Same Sex Marriage - UK takes a step forward...

[_Bhodi]

If you could explain it, why not do so?

Because it's largely self-explanatory. Why must you be so obtuse?

Nice lure. Maybe you should go troll somewhere else.

I understand why you are calling names, but consider the names being used. The person who repeatedly says they have an answer but won't tell it should likely not be calling others a troll. If it makes you happy, however, have at it.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

You asked: If you could explain it, why not do so?

I answered: Because it's largely self-explanatory.

Which of the preceding post do you find to be less than self-explanatory?

[_Res Ipsa]

Bhodi, do you really not understand Ludwig's explanation?

Brits made one step from the direction of religion.
Libyans make one step towards religion.

An American reporter cited the words of a Libyan leader.
I cited his article with a cynical oneliner.

Really, it's not hard to understand.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Bhodi,

A troll is one who trolls...but you already know that, don't you?

Calling a troll a troll is not calling names.

[_Bhodi]

Bhodi, do you really not understand Ludwig's explanation?

Brits made one step from the direction of religion.
Libyans make one step towards religion.

An American reporter cited the words of a Libyan leader.
I cited his article with a cynical oneliner.

Really, it's not hard to understand.

I would say there are several issues. Why post an article without doing some form of deeper research? After all the description of the subforum is “The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions”
Not a lot of scholarship.

Why comment on a subject about which you have no understanding, even with a cynical one-liner? His comment “Libyans make one step towards religion” was incorrect.

And where is the research? If the article praised Mormons, it would have been dissected ad infinitum, something to insult religion, barely researched at all.

The fact is, it was a silly article, posted without thought, on a subject the poster does not understand at all, but for some reason this is considered acceptable, but questioning such actions is considered unacceptable. It is your forum, and I understand this is what you want, but I thought I would point it out. It is the upper crust, scholarly forum, someone should expect some standards. Not me obviously, but someone.

[_Bhodi]

Bhodi,

A troll is one who trolls...but you already know that, don't you?

Calling a troll a troll is not calling names.

Sure it is. I really don't care, the irony is pretty funny, and if it makes you happy, I won't lose sleep over it. Not admitting it is name calling is rather silly.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Not admitting it is name calling is rather silly.

In point of fact, refusing to admit you're trolling rather silly. But that's okay; that's just your reactive mind talking. You can solve that problem by going down to your local Org, getting on the cans, and auditing your enturbulations. I'm only here to help you!

PS: I'm trolling

[_Res Ipsa]

I would say there are several issues. Why post an article without doing some form of deeper research? After all the description of the subforum is “The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions”
Not a lot of scholarship.

Why comment on a subject about which you have no understanding, even with a cynical one-liner? His comment “Libyans make one step towards religion” was incorrect.

And where is the research? If the article praised Mormons, it would have been dissected ad infinitum, something to insult religion, barely researched at all.

The fact is, it was a silly article, posted without thought, on a subject the poster does not understand at all, but for some reason this is considered acceptable, but questioning such actions is considered unacceptable. It is your forum, and I understand this is what you want, but I thought I would point it out. It is the upper crust, scholarly forum, someone should expect some standards. Not me obviously, but someone.

I take it your answer to my question is "yes, I understood it."

So, which part of what Ludwig quoted is wrong? Did Ludwig misquote it? Did the NYT misquote Abdel-jalil? Is Abdel-jalil ignorant of Islam?

Why so hostile? Did Ludwig key your car or something?

[_ludwigm]

Did Ludwig key your car or something?

Up to now, I didn't - but the tip sounds good.

[_Bhodi]

I would say there are several issues. Why post an article without doing some form of deeper research? After all the description of the subforum is “The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions”
Not a lot of scholarship.

Why comment on a subject about which you have no understanding, even with a cynical one-liner? His comment “Libyans make one step towards religion” was incorrect.

And where is the research? If the article praised Mormons, it would have been dissected ad infinitum, something to insult religion, barely researched at all.

The fact is, it was a silly article, posted without thought, on a subject the poster does not understand at all, but for some reason this is considered acceptable, but questioning such actions is considered unacceptable. It is your forum, and I understand this is what you want, but I thought I would point it out. It is the upper crust, scholarly forum, someone should expect some standards. Not me obviously, but someone.

I take it your answer to my question is "yes, I understood it."

You seem to be conflating issues. It is somewhat difficult to discern what Ludwigm says sometimes, but I think this is a linguistic issue, some of his statements seem to suffer from foreign reading comprehension issues. Nevertheless, these do not explain why he would be so shoddy in research, or post on issues on which he has no education at all, but oddly enough an opinion.

So, which part of what Ludwig quoted is wrong? Did Ludwig misquote it? Did the NYT misquote Abdel-jalil? Is Abdel-jalil ignorant of Islam?

Why so hostile? Did Ludwig key your car or something?

I am not hostile at all, likely the farthest thing from it. My ego and core are not at stake in this conversation in the slightest, though the reverse is rarely true. As for the article, I already posted...

"the author does now know Islamic limitations, either Abdel-Jalil is NOT calling for unrestricted polygamy, or Abdel-Jalil is NOT advocating Shariah. In either case, the article is rubbish."

I suspect the problem is with the author of the article not the Lybians. Everything can be quoted correctly, but without a little background research it is impossible to put into proper context.