@tom-wolsey saidOffer a couple of examples of Spirituality Forum discussions that correspond to the dialogue in the OP you claimed was "typical".
Not sure what you mean about the PM thing. Maybe you can post the PM and refresh my memory? I think it's fair to say anyone with the slightest experience posting in the SF will easily understand the hypothetical about the disgraced, pathetic Person B. Good thing Person B is fictitious, bearing no resemblance to anyone here because... who would want to be that guy ...[text shortened]... ? Why would everyone else just up and leave the SF and post in other forums instead? Sooooo weird.
You started this thread immediately after getting bent out of shape on the "The problem of goodness" thread. Is that a discussion that resembles, in your mind, the supposedly "typical" dialogue you made up for your OP?
-Removed-You don't get it either? Hmph. And you were one of the ones for which the hypothetical was intended. I pictured you rolling your eyes, groaning in agreement, thinking, "Yep, I know exactly what you mean... what a reprehensible scumbag Person B is! Right on, brother!" But alas. You didn't get it. I'm literally shocked to the point of disbelief.
@tom-wolsey saidThe cartoonish staw man dialogue in the OP is transparent for what it is: a cartoonish staw man dialogue.
You don't get it either? Hmph. And you were one of the ones for which the hypothetical was intended. I pictured you rolling your eyes, groaning in agreement, thinking, "Yep, I know exactly what you mean... what a reprehensible scumbag Person B is! Right on, brother!" But alas. You didn't get it. I'm literally shocked to the point of disbelief.
You seem to think no one "gets" what you were trying to do. But I am sure anyone who's read it "gets" what your motivation was.
If you could cite some discussions that are similar to the fictional one you posted in the OP, we could talk about how truthful your claim is that the OP represents "realism" and an exchange that is genuinely "typical".
You appear to be declaring yourself to be the 'winner' in all this in some bizarre way. But all I see is a rather ludicrous OP that you have subsequently failed to substantiate or justify.
-Removed-"Seem to be lacking in insight...."
Yep. I totally have no clue why this place is a veritable ghost town. I'm sure things have changed so much in the last year and half. So don't mind me and my absurd hypothetical about the loathsome "Person B."
Hey. You know what? Come to think of it, since you have spent so much of your time here 12+ years. You're sort of the curator around here, aren't you? Maybe you can help me understand better. Why are you and like 1 other guy about the only ones left? If I didn't know better, I'd say people are avoiding you. We know that's not the case though. More likely, it's because deep subjects and conversations involving weighty matters like spirituality are just not popular with chess players anymore.
@tom-wolsey saidMaybe you can have a go at BigDoggProblem's two questions now:
So don't mind me and my absurd hypothetical about the loathsome "Person B."
He said: "I don't see that you have anything to complain about. You clearly identify as a "Person A", and in your example, Person A pwnd Person B. If your characterization is accurate, you and your ilk rule this forum."
He then went on to ask two questions which you have been dodging. He asked, if your characterization of the discussion in the OP is accurate, then...
...what's the problem? Was it that you couldn't change Person B despite this massive win in argumentation?
You have yet to address these two questions.
@tom-wolsey saidNice one! To go even more meta, maybe there is some innate Q Template of which this is only a domain-specific example.
Person A: Posts an eloquent ten paragraph case for God, using different writing methods to illustrate his point. Somewhere in paragraph 6, there's a brief, anecdotal mention of a dying flower.
Person B skims through all 10 paragraphs. Then focuses like a laser on the poor little flower: Why did you speak of the flower dying? I like flowers. Do you want the flower ...[text shortened]... s clearly immature, shallow, and probably isn't even intelligent or self-aware enough to realize it.
E.g., the same kind of behavior can be seen during the peer-review process for articles to be published in scientific research journals.
@fmf saidI'm sure I used to see logic puzzles like this at the newsstand, some years ago.
Maybe you can have a go at BigDoggProblem's two questions now:
He said: "I don't see that you have anything to complain about. You clearly identify as a "Person A", and in your example, Person A pwnd Person B. If your characterization is accurate, you and your ilk rule this forum."
He then went on to ask two questions which you have been dodging. He asked, if your ch ...[text shortened]... son B despite this massive win in argumentation?[/i]
You have yet to address these two questions.