BEASTIE: Please boycott the pundits forum!

[_dartagnan]

Juliann's main problem is that she doesn't explain her thesis well, and when people start asking for clarification, she responds with bitchy comments like:

"sigh... read the thread."

And when you agree with her she assumes you're being a smart ass and she'll say something like:

"About time you decided to catch on... I've been saying this how many times?"

Her presence just makes the whole conversation unpleasant, and her refussal to accept responsibility for any ambiguity or confusion is too much to bear.

I remember in the beginning she would do her little rant and then say "its the experts who say this. If you have a problem then you need to provide a source to refute it." Well it seems her own sources would refute each other since they all have a different definition fo "apostate." But she always tried to make it seem like they all agreed with her in every sense.

[_wenglund]

So in addition to being a CBT expert, you're a mind-reader too, fully capable of speaking about juliann's "evolution"? You never cease to amaze me, Wade.

I personally haven't laid claim to what you just said--at least not to the extent that you, in your own ironic bit of faulty mind reading and straw man construction impose on me. It is little wonder that your flights of fantasy leave you ceaselessly amazed. Frankly, your Don Quixote-like world view is amazing to me as well, if not also amuzing. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Have you even actually read Don Quixote, Wade? I only ask due to your tendency to make all sorts of claims without any sources or real evidence to back them up.

It wasn't the book that I had in mind (there's your faulty mind-reading again), but the main character in the movie, "Man of La Mancha", played by Peter O'Toole. If you, for some banal reason of your own, need a citation for my off-hand comment, perhaps this Wikipedia article will suffice: Man of La Mancha (film). Or, do you require a certified copy of my ticket stub. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade,

Please respond to this analogy:

A medical study testing the effectiveness of a drug on disease X. Research is conducted utilizing one specific drug and one specific population. The scientists share their results.

Mr. Quack decides to "expand" the definitional threads of the study, and declares that the studies support his contention that the specified drug not only works as a treatment for disease X, but also disease Y and Z!!!

You have any problems with that?

Sure I have a problem with that. Since your innitial analogy backfired, you have desparately resorted now to idiotically comparing descriptions with perscriptions, definitions with drugs, and relatively similar classes of people with types of deseases. In other words, your analogy is fallacious on a number of levels. Surprise, surprise! ;-)

But, even considering the analogy on its own terms, I would not necessarily deem it problematic on theoretical grounds. Much depends on the nature of the drug as well as the respective deseases. For example, it is not necessarily unreasonable for a scientist to use as a basis for formulating a theory on the benefits of kemotherapy in cases of colon cancer in men and women by using studies of women who used kemotherapy for treating breast cancer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Sure I have a problem with that. Since your innitial analogy backfired, you have desparately resorted now to idiotically comparing descriptions with perscriptions, definitions with drugs, and relatively similar classes of people with types of deseases. In other words, your analogy is fallacious on a number of levels. Surprise, surprise! ;-)

But, even considering the analogy on its own terms, I would not necessarily deem it problematic on theoretical grounds. Much depends on the nature of the drug as well as the respective deseases. For example, it is not necessarily unreasonable for a scientist to use as a basis for formulating a theory on the benefits of kemotherapy in cases of colon cancer in men and women by using studies of women who used kemotherapy for treating breast cancer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is it just me, or is anyone else noting a harsher tone in Wade's posts?

[_wenglund]

Sure I have a problem with that. Since your innitial analogy backfired, you have desparately resorted now to idiotically comparing descriptions with perscriptions, definitions with drugs, and relatively similar classes of people with types of deseases. In other words, your analogy is fallacious on a number of levels. Surprise, surprise! ;-)

But, even considering the analogy on its own terms, I would not necessarily deem it problematic on theoretical grounds. Much depends on the nature of the drug as well as the respective deseases. For example, it is not necessarily unreasonable for a scientist to use as a basis for formulating a theory on the benefits of kemotherapy in cases of colon cancer in men and women by using studies of women who used kemotherapy for treating breast cancer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is it just me, or is anyone else noting a harsher tone in Wade's posts?

I have noticed it too.

Could it have anything to do with, after significant time and effort, having finally reached an impasse in my attempts to get others to treat my faith wih less harshness and more charity and fairlness?

Could it be me once again going back to acting like many here, and treating others as they treat my faith?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I have noticed it too.

Could it have anything to do with, after significant time and effort, having finally reached an impasse in my attempts to get others to treat my faith wih less harshness and more charity and fairlness?

Could it be me once again going back to acting like many here, and treating others as they treat my faith?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I have been really making an effort to treat you and your faith with more charity. Maybe I've failed, but I thought I'd made some progress in being more civil. It's a little dismaying that you've chosen not to make an effort.

[_Yoda]

Sure I have a problem with that. Since your innitial analogy backfired, you have desparately resorted now to idiotically comparing descriptions with perscriptions, definitions with drugs, and relatively similar classes of people with types of deseases. In other words, your analogy is fallacious on a number of levels. Surprise, surprise! ;-)

But, even considering the analogy on its own terms, I would not necessarily deem it problematic on theoretical grounds. Much depends on the nature of the drug as well as the respective deseases. For example, it is not necessarily unreasonable for a scientist to use as a basis for formulating a theory on the benefits of kemotherapy in cases of colon cancer in men and women by using studies of women who used kemotherapy for treating breast cancer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is it just me, or is anyone else noting a harsher tone in Wade's posts?

