|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 12:27:37 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Most of what I'm speculating would have happened long before recorded history, but you don't care about that much do you, the time before recorded history.
So then, you agree that what you're saying is mere speculation and that it's not true that, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it." because history does not appear to report any such thing (since there is no evidence to suggest that it does report any such thing?)?
quote:
Maybe you'll care about this. Why would history record something men and women didn't know about? I said these were natural occurences caused by what men were unaware of about their psychology. What would make they write it down?
I never said they would write it down, but you're the one asserting that, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it" not me. Please substantiate. Where are these reports recorded in historical documents.
quote:
The first things we would rightly call "religions" surely existed LONG before any ability to write in what you call "historical documents".
So then, you agree that your statement that, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it." is an unsubstantiated one and that there is no evidence that history reports any such thing?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 12:52:24 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
So then, you agree that what you're saying is mere speculation and that it's not true that, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it." because history does not appear to report any such thing (since there is no evidence to suggest that it does report any such thing?)?
Oh no, modern religions are the natural outcome of primative ones, and what history "appears to report" of modern religions is that men "favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it." This is my historical analysis. I don't need to find a place where a man wrote down "today it was necessary to kill again and I was so conflicted by it that I used my religion supress the harsh realities of my self awareness".
Requiring me to produce such a document is childish and typical, but not academic or in any way convincing of the truth of your position.
Listen, I have posited something, admited it was pure speculation, and explained why I think as I do. If you don't agree I promise I am not offended. But when you keep asking me these questions that show how much you don't even follow the simplest ideas I'm putting forth I really have no interest in continuing to discuss it with you.
quote:
I never said they would write it down,
No, you asked me to show you where they wrote it down.
quote:
but you're the one asserting that, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it" not me. Please substantiate. Where are these reports recorded in historical documents.
I've established the inanity of the request for substantiation above and that is all I'll establish.
quote:
So then, you agree that your statement that, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it." is an unsubstantiated one and that there is no evidence that history reports any such thing?
I agree that it is absolutely PURE speculation based on my meager attempts to analyse history. Does this mean you'll stop belaboring the most trivial aspects of what I'm saying?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 12:56:10 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
I don't need to find a place where a man wrote down "today it was necessary to kill again and I was so conflicted by it that I used my religion supress the harsh realities of my self awareness".
So then, you are unable to substantiate your claims.
quote:
Requiring me to produce such a document is childish and typical, but not academic or in any way convincing of the truth of your position.
We are discussing the truth of you position here, not mine. You are the one making the claim, please substantiate. You might as well say, "Requiring me to substantiate my position is childish and typical, but not academic or in any way convincing of the truth of your position." Again, it's not my position that we're discussing here, it's yours. Please substantiate.
quote:
Listen, I have posited something, admited it was pure speculation, and explained why I think as I do. If you don't agree I promise I am not offended. But when you keep asking me these questions that show how much you don't even follow the simplest ideas I'm putting forth I really have no interest in continuing to discuss it with you.
You made a claim and you did not substantiate. You called my request for substantiation, "childish and typical, but not academic." I might as well say that "magic fairy dust causes the earth to rotate" and when you ask for substantiation, I might as well answer, "asking for substantiation is childish and typical, but not academic."
quote:
No, you asked me to show you where they wrote it down.
You're the one claiming, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it" not me. So, yes, if you want to make such a claim, you need to substantiate it with evidence. You claim that history appears to report this, show me where does history appear to report this? Where are the historical documents reporting any such thing? Where are these historical reports that you claim are reported by history?
quote:
I've established the inanity of the request for substantiation above and that is all I'll establish.
So then, you agree that history does not appear to report any such thing? So then, why did you claim that history appears to report such a thing?
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 8/5/2008 1:05:06 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 1:10:28 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
I don't need to find a place where a man wrote down "today it was necessary to kill again and I was so conflicted by it that I used my religion supress the harsh realities of my self awareness".
So then, you are unable to substantiate your claims.
quote:
Requiring me to produce such a document is childish and typical, but not academic or in any way convincing of the truth of your position.
