Tony is one of the most passionate, relentless, and inflexible buggers I’ve ever encountered. No matter how trivial the point, he will fight it seems to his dying breath to make his voice heard. Unfortunately, for us that voice rarely offers anything even remotely resembling a rational, objective, or civil response.

I think the only real way to deal with him is to ignore him. Lets make an experiment of it; for the next week don't respond to anything he posts. If he makes an argument against something you've posted that normally you would love to sling back at him, bite your tongue and hold back. In fact, I assure you he will have more than a few words to say about this post in particular. Show restraint, either he will just talk to himself, leave these forums for a new place overrun with his engulfing presence, or go mad. In any outcome, we win.

In that spirit I declare the period between Sunday, Dec 9th and Sunday Dec 15: “No Tony Week”.

Edit: If you are interested in partaking in “No Tony Week” respond to this thread with a :)

Unfortunately, good Cainxinth you don't solve this problem. To the other, I'm in for your week, but Î also submit that this latest tear he's been on is his desperate attempt to reclaim some of the respect he forfeit when he admitted by the course of his actions that we are not to give him any real serious consideration. I thought perhaps that sequence of posts had some impact, since he actually tried to have a serious conversation about Genesis in Ilgwamh's thread, but he couldn't resist the opportunity to make an ass of himself for those couple of days in general.

Sure, I'm in for your week of comforting apathy, but I fully admit that I don't expect it to work; demonstrations like this only work when the target of the demonstration is intelligent enough to understand what's going on. Tony1 has never shown that intellectual depth. But sure, I'm in for the week off.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

you're right he so tenacious that it may not work, but its worth a shot. if nothing else it will be interesting to see his reaction.

Why not. Though tony1-like-people make me only rethink and strenghten my possition, I would say that that would be a healthy change.
>>>>>.....countdown started.....<<<<<

*Originally posted by Cainxinth
In fact, I assure you he will have more than a few words to say about this post in particular.*

Really?

*Originally posted by tiassa
I'm in for your week of comforting apathy*

Don't just sit there, do nothing?

*Originally posted by avatar
Why not. Though tony1-like-people make me only rethink and strenghten my possition, I would say that that would be a healthy change.*

You wouldn't want to rethink your position.

:)

Your right, but i'm extending my vacation from idiot land to 2 weeks.

Ha ha, why not.

Cainxinth, thanks for starting this. I have been largely ignoring his posts, and mainly just skipping over them without reading them for some time. I took a peek last week and thought I saw something reasonable and responded but his lack of civility soon reasserted itself, so I guess I’ll give up for good from now on.

I have been hinting at making your suggestion myself several times but I also couldn’t see it that it would be a complete solution. I’m also aware that the world is full of a wide diversity of attitudes and opinions, and that we need to learn how to deal with most of these. But if someone is on the extreme like tony1 then I think your suggestion is justified.

I guess that most of us here can see the irrationality of Tony1’s posts, but I wouldn’t mind that so much if he wasn’t so unpleasant all the time. It is perfectly acceptable to have deeply felt opinions but I believe it is always possible to express those views in a civilized manner. I think it has been that characteristic of sciforums, up until now, that has kept me coming back for the past 2 years.

And this should not be seen as a dispute between ‘believers and non-believers’. Tony1 is largely indiscriminant with his incivility. Although I am sure the religionists may well feel reluctant to join this fray.

So have fun.
Cris

Do you guys think that if we don't respond to him with anything for a whole week, he could actually even start his own thread? :eek: :eek: :eek: Nah, probably not. He'll probably just keep on complaining about the posts we make in response to others.

But generally speaking, I must admit I'm baffled. What do you say to a person who chose to close his eyes to all knowledge and experience in favor of a religious manual? Who lives in a cartoonish world of good vs. evil and equates insight with insanity? Whose internal world is the one true reality? I'm not sure you can say anything at all to change such a mind. And while the awesome power of fanaticism is manifest of late in the very tragedy of 9/11, perhaps it is more productive to drain the swamp instead of chasing after mosquitoes.

I'll be adopting Cris' methodology.

I slept on it.

And basically, I still think tony1 is a jackass, but I hate the whole idea of neglecting somebody based on their beliefs, no matter how ignorant or stupid they behave, really goes against my own beliefs.

I mean the whole idea of pushing somebody out of the group is sick, in my mind. Its the same way small children act. We tell them not to leave people out of activities or whatever, and I can remember when I was left out many times, as well as when I was the the person who booted.

Its like this; respect everybody the way you want people to respect you. I'm sure, deep down, tony1 actually wants to believe creationism and crap, because religion is where he finds comfort, but blocks out the sheer relevance and truth of evolution by refusing to learn anything about it, or diverting the subject constantly. This might be because he is afraid to go to hell as he was probably once taught stems off of so-called 'blashphemy'.

