:darwinsm: Good example of prejudicial discourse! Of course, no "objective" person would think such about Townie. And, yes, followed on by the implication that sod will disregard any such criticism.
A Thread For Rusha
- Thread starter some other dude
- Start date
- Status
God forgive me! I love this so! :rotfl:
Ska, to address a couple of things in line with your point and Sod's response:
On being right...Like most people who enter an argument after they've considered the issue, I tend to believe I'm right on a thing. Else, it would be irresponsible to weigh in. I stay out of a great many theological arguments for precisely that reason. I can argue rationally over the premise of faith, but I lack the breadth of theological background that would make me feel comfortable in the more substantive and particular discussions, where even earnest error could have serious consequences. So I read and learn, but rarely participate in those discussions, preferring to listen to a number of posters here with a great deal more knowledge.
Overall, I suppose I'd ask this question: how many people have you witnessed during a debate change their mind about their position? Not many I'd wager. So this singular excuse on Sod's part isn't much of one...as to particular errors, I'll admit them when I make them. I've done it with a number of people. Not too long ago with anna, whom I like, and just the other day with Ben M, whom I don't, over a mistake I made in relation to the normal Roman practice in crucifying.
But this is part of Sod's problem. He'll make a claim because it suits him, not because he knows it to be true. I've set out this methodological error on his part more than once.
So the only thing Sod got right there was how he's been acting.
lain:
He started this decline when I called him on lowering the level of discourse around here, concentrating on racially divisive nonsense, putting potentially serious discussions in the worst, least constructive context. At the time I told him he could do better--not realizing he had no interest in more or other. He put me on ignore and began this sad sort of delusional descent, most recently evidenced by inferring I was a homosexual (doing the same for another poster and then having a nice, enforced nap) followed by a repeated use or the descriptive "retarded" thereafter.
On being right...Like most people who enter an argument after they've considered the issue, I tend to believe I'm right on a thing. Else, it would be irresponsible to weigh in. I stay out of a great many theological arguments for precisely that reason. I can argue rationally over the premise of faith, but I lack the breadth of theological background that would make me feel comfortable in the more substantive and particular discussions, where even earnest error could have serious consequences. So I read and learn, but rarely participate in those discussions, preferring to listen to a number of posters here with a great deal more knowledge.
Overall, I suppose I'd ask this question: how many people have you witnessed during a debate change their mind about their position? Not many I'd wager. So this singular excuse on Sod's part isn't much of one...as to particular errors, I'll admit them when I make them. I've done it with a number of people. Not too long ago with anna, whom I like, and just the other day with Ben M, whom I don't, over a mistake I made in relation to the normal Roman practice in crucifying.
But this is part of Sod's problem. He'll make a claim because it suits him, not because he knows it to be true. I've set out this methodological error on his part more than once.
So the only thing Sod got right there was how he's been acting.
If by pin he means attempt to alter context or rest on :rotfl: and name calling. He's just brilliant at that.
lain:
Last edited:
Not reasonably, no. I'm no SOS member, or admin. I'm not a conservative and, recently, the response of those in power to Sod inferring I was homosexual was on par with just about nothing being done at all. Not exactly a recipe for Sod's mistaken and self serving descriptive.
I take the stands I believe in. I'm confident in my arguments. I've never stooped to school yard level name calling. I've managed to fight my fights without resorting to the sort of behavior that results in an infraction, let alone being put in the penalty box, despite being the occasional recipient of the sort of histrionically emotional and insultingly low insult hurled by Sod or a few like him prior. I remain composed in the face of his nonsense, so he has to ascribe an attitude in keeping with his emotional bias. In fact it's only a reflection of my having had serious debates with actual, meaningful consequences in the real world of my profession. I don't get too excited here. This is enjoyable, mostly. I suspect that bothers him more than a little given his practice and its aim.
:e4e:
Last edited:
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
? It is obvious you think Rusha has a beef, how about if you narrow the universe down a bit by making a specific claim or even multiple claims so that it can be addressed directly?
Rusha, reasonable dialogue is not his goal, baiting, targeting and annoying is, just ignore the background noise (SOD), it may go away on its own!
With a daily average of 21 posts it seems you are a very busy little antagonist. :chuckle: enjoy!
TH writes:
Turns out that ignoring childish behavior often ramps such people up to more and more extreme behavior in order to get some kind of response from others. But eventually, even the dimmest person will get the idea and stop. And fun though it might be to toy with them, it eventually annoys everyone else, even if you personally like watching them perform. Ignoring the childish behavior will eventually get though to even the thickest of them.
Eventually.
Turns out that ignoring childish behavior often ramps such people up to more and more extreme behavior in order to get some kind of response from others. But eventually, even the dimmest person will get the idea and stop. And fun though it might be to toy with them, it eventually annoys everyone else, even if you personally like watching them perform. Ignoring the childish behavior will eventually get though to even the thickest of them.
Eventually.
some other dude
New member
sorry lb - this thread was started in response to a post of mine that Rusha reported for namecalling - a post which consisted of quotes from artie ... doing what, do you suppose? Why, namecalling! :darwinsm:
It was a tardfest all around last night lb! :chuckle:
The only clown missing last night was our racist friend barbie, and I see he's showed up with his floppy shoes on. Yes barbie, we see you too. :wave2:
I'll get back to the rest of youse guys when I get back.
C ya!
I guess you do have some redeeming features
some other dude
New member
You take that back! :sibbie:
why can't you just take sides?
I'll take a side of lamb! :TomO:
I had hopes for this thread
WizardofOz
New member
As we all once did for you
Be nice to Chrysostom. :sigh:
he is just taking sides which I think is what this thread is all about
- Status