We are discussing the truth of you position here, not mine. You are the one making the claim, please substantiate. You might as well say, "Requiring me to substantiate my position is childish and typical, but not academic or in any way convincing of the truth of your position." Again, it's not my position that we're discussing here, it's yours. Please substantiate.
quote:
Listen, I have posited something, admited it was pure speculation, and explained why I think as I do. If you don't agree I promise I am not offended. But when you keep asking me these questions that show how much you don't even follow the simplest ideas I'm putting forth I really have no interest in continuing to discuss it with you.
You made a claim and you did not substantiate. You called my request for substantiation, "childish and typical, but not academic." I might as well say that "magic fairy dust causes the earth to rotate" and when you ask for substantiation, I might as well answer, "asking for substantiation is childish and typical, but not academic."
quote:
No, you asked me to show you where they wrote it down.
You're the one claiming, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it" not me. So, yes, if you want to make such a claim, you need to substantiate it with evidence. You claim that history appears to report this, show me where does history appear to report this? Where are the historical documents reporting any such thing? Where are these historical reports that you claim are reported by history?
quote:
I've established the inanity of the request for substantiation above and that is all I'll establish.
So then, you agree that history does not appear to report any such thing? So then, why did you claim that history appears to report such a thing?
I'll take that as a no, you will not stop belaboring the most trivial parts of my posts. I have neither the time nor the inclination to begin transcribing excerpts from my work on these forums for your sake. If I wanted you to agree with me I might. But I'm fine with it if you do not agree. I'm entitled to my interpretation of history. You're entitled to yours. Enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 1:13:49 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
I'll take that as a no, you will not stop belaboring the most trivial parts of my posts.
You claimed that, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it."
That's not a trivial claim. That's a huge claim. You expect to come here and make such outrageous claims and not have anyone ask for any substantiation? What does this look like, a public school? Then, when I ask for substantiation, you call your claim "trivial" while you're wasting time dwelling over a trivial post I made that you think misquotes what you said (despite the fact that I fixed it the first time)?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 1:20:04 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
I'll take that as a no, you will not stop belaboring the most trivial parts of my posts.
You claimed that, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it."
That's not a trivial claim. That's a huge claim. You expect to come here and make such outrageous claims and not have anyone ask for any substantiation?
Yep, that's what I expect. That's my analysis of the whole of religious history. What is your analysis?
quote:
Then, when I ask for substantiation, you call your claim "trivial" while you're wasting time dwelling over a trivial post I made that you think misquotes what you said (despite the fact that I fixed it the first time)?
There's no think to it. It's what you did. Again, perhaps you simply misread in the first place. You put someone elses words in a quote block with my name at the top of it. That doesn't mean I "think" you misquoted me. I means YOU MISQUOTED ME.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 1:25:12 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Yep, that's what I expect. That's my analysis of the whole of religious history. What is your analysis?
So now I'm going to claim that, "I think the evidence shows that magic fairy dust causes the earth to rotate" but I expect no one to ask for any substantiation. It's my analysis and its' what I think the evidence shows. I am not expecting anyone to ask for any substantiation.
Saying that it's your analysis to the whole of religious history is not the same as saying that, "History would appear to report" your analysis is true. If you want to claim that, "History would appear to report" that your analysis is true, substantiation is in order and you should expect others to ask for substantiation. Where does history appear to report any such thing? Where are these reported historical documents?
quote:
There's no think to it. It's what you did. Again, perhaps you simply misread in the first place. You put someone elses words in a quote block with my name at the top of it. That doesn't mean I "think" you misquoted me. I means YOU MISQUOTED ME.
It was something you quoted and I quoted it from your quote. When I fixed it, I put it in double quotes to show that the quote came from your post, not that you originated it. There is nothing wrong with doing that, you're just making an issue out of nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 1:41:37 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
So now I'm going to claim that, "I think the evidence shows that magic fairy dust causes the earth to rotate" but I expect no one to ask for any substantiation. It's my analysis and its' what I think the evidence shows. I am not expecting anyone to ask for any substantiation.
Saying that it's your analysis to the whole of religious history is not the same as saying that, "History would appear to report" your analysis is true. If you want to claim that, "History would appear to report" that your analysis is true, substantiation is in order and you should expect others to ask for substantiation. Where does history appear to report any such thing? Where are these reported historical documents?