So I dont know about you guys but I wont ignore tony1 based on virtue. You guys can act like little kids, but I think its just sad when a 15 year old (almost 16) like myself can behave better than full grown adults. I dont care if the guy wants to be that way, its fine by me. But I wont get caught up in you little 'poison making' escapades.

Chill Out Elbaz, it's only for a week. and no one is going to cast tony out. we just try to get his attention, nth more.
tony will probably think of it as a test of fate, so no fear of him running away:)
Good Luck!

I understand what you are all saying...and somewhat understand.
Give Elbaz's point a moment of consideration.
It is our differences that make the forum what it is. Tony sets badly with most people in his approach but is as entitled to it as any of us. Lets look for the good in what we see as bad
1.He is relentless. Persistance!
2. He is unyielding. Solid!
3. He gets us thinking, digging a little deeper to combat his statements and defend our own stance, thereby encouraging thinking and self discovery on our own part.

We all have a choice to read or not read, reply or not reply...but it is unfair to not acknowledge his right to be heard and be considered part of the discussion. It has always been the differences in thinking and openess to consider opposing views that have led men to great discoveries by sharing their own insights and ideas. I do believe, wheather his tactics are wrong or right, that Tony does in fact BELIEVE what he stands for and therefor isn't intentionally and with malice attempting to do harm to anyone.
Just my 2 cents!

Hi Elbaz,

I understand your discomfort and I hope I might be able to convince you of a slightly different perspective.

It is not so much tony1’s beliefs that we object to but his behavior. It is vital that we have a wide range of beliefs and opinions here otherwise the site would dissolve into boring agreement. I am a supporter of the freedom of speech and everyone has a right to be heard. I believe I have gained some small insights into tony1’s beliefs but I have not been able to delve very deeply because he usually responds with abuse. I remain interested in discovering his views but I see no need to be the recipient of endless abuse to gain the information. In short, he isn’t worth the effort.

But it is not accurate to call this action by us as childish. In the adult world it is typical to isolate those that behave inappropriately. And if you ask who decides what is appropriate, then the simply answer is the majority. This is the basis for a democratic society. In the extreme we have Usama Bin Laden who has exhibited inappropriate behavior and he will be likely killed for those actions. Prisons and the legal system are all highly focused on inappropriate behavior issues.

In this microcosm of sciforums most of us are here to enjoy ourselves by debating with others who DO have opposing views and opinions. But I would suggest that tony1’s behavior is disruptive to both those objectives. His continual insistence on using sarcasm, innuendoes, abuse, and cynicism, etc., as a standard, is highly frustrating and distracts from the intended topics. This would not be so bad but he picks on pretty much everyone across nearly all topics with time being the only limit. This is severely disruptive to, effectively, the entire religion forum.

It would seem that if one wants to continue to debate in the religion forum then one must be prepared to accept abuse from tony1: That to my mind, and I think to most here is totally unacceptable. Either tony1 must learn to adjust his behavior or he must be rejected by a majority vote.

Cris

I fully agree with Cris.

no offence to you tony1, just our oppinion.

I think anything that frustrates us or makes us uncomfortable is a good thing...it makes us MOVE! :O)
If anyone or anything can get my feathers ruffled than there is a lesson to be harvested or a higher truth to be learned, where I take that is up to me.

Taken,

Tony does in fact BELIEVE what he stands for and therefor isn't intentionally and with malice attempting to do harm to anyone. All of your statements seem quite reasonable and could be applied to most of us here but not tony1. Most of his comments are harmful and are malicious. He is capable of being quite articulate and thoughtful, so we must assume he says what he writes because he does intend to cause harm and be malicious, otherwise he would respond in a more acceptable fashion.

It is exactly his malicious comments that make most here feel a need to respond and when they do they are met with further malice. The cycle never ends and the topics die as a result.

Cris

1.He is relentless. Persistance!
2. He is unyielding. Solid!
3. He gets us thinking, digging a little deeper to combat his statements and defend our own stance, thereby encouraging thinking and self discovery on our own part.1) Relentless: So was Hitler, so is Osama bin Laden, and, for more appropriate scale, so is Lon Mabon.
2. Unyielding: So was Hitler, so is Osama bin Laden, so was Khomeni, so are the paramilitary groups tearing up British-occupied Ireland.

