Spirituality
14 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFEverything I said was accurate, your challenge was proven completely clumsy and irrelevant, and here you go, marching on, beating your little drum. We are all on to you. It's just that most of the rest of us are so tired of your silly games that they don't even talk to you anymore.
In such an utterly gruesome case as this, it's a pity that you tried to tie it to your own hyperbole and, as one other poster described it, demagoguery. I personally think you should not have stated such a blatant falsehood in your OP, and instead treated this shocking multiple murder with some modicum of decency.
On a completely different subject, I've been tinkering with the idea of a great new comic book superhero... Bozo the Troll. His picture should appear at the left of the next post.
17 Apr 13
Originally posted by sumydidIt's not even clear if you actually comprehend the criticism that is being levelled at you.
Everything I said was accurate, your challenge was proven completely clumsy and irrelevant, and here you go, marching on, beating your little drum. We are all on to you. It's just that most of the rest of us are so tired of your silly games that they don't even talk to you anymore.
On a completely different subject, I've been tinkering with the idea of ...[text shortened]... ic book superhero... Bozo the Troll. His picture should appear at the left of the next post.
17 Apr 13
2 edits
Before I go, I state for the record that your accusation of me force-fitting this story into my own "hyperbole" is completely false, as I posted a link to an article in the OP, that corroborates everything I said. And I can post ten more articles that further corroborate everything I've said.
You wouldn't know, as you are hole'd up in lil' ol' Indonesia. But here in the US of A, there are very serious charges leveled against the mainstream media, the details of which are precisely as I described.
Your false, trumped up, irrelevant, baseless, unfounded charges against me are completely refuted by the facts surrounding the issue, which can easily be researched if you cared to lift those lazy fingers of yours and click the mouse a few times. Instead, you did a little Google search and used irrelevant data to trump up a case against me which fell flat the instant it was posted. But you wouldn't know that because again, you don't live here and have absolutely NO idea who the mainstream media is represented by. If you did, you would NEVER have mentioned small-ball, non-mainstream (and politically jaded) media organizations as part of your evidence against me.
What you have done here is the equivalent of someone who has never read the bible, reading a couple of bullet points in an opinionated article written by an Atheist, and then using that as "solid proof" that bible believers are wrong. And sadly, that accurately describes most of the Atheists that troll around in spiritual forums, but that's for another time.
I'd bid you good day but as bitter and jaded as you obviously are, I'm quite certain you wouldn't take me up on it. And since you have claimed that every single person you know in your neighborhood is a believer in a god, I can understand your Atheist frustrations. So ... have a normal, miserable day, mate.
Now don't forget. Nose up, eyes looking downward, and respond with exceeding arrogance and continued dishonesty. That's what I've come to expect, so, don't let me down. Thanks in advance.
17 Apr 13
Originally posted by JS357I have tried to raise the issue of sumydid's apparent demagoguery with him, but he's just ignored it, as he did with you.
You seem to be implying that "pro-Gosnell" people, it there are any such people who think he should be ruled innocent, are "almost completely" atheists, and that "anti-Gosnell" people are "almost completely" Abrahamic religious people.
I would call that approach demagoguery, because it is an appeal to the emotions, prejudices, and ignorance of less-educated ...[text shortened]... ple.
I think the flak you are getting has a lot to do with this apparent demagoguery.
17 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidI see the picture of Bozo the Troll on the post just above my post. He is the one with the glasses and the weird looking black eyes peering out the middle of the lenses. The eyes seem to be searching all around but unable to focus on anything.
Everything I said was accurate, your challenge was proven completely clumsy and irrelevant, and here you go, marching on, beating your little drum. We are all on to you. It's just that most of the rest of us are so tired of your silly games that they don't even talk to you anymore.
On a completely different subject, I've been tinkering with the idea of ...[text shortened]... ic book superhero... Bozo the Troll. His picture should appear at the left of the next post.
17 Apr 13
6 edits
Originally posted by FMFThere was no demagoguery lobbed that wasn't in direct response to the demagoguery received. Of course, you are conveniently "unaware" of the preliminary actions you took, which provoked an immediate response.
I have tried to raise the issue of sumydid's apparent demagoguery with him, but he's just ignored it, as he did with you.
What you did (and do often) is like this. You could start a thread and say 2+2=4. Then I could respond with a google search on "2+2=5" and demonstrate that your claim is "patently false" because of all the hits. Then I could suggest you are a total liar (in the form of a question.. "Are you aware that you lied?" ). Then, if you respond with ANYTHING but positive, complimentary messages to me, I jump all over you for being a demagogue.
