cause, effect and results; its tabula rasa gets written on every waking moment. Sounds become words; words become constructs; eventually social and technical vocabularies are acquired. Why do you think online forum word association games, including Kewpie's sentence completion, are popular? We think with words and enjoy doing so creatively in public.]
How do deaf people think? [By reading. If they're both deaf and blind from birth, I'd guess that sensory perception would be their only external contact.]
Removed
Joined
03 Jan '13
Moves
13080
19 Apr '14 14:111 edit
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby twhitehead, I'm glad your pleased (and could wish Herb Silverman was an RHP Member and active on this forum).
Grampy,
While a prominent atheist here (twhitehead) congradulates you, the same points could have been written by a number of theists here years ago.
I mean, I read nothing in the list that shocked me or I have not already known by personal experience.
Now I am going back over the list carefully and ask myself honestly "Over the last 40 years, haven't I seen that already ?"
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby How do deaf people think? [By reading. If they're both deaf and blind from birth, I'd guess that sensory perception would be their only external contact.]
So your assertion that language is required for thinking is wrong.
19 Apr '14 03:17
10 Things I Wish Everyone Knew About Atheism
Back to Top