3. Self-discovery, ad nauseam: I have to admit, what he is helping me discover is that I was right about Christians in the first place, when I was a little more youthful in my zeal. In the meantime, your point #3 seems to give him the benefit of validity and propriety. He has demonstrated a distaste for both. Simple dismissals are not thought-provoking; they reveal a lack of thought on his part. After nine months of his condescending behavior and outright rudeness, I must part from your attempt to find any academic or social redemption in Tony1's brand of Christianity. He's had ample opportunity to provide this forum with something of worth, and he's chosen instead to claim dominion over and intimate knowledge of people's thoughts, opinions, intentions, &c. He has chosen to declare his enemies part of the opposition to life: I might as well call you a hateful Nazi, then, eh? Think about it, for a minute: when he accuses people of being in the thrall of satan, why should I not accuse you of being the hateful, persecuting, evil Christian with a torch in one hand, a bundle of fagots on your back, and a solemn need for a purging? It is the same accusation: Tony1 chooses to characterize people as the worst being he can conceive of. After a while, the redeeming aspects of that tactic wear thin.

Perhaps you could help point me toward the redeeming aspects of supremacist hatred.

Elbaz's point is well taken, but Tony1 is one of those unfortunate instances like Tim McVeigh, where he wants to martyr himself this way, and seems to devote as much effort to effrontery as he can. Remember that he believes a Christian is only a Christian if, among other requirements, they are reviled for their faith. (It's easy to miss that point in among all the BS, I admit, but you get used to picking such points out of the river of crap he floats.) Well? He seems to be pushing for us all to revile him. Apparently, his supremacist notions have difficulty with the fact that a person is not wrong or bad for being Christian--he does, however, seem to wish to make an example of what aspects of a Christian make the faith detrimental to society. Since we don't seem to hate him inherently for being a Christian, he's doing everything he can to see if he can raise that hatred against himself, so that he might then stand atop the mountain and say, See, God? I'm your #1 fan, and I deserve to be saved!

Think about it this way, Taken: he is among those who will remind that one's acts alone do not warrant salvation. He is an extreme case at Sciforums of the idea that since one's acts do not warrant salvation, one's acts must not have anything to do with salvation. He is confidently assured of his salvation, despite the way he treats his brethren (Matt. 25), despite the way he tries to limit his brethren and the fact that Christ advises against drawing that limitation (Matt. 5) He believes it is his Christian duty to treat people like shite.

He's a detriment to the Kingdom of God, and he is a detriment to this forum. You will notice that in his entire posting history, there is not one single topic to his authorship. Why? Has he nothing to say except to remind others that they are possessed by the Devil and that he will enjoy looking down on them from Heaven while they suffer? (e.g.--What Christian enjoys the suffering of another?) He offers nothing to these forums except a disruptive voice that is afraid to establish anything but its own neurotic spite. We've tried being patient, we've tried explaining, and now for a few months, people have tried being pissed off. Short of giving him the crucifixion he so begs for, what solutions can you offer? People have tried communicating with Tony1, but he pretty much refuses it.We all have a choice to read or not read, reply or not reply...but it is unfair to not acknowledge his right to be heard and be considered part of the discussion.Tony1 won't even acknowledge that the discussion is taking place. Heck, we've even gone so far as to ask him if he had anything genuine to add to this or that topic that he was posting in. More than once, the answer has come back that no, he didn't. He has chosen to exclude himself from the discussion, and as such, so long as he sticks his head in just to yell and disrupt the discussion, we will continue to wonder if this is really the best Christian faith has to offer. Assholes of his grade come by the gaggles in society; we can all try to respect them until there's no respect left. Or we can just nod and know that his behavior is the final product of a bad idea that should have left the Earth when its Savior did.

It's enough to make us infidels look forward to the day when God calls the Christians home. The human race can has at least the opportunity to make some genuine progress, then.

But really, we can only hope he serves some better purpose in real life than he does at Sciforums.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

"Think about it this way, Taken: he is among those who will remind that one's acts alone do not warrant salvation. He is an extreme case at Sciforums of the idea that since one's acts do not warrant salvation, one's acts must not have anything to do with salvation."

Point taken...see what I mean...he is a reminder, there is a lesson.

"1) Relentless: So was Hitler, so is Osama bin Laden, and, for more appropriate scale, so is Lon Mabon.
2. Unyielding: So was Hitler, so is Osama bin Laden, so was Khomeni, so are the paramilitary groups tearing up British-occupied Ireland.

3. Self-discovery, ad nauseam: I have to admit, what he is helping me discover is that I was right about Christians in the first place, when I was a little more youthful in my zeal. "


See tiassa, he does serve a purpose..I do not have a number tatooed on my forearm, neither do you I suppose. I never said we would learn from him by his ability to reveal to us some unknown truth, but we may well learn from him in many ways...including seeing what it is we must fight against and not allow ourselves to become in our own beliefs and thinking. His helping you confirm daily that you were right about Christians, I would like to rephrase to say "most" or "modern" Christians, but that is up to you. Either way He has served the purpose of makeing the point to you that you must avoid that pitfall and not let the "truth" be dictated by a man but by your own experience with life and the search for meaning.
Sometimes it is not just being reminded of what is right, but a daily reminder of what the price of the wrong way is that spurs us to continue to try to do better.