It's so old hat. I've seen it time and time again. It used to unnerve me, the blatant, thinly veiled hostility and dishonesty... but that was before I realized that it's fairly common and something to simply point out when it occurs.
And about your accusation of me IGNORING others... well, B the T, there you go again. You conveniently *assumed* I was ignoring someone, made a big, ugly strawman out of it, and then attacked my character with it. Fact is, I'm not ignoring anyone, but your incessant dishonest, derailing posts have kept me quite occupied and I've hardly had the time to read any other posts. I did manage to read a couple and responded to them.
Are you willfully taking up all my time with trumped up, false accusations so as to derail the thread? Are you doing it just annoy me so that I get frustrated and go away--which is the typical result you get from other users you continually harass?
Are you aware that you have an established pattern of trolling threads to respond to people you habitually argue with, lashing out with insults and character assassinations in the form of innuendo, cloaked as "questions?"
This thread is hardly what it was initially intended to be about, but rather than just abandon my thread and give up, you just happened to catch me in a mood ... I just don't feel like taking your abuse this time.
Hey, I've got an idea! Since your pitiful effort to paint me as a liar and "debunk" my article ended up such an abysmal failure--why don't you draw in some more of your like-minded supporters by randomly replying to some of their old comments? It'd probably be easier just to PM them and ask for support, but anyway, do what ya gotta do and I'll be here! Have a good night! Or is it daytime in that neighborhood you describe as dangerous and hostile to Atheists like yourself. Take care, and for goodness' sake, arm yourself with an AR-15 or something, if you think the believers are going to bust your door down. Never hurts to be prepared!
17 Apr 13
Originally posted by sumydidThere was no demagoguery lobbed that wasn't in direct response to the demagoguery received. Of course, you are conveniently "unaware" of the preliminary actions you took, which provoked an immediate response. What you did (and do often) is like this. You could start a thread and say 2+2=4. Then I could respond with a google search on "2+2=5" and demonstrate that your claim is "patently false" because of all the hits. Then I could suggest you are a total liar (in the form of a question.. "Are you aware that you lied?" ). Then, if you respond with ANYTHING but positive, complimentary messages to me, I jump all over you for being a demagogue. It's so old hat. I've seen it time and time again. It used to unnerve me, the blatant, thinly veiled hostility and dishonesty... but that was before I realized that it's fairly common and something to simply point out when it occurs. And about your accusation of me IGNORING others... well, B the T, there you go again. You conveniently *assumed* I was ignoring someone, made a big, ugly strawman out of it, and then attacked my character with it. Fact is, I'm not ignoring anyone, but your incessant dishonest, derailing posts have kept me quite occupied and I've hardly had the time to read any other posts. I did manage to read a couple and responded to them. Are you willfully taking up all my time with trumped up, false accusations so as to derail the thread? Are you doing it just annoy me so that I get frustrated and go away--which is the typical result you get from other users you continually harass? Are you aware that you have an established pattern of trolling threads to respond to people you habitually argue with, lashing out with insults and character assassinations in the form of innuendo, cloaked as "questions?" This thread is hardly what it was initially intended to be about, but rather than just abandon my thread and give up, you just happened to catch me in a mood ... I just don't feel like taking your abuse this time. Hey, I've got an idea! Since your pitiful effort to paint me as a liar and "debunk" my article ended up such an abysmal failure--why don't you draw in some more of your like-minded supporters by randomly replying to some of their old comments? It'd probably be easier just to PM them and ask for support, but anyway, do what ya gotta do and I'll be here! Have a good night! Or is it daytime in that neighborhood you describe as dangerous and hostile to Atheists like yourself. Take care, and for goodness' sake, arm yourself with an AR-15 or something, if you think the believers are going to bust your door down. Never hurts to be prepared!
The hyperbole in your OP was refuted on page 1. Among those mass media outlets cited were LA Times, CBS News, ABC News, Washington Post, Huffington Post, USA Today, New York Post, World News Daily, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal etc. Other posters have pointed it out too. the central claim of our OP was untrue. I have directed no "abuse" at you. It was JS357 who suggested that your OP was a case of demagoguery and you continue to ignore his post about it three thread pages later [it's at the bottom of page 3].