I have noticed it too.

Could it have anything to do with, after significant time and effort, having finally reached an impasse in my attempts to get others to treat my faith wih less harshness and more charity and fairlness?

Could it be me once again going back to acting like many here, and treating others as they treat my faith?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I agree that there are a few posters here who have strong animosity against the Church and attack it. Vegas and Polygamy Porter come to mind.

However, the majority of posters here have issues with certain aspects of the Church they disagree with, and attempt to intelligently discuss and debate them.

It's fine if you disagree with an issue. I have managed to carry on intelligent conversations with Gaz and Paul O., for example, without engaging in personal animosity.

You, however, in your efforts to be "charitable", have still attacked the poster in a condescending manner, and acted like an arrogant ass.

Now, if you care to REALLY change your attitude, maybe more people would actually engage you in conversation.

Until then, I'm glad to at least see that you are "showing your true colors".

[_Mister Scratch]

Sure I have a problem with that. Since your innitial analogy backfired, you have desparately resorted now to idiotically comparing descriptions with perscriptions, definitions with drugs, and relatively similar classes of people with types of deseases. In other words, your analogy is fallacious on a number of levels. Surprise, surprise! ;-)

But, even considering the analogy on its own terms, I would not necessarily deem it problematic on theoretical grounds. Much depends on the nature of the drug as well as the respective deseases. For example, it is not necessarily unreasonable for a scientist to use as a basis for formulating a theory on the benefits of kemotherapy in cases of colon cancer in men and women by using studies of women who used kemotherapy for treating breast cancer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is it just me, or is anyone else noting a harsher tone in Wade's posts?

I have noticed it too.

Could it have anything to do with, after significant time and effort, having finally reached an impasse in my attempts to get others to treat my faith wih less harshness and more charity and fairlness?

Could it be me once again going back to acting like many here, and treating others as they treat my faith?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The trouble, my dear friend Wade, is that you never deal in specifics. You wander off on these practically irrelevant tangents when it would be much easier for you to say, "Hey---it hurts my feelings when you say _________________ about the Church."

[_wenglund]

Wade, I agree that there are a few posters here who have strong animosity against the Church and attack it. Vegas and Polygamy Porter come to mind.

However, the majority of posters here have issues with certain aspects of the Church they disagree with, and attempt to intelligently discuss and debate them.

It's fine if you disagree with an issue. I have managed to carry on intelligent conversations with Gaz and Paul O., for example, without engaging in personal animosity.

You, however, in your efforts to be "charitable", have still attacked the poster in a condescending manner, and acted like an arrogant ass.

Now, if you care to REALLY change your attitude, maybe more people would actually engage you in conversation.

Until then, I'm glad to at least see that you are "showing your true colors".

What you just preached and claim to practice, would have rung more true were it not for the rank hypocrisy in your calling me an "arrogant ass", and how you viewed my approach in such an imbalanced and one-sided fashion.

And, gee...why woudn't I want to be like the gracious and reasonable you?

Yes, your getting kicked off of a message board that you were moderating, and whining and complaining about it for months on multiple boards, and back-slapping and high-fiving your fellow wound-likers at most every turn (even those who have shown open disdain for your faith), is certainly evidence of your diplomatic and people skills, if not your admirable sense of priority. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Sure I have a problem with that. Since your innitial analogy backfired, you have desparately resorted now to idiotically comparing descriptions with perscriptions, definitions with drugs, and relatively similar classes of people with types of deseases. In other words, your analogy is fallacious on a number of levels. Surprise, surprise! ;-)

But, even considering the analogy on its own terms, I would not necessarily deem it problematic on theoretical grounds. Much depends on the nature of the drug as well as the respective deseases. For example, it is not necessarily unreasonable for a scientist to use as a basis for formulating a theory on the benefits of kemotherapy in cases of colon cancer in men and women by using studies of women who used kemotherapy for treating breast cancer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is it just me, or is anyone else noting a harsher tone in Wade's posts?

I have noticed it too.

Could it have anything to do with, after significant time and effort, having finally reached an impasse in my attempts to get others to treat my faith wih less harshness and more charity and fairlness?

Could it be me once again going back to acting like many here, and treating others as they treat my faith?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The trouble, my dear friend Wade, is that you never deal in specifics. You wander off on these practically irrelevant tangents when it would be much easier for you to say, "Hey---it hurts my feelings when you say _________________ about the Church."

The real trouble, my dear friend "Scratch", is that your mind is closed--so much so that you are incapable of seeing the obvious and the specific. I devoted an entire thread, and numerous followup posts in other threads, addressing the specific issue of considering the Church as lying about what it claims to be, and the emotional effects that consideration has on all parties concerned. Did you get what I said there? Did you even come close to getting it? Of course not. You, like Runtu and others, fought me every baby step of the way until it was obviously futile attempting to go on. So, don't lie to me (I am using one of your favored connotations here) in claiming that the issue is one of lack of specificity. It isn't. The issue is, and has always been, YOU, and your glaring flaws. But, you are so entrenched in lies to yourself, that you haven't the capacity to realize this, let alone admit it to yourself or others. And, so there it is, and there it will remain.

I have essentially tossed my hands in the air and given up, and will for a time go back to treating you like you treat others in my faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-