God can write straight with crooked lines.

[canpakes]

[MODERATOR NOTE: NOT OK on any viewable thread. Only OK via private message.]


[MODERATOR NOTE: Irrelevant. Refer via private message or do not refer at all. There is no third option.]


[MODERATOR NOTE: It doesn't matter what you think ought or ought not to be.]

Brilliant. The troll has succeeded in getting a moderator to blatantly reference the AI thread in a non-AI thread, even though there is a mod note on a previous page, showing that a blatant reference to the AI thread was deleted from an earlier mentalgymnast post:

[Blatant reference to the A.I. megathread deleted]

I would report my post, Shades' post and mentalgymnast's post for "blatant reference to the A.I. megathread", but chasing one's tail eventually makes one's head hurt. How many times can mentalgymnast break this rule yet again without consequence?

This appears to be a blatant reference to the AI megathread. : D

(Apologies for the blatant reference to the AI megathread in mentioning that blatant reference to the AI megathread. I will temporarily ban myself later.)

[malkie]

Brilliant. The troll has succeeded in getting a moderator to blatantly reference the AI thread in a non-AI thread, even though there is a mod note on a previous page, showing that a blatant reference to the AI thread was deleted from an earlier mentalgymnast post:

I would report my post, Shades' post and mentalgymnast's post for "blatant reference to the A.I. megathread", but chasing one's tail eventually makes one's head hurt. How many times can mentalgymnast break this rule yet again without consequence?

This appears to be a blatant reference to the AI megathread. : D

(Apologies for the blatant reference to the AI megathread in mentioning that blatant reference to the AI megathread. I will temporarily ban myself later.)

Please do so, otherwise I'll be obliged to report your comment to the mods for action.

Note, however, that I am not blatantly referencing the AI thread in a non-AI thread

[I Have Questions]

I’m slightly confused. Is the reference to the AI Megathread a crooked line or not? And if so, does a moderator moving said reference constitute God writing straight? And anyway, what has Blake Ostler said about such references? Hey! Hey! Checkmate losers.

[canpakes]

I’m slightly confused. Is the reference to the AI Megathread a crooked line or not? And if so, does a moderator moving said reference constitute God writing straight?

Likely it’s the action of an apprentice god, who hasn’t learned the finer points of using really crooked lines.

[Marcus]

I’m slightly confused. Is the reference to the AI Megathread a crooked line or not? And if so, does a moderator moving said reference constitute God writing straight? And anyway, what has Blake Ostler said about such references? Hey! Hey! Checkmate losers.

lol. I'll check your mate with a mod. So far, mods have:

1)deleted a blatant AI reference as per the rules, then

2) quoted a troll-authored pseudo-question that was another blatant AI reference, then

3) responded in red with a blatant AI reference, then

4) defined a post quoting 1) 2) and 3) as a blatant AI reference, then

5)left the building, pseudo-Elvis style. [not really dead, not really gone].

That's not making crooked lines straight, but it's definitely a play on mentalgymnast's version, i.e. after the fact scrambling to insist that what was clearly crooked can be interpreted as straight. If one squints a lot. Or is AI-Blake.

(A.k.a. "free speech in the wild and wacky world of online fora.")

[MG 2.0]

This appears to be a blatant reference to the AI megathread. : D

(Apologies for the blatant reference to the AI megathread in mentioning that blatant reference to the AI megathread. I will temporarily ban myself later.)

Please do so, otherwise I'll be obliged to report your comment to the mods for action.

Note, however, that I am not blatantly referencing the AI thread in a non-AI thread

It looks like this thread has finally reached the point of no return in response to the actual discussion that began way back yonder at the Pawpaw patch. I'm glad/amused it has moved to a point in which you are finding entertainment value in regard to AI and its non-value/non-acceptance in this forum.

In finality and without any more push back from me. My 'running interference' has run its course. The board will be what it is, for better or for worse.

Thanks to all that participated in this thread. Including J.R.R. Tolkein. I hope it may have provided food for thought. I think we have smoothed out any rough edges that may have remained. The board can write straight with crooked lines.

Following in line/pattern of/with the Great Creator of all things.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

But God does, right? Thus, He has a focus on who is going to be eternally scorched. Ouch!

Mean God.

What kind of flames are we talking about? Burning plastic? Burning wood? Nuclear firestorm?

I think traditional Christians sometimes have to tie themselves in knots taking the Bible strictly/only literally.

Regards,
MG

For me it’s meaningful—and not necessarily as literal as you seem to want me to make it—to think about Jesus’ warning about Gehenna as very near to Him speaking of the Father’s care for sparrows. I think that means “fear” has a nuance, and shouldn’t collapse into God burning plastic. We’re told God takes no pleasure in anyone’s destruction. Biblical fire imagery reads like purification, which suggests to me the idea of God being that purification and being within the fire exposes the true “you.”

So is the fire a crooked line, or God writing straight?

[Marcus]

I’m slightly confused. Is the reference to the AI Megathread a crooked line or not? And if so, does a moderator moving said reference constitute God writing straight?

Likely it’s the action of an apprentice god, who hasn’t learned the finer points of using really crooked lines.

Please, you are going to have distinguish between apprentice creator gods, apprentice was-once-a-man gods, apprentice non-gender-specific gods and apprentice how-dare-you-assume-My-attributes gods or we will never get anywhere!

[Limnor]

For me it’s meaningful—and not necessarily as literal as you seem to want me to make it—to think about Jesus’ warning about Gehenna as very near to Him speaking of the Father’s care for sparrows. I think that means “fear” has a nuance, and shouldn’t collapse into God burning plastic. We’re told God takes no pleasure in anyone’s destruction. Biblical fire imagery reads like purification, which suggests to me the idea of God being that purification and being within the fire exposes the true “you.”

So is the fire a crooked line, or God writing straight?

Touché. I wouldn’t say the line is crooked, I’d call it a metaphorical representation of reality. I think of heaven and hell as two different perspectives of the same reality. If God is like consuming fire, the “fire” language may be the reality of God’s presence itself. The story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego seem to serve as a demonstration—the fire burns the guards, the three are unharmed, and God is present. The burning bush is a similar representation, in my mind.

[I Have Questions]

So is the fire a crooked line, or God writing straight?

Touché. I wouldn’t say the line is crooked, I’d call it a metaphorical representation of reality. I think of heaven and hell as two different perspectives of the same reality. If God is like consuming fire, the “fire” language may be the reality of God’s presence itself. The story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego seem to serve as a demonstration—the fire burns the guards, the three are unharmed, and God is present. The burning bush is a similar representation, in my mind.

It’s an interesting train of thought because fire, as you know, can destroy but can also create - just ask a Raku potter.