Originally posted by divegeesterI think a murder case as grotesque as this does not need hyperbole and abuse of dissenters like what we have seen on this thread. I think it is an ugly kind of discourse, regardless of how in-earnest and sincere sumydid might feel.
FMF's issue is more with sumydid's hyperbole and extended inferences, I think.
His OP was about a complete media black out. One has to ask why he claimed there had been a complete media black out. One also has to ask why the hyperbole was not retracted once it had been demonstrated that there had not been a complete media black out.
One has the option of asking, finally, why almost all sumydid's posts have been about me since page 1. If it is an indication of his sheer sincere outrage about the mass murder in the OP, then I don't find it very edifying ~~ if it makes him feel better, then good for him.
Even Fox News, in expressing its regret for under-reporting the case [in the quote I provided, on page 4, which sumydid ignored], the Fox presenter stated journalistic reasons for it. If sumydid had wanted to discuss the under-reporting of the case, then he could have started the thread with an OP that made that claim. He could have latched on to my quote from Fox and discussed how and why under-reporting happens. But no. How could he? In his "complete media black out" scenario he'd nailed his y-fronts to Fox mast and the quote was inconvenient.
Instead his contribution has been page after page of him smarting at having been called on his exaggeration and hyperbole.
17 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFThe answer is simple. He is one of several posters on these boards that believes he is infallible, and will never admit having made an error. The funny thing is, that when posters refuse admitting an error, the error very quickly turns into a lie because once it has been pointed out and they continue to defend it, they are knowingly defending an untruth.
One also has to ask why the hyperbole was not retracted once it had been demonstrated that there had not been a complete media black out.
17 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFthe references you provided prove that the matter was not under reported. discussing whether it is enough, i say it is.
I think a murder case as grotesque as this does not need hyperbole and abuse of dissenters like what we have seen on this thread. I think it is an ugly kind of discourse, regardless of how in-earnest and sincere sumydid might feel.
His OP was about a complete media black out. One has to ask why he claimed there had been a complete media black out. One also h ...[text shortened]... n page after page of him smarting at having been called on his exaggeration and hyperbole.
it is never enough to yell about the dangers of drug abuse. it is never enough to yell about the famine in africa and how the rich countries do little to eradicate it.
this case is about one psychopath that was caught doing his psychopathy things. yes, tell me about it. yes, tell me about it again, i won't mind. and again, i will simply change the channel. but don't scream about how in your opinion, the matter should have been reported by X agencies Y times instead of X-1 and Y-1.
how is this psychopath any more deserving of attention than the gangbanger who is on trial for killing that nice korean family owning the shop he tried to rob? several agencies reported on the good doctor gosnell, then moved on. surprisingly.
17 Apr 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziOn the Debates Forum the rhetoric of this thread's OP is fairly commonplace. They are often quite short threads. "Have you HEARD about X? Why has there not been a SINGLE word or picture in the 'lamestream' media? - Nothing. Nada. Not one single word. WHY???" Then a little while later someone provides a slew of links that demonstrate that the 'lamestream' media HAS covered the story, and so the hyperbolic OP question becomes moot. This is what has happened here on this thread except that sumydid is sticking by his untrue OP hyperbole.
the references you provided prove that the matter was not under reported. discussing whether it is enough, i say it is.
17 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidJS357 was referring to the demagoguery in your OP. You cannot claim it was "in direct response to the demagoguery received".
There was no demagoguery lobbed that wasn't in direct response to the demagoguery received.
edit: Do you actually know what "demagoguery" means?
17 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFit would have been enough to show one example to dismiss his ridiculously exaggerated claim. you provided several. you did more than disprove his claim you actually demonstrated "good enough coverage" has been made.
On the Debates Forum the rhetoric of this thread's OP is fairly commonplace. They are often quite short threads. "Have you HEARD about X? Why has there not been a SINGLE word or picture in the 'lamestream' media? - Nothing. Nada. Not one single word. WHY???" Then a little while later someone provides a slew of links that demonstrate that the 'lamestream' media H ...[text shortened]... happened here on this thread except that sumydid is sticking by his untrue OP hyperbole.
in the nowadays world of "like this picture if you want to cure cancer" people think just by watching material about a horrible event they have done their duty. nobody ever says "ok, enough, i get it, a psychopath killed a bunch of children".
i say it. if all your references are true (i didn't verify them because this non-topic is annoying) then enough coverage has been made. something horrible has happened, the news media did its job and reported it. then nothing related happened on that issue, and the media surprisingly moved on.