You're entitled to your opinion. Stinks when people make broad sweeping unsubstantiated claims doesn't it? Wonder how much it would stink to you if those claims held sway over a vast majority of the population but you didn't agree with them.
I didn't say "history would appear to report my analysis was true" though did I? I just said it was how it "appeared" to me. There you go again with that comprehesion problem.
quote:
It was something you quoted and I quoted it from your quote. When I fixed it, I put it in double quotes to show that the quote came from your post, not that you originated it. There is nothing wrong with doing that, you're just making an issue out of nothing.
you put it in double quotes but left my name directly above it without my text, like this
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
This wayward1 guy is totally spankin' my hieny
Now who does it look like the author of that passage is? Why involve me in the first place? You should have quoted the Raptorman directly and left me out of it. If you were going to include me then leave my text in the quote. Your insistance on being difficult through the whole process of getting it fixed was nothing short of absolutely juvenile but that's perfectly fine. At least I'll "rekonize" what I'm up against when I see your name in the future.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 8/5/2008 1:51:46 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 1:52:19 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
This wayward1 guy is totally spankin' my hieny
Now who does it look like the author of that passage is?
It looks like it came from someone I quoted. That's how it's supposed to look on these forums.
quote:
Why involve me in the first place?
Because I quoted the quote from your quote and I wanted to show that it was quoted from your quote. I wanted to show that I didn't get it directly from Raptorman.
quote:
You should have quoted the Raptorman directly and left me out of it.
it is your quote suggesting that he said that and I want everyone to know that I quoted him from your quote. That way, if the quote is wrong and Raptorman did not say that, people will know I did not quote it directly from him but from someone claiming to quote him (or at least someone quoting someone claiming to quote him).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 1:55:29 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
I didn't say "history would appear to report my analysis was true" though did I? I just said it was how it "appeared" to me. There you go again with that comprehesion problem.
Yes you did.
"they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it." is your analysis.
You said that, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it."
You said, "History would appear to report" your analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 1:58:52 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
it is your quote suggesting that he said that and I want everyone to know that I quoted him from your quote. That way, if the quote is wrong and Raptorman did not say that, people will know I did not quote it directly from him but from someone claiming to quote him (or at least someone quoting someone claiming to quote him).
Well there's the problem. It's not even me who first posted what he said. It was EStan at post number 10 in that thread. I quoted EStan in post number 11. You had no reason to involve me after EStan quoted Raptorman. Like I said. I was sure from the beginning it was all a misunderstanding but you should have gotten straight to the bottom of it when I asked you to in the first place instead of pushing back like I didn't deserve to politely ask you to clarify it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:02:04 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
I didn't say "history would appear to report my analysis was true" though did I? I just said it was how it "appeared" to me. There you go again with that comprehesion problem.
Yes you did.
"they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it." is your analysis.
You said that, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it."
You said, "History would appear to report" your analysis.
Every time you ever post something like this from now on I'm going to post two words.
"reading comprehension"
This is the last time. If I would have said "history reports...." you would be correct. Since I said "History would appear to report", you are incorrect. I've been very clear that this is all just my opinion. I know it stinks when people spout off unsubstantiated opinions but like I said, imagine living in a world where the unsubstantiated opinion holds sway over 90% of the population and you're one of the 10% who doesn't agree. Get over it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:06:50 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Since I said "History would appear to report", you are incorrect.
No, I am correct.
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
I didn't say "history would appear to report my analysis was true" though did I? I just said it was how it "appeared" to me. There you go again with that comprehesion problem.
My response.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Yes you did.
"they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it." is your analysis.
You said that, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it."
You said, "History would appear to report" your analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:11:23 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Since I said "History would appear to report", you are incorrect.
No, I am correct.
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
I didn't say "history would appear to report my analysis was true" though did I? I just said it was how it "appeared" to me. There you go again with that comprehesion problem.
My response.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Yes you did.
"they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it." is your analysis.
You said that, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it."
You said, "History would appear to report" your analysis.
reading comprehension
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:12:42 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
You had no reason to involve me after EStan quoted Raptorman.
Yes I did have a reason, because I quoted it from your quote. Get over it, it's not a big deal and it's not bad message board etiquette to quote someone else's quote. The first time I may have messed up, but I fixed it by putting it in double quotes. It's not a TOS violation and I think TOS and most on these forums would think it silly of you to make such a big issue out of nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:14:04 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
reading comprehension
Thanks for admiring my reading comprehension. While it's not perfect, at least I correctly interpreted and successfully refuted what you said.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:15:10 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
reading comprehension is always rock solid
On your part.
thanks man
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:16:33 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
You had no reason to involve me after EStan quoted Raptorman.
Yes I did have a reason, because I quoted it from your quote. Get over it, it's not a big deal and it's not bad message board etiquette to quote someone else's quote. The first time I may have messed up, but I fixed it by putting it in double quotes. It's not a TOS violation and I think TOS and most on these forums would think it silly of you to make such a big issue out of nothing.
Until you remove the "may have messed up" and insert the "completely messed up" or even just "messed up" you will not be owning up to this, and I will not drop it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:17:40 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
but seriously, re - read what I said.
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
I didn't say "history would appear to report my analysis was true" though did I?
Yes you did.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:23:18 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
but seriously, re - read what I said.
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
I didn't say "history would appear to report my analysis was true" though did I?
Yes you did.
And seriously, is English your first language? The quote is "history would appear to report" with nothing about the word TRUE in there anywhere. Had I said "History proves they...." or "History reports...." or "History shows us...." you might have a leg to stand on. I said "History would appear to report..." Use of the word appear in this context acknowledges, along with myriad other posts of mine about this being "all my opinion", that appearances can be deceiving, and that this is the stance I've arrived at tentatively. If you don't want to or don't have the time to read everything I write then don't blame me when you don't get the whole story. I could not possibly be more embarrassed for having just explained this to you yet another time in yet another way, but I sincerely promise this will be the LAST time I cater to your education level.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:23:48 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Until you remove the "may have messed up" and insert the "completely messed up" or even just "messed up" you will not be owning up to this, and I will not drop it.
It got fixed the first time and I even fixed it a second time (unnecessarily), so there should be no problems now.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:26:07 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
The quote is "history would appear to report" with nothing about the word TRUE in there anywhere.
The true doesn't need to be there. If I said, the sky is blue, that's a positive statement. It does not, it can not, mean "the sky is not blue." That statement positively asserts the sky is blue, I am saying that it's true that the sky is blue.
You said, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it. "
That's a positive statement. It does not, it can not, mean that, "History would not appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:26:28 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Until you remove the "may have messed up" and insert the "completely messed up" or even just "messed up" you will not be owning up to this, and I will not drop it.
It got fixed the first time and I even fixed it a second time (unnecessarily), so there should be no problems now.
Learn to take responsibility for actions without qualifying your apologies with comments about how unnecessary the apology is in the first place and things will be over much more quickly in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:29:36 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1362
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Learn to take responsibility for actions without qualifying your apologies with comments about how unnecessary the apology is in the first place and things will be over much more quickly in the future.
Learn to take the original correction without making silly demands for further unnecessary corrections and things will be over much more quickly in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:30:45 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
The quote is "history would appear to report" with nothing about the word TRUE in there anywhere.
The true doesn't need to be there. If I said, the sky is blue, that's a positive statement. It does not, it can not, mean "the sky is not blue." That statement positively asserts the sky is blue, I am saying that it's true that the sky is blue.
Perfect example of why I'm right. I didn't say "the sky is blue". "the sky is blue is equivilent to "history REPORTS THAT...". I said "the sky would appear to be blue", which leaves open the possibility of revising my stance at a later date when it might "appear to be red", like at sunset. In fact if anyone ever says "the sky is blue" feel free to correct them and say "well, it appears to be blue right now, but that's not always the case is it? At night it is black with bright lights all over the place. During storms it can be all sorts of shades of green and orange and red. On clear days it is blue and on cloudy days it is gray. The sky most definitely is not just blue?"
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