I understand all of your points, and agree a bit too. Although I'm tempted, I still have to go with virtue. Tony1 isnt all evil, I'm sure. I know it sounds odd for me to be defending him, but I dont do it for him, I do it to do what I think is the right thing. You guys can ignore him and I'll understand, but keep in mind that ignoring your problems wont make them go away.

I'm sure that tony1 is right now studying this post, and maybe it will help get the message across to him, but I still stand my ground, ignorance is not the solution.

Elbaz is correct it isn't a matter of agreeing with Tony, his beliefs or ways...but his right to have them. My rights end where someone elses begin and if you deny him you deny me and you deny yourselves.

Elbaz I might add, I am quite set back by the revelation of your age...I found you to be quite intelligent and credible in your thinking from the start. I am ashamed to admit your age surprises me, ashamed in the fact that I should have never thought age should be a judge of wisdom any more than gender or race should.

I never said we would learn from him by his ability to reveal to us some unknown truth, but we may well learn from him in many ways...including seeing what it is we must fight against and not allow ourselves to become in our own beliefs and thinking.Well spoken--er, written. ;)His helping you confirm daily that you were right about Christians, I would like to rephrase to say "most" or "modern" Christians, but that is up to you. Well, to look at you, for example: you are the statistical deviation. And at that point, we must revisit "definitions" of "Christian" and "Christianity". It's all well and fine to point out what it says in the Bible, and I believe you're familiar with my Communist Manifesto analogy; let me know if you're not, but there's no need to restate it if we're on the same page.

By what measure do I assess Christians and Christianity? It's nice to be able to compare a claimed Christian to the handbook, but ambiguity and individuality being what they are, the basis derived from the Bible upon which I compare a claimed Christian is as subjective as Christianity itself.

In the end, the only thing left to examine is the end product. Many people point out the charity work done by Christians, yet the simplest sociological mysteries must necessarily remain mysteries for this function to continue. Rarely do I come across Christianity trying to shortcut any of the problems it inherently creates among ill-educated persons. We can agree that Christianity looks wonderful on paper, even if we have disparate assessments of what the handbook says. But when we look at it in life, we see charities working to assuage symptoms derived from the divisive aspects of Christianity and other religions (Christianity is not solely at fault here). Our politics, our economies, our daily moral standards are heavily influenced by God and religion, and Christianity's daily contribution to my own daily endeavor is one of supremacist moralizing, shortsighted condemnation, and scathing bigotry. The day-to-day produce of Christianity is another conservative complaint about television, books, movies, or music; it includes people on the streets of my city willing to tell me that I deserve to burn in eternal agony for the crime of being born; it includes my friend's father, whose refusal to educate his children came from his born-again conversion and sudden rejection of the family values he had raised them by. It includes someone as close to me as my aunt, whose parental obligations end when her children disagree with her. It includes televangelists and Chick tracts and a host of self-righteous people. Tony1's contribution to this forum is to serve as a reminder that this is what the faith has become.

Of those Christians to whom you refer whose approach may be more proper or palatable: we need them to come out of the shadows and stop being happy enough to be represented by such lunacies. Until they do, Christianity and its followers will bear the burden of a lunatic faith. We'd love to believe that Christianity is even a fraction of its stated potential, but there's no evidence to suggest it.

Would you like a working parallel? Consider the bin Laden situation. Our executive has determined that in order to defend due process and liberty, we must suspend liberty and due process. Whether you or I personally accept secret military tribunals or not, We the People will have among our reputation the hypocrisy of denying due process while claiming to uphold and defend it. It's not me, but it's a label I'm prepared to accept for being an American. It's what my neighbors want and think is right.

Likewise of Christianity. I figure when the situation gets dire enough, the "real" Christians will stage an internal revolution and begin demonstrating the positive power of Jesus. Until that representation is not a statistical fringe, though, I can only appreciate it in the dimension of the individual representing it. Thus, while it is easy enough to acknowledge those things I find positive in your posts (compassion, insight, fundamental trust), I find those attributes to be yours, and not indicative of the faith label you associate yourself to. You are a candle flicker amid a menagerie of dense and determined shadows. I truly think that if you shed the fetters of your Christian associations, you will find your heart more free to pursue that justice it seems to hold dear.

To the other, you could always be the light that saves Christianity. But please understand that until the daily scheme changes, Christianity is most accurately represented by such void spite as we are accustomed to hearing from Tony1's bluster.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

What will that take? It will take a shedding of our formal definition of Christian. Lets go back to the disciples of Christs actuall definition...."brethren," "the faithful," "elect," "saints," "believers."

Tiassa do you believe that you are more than biological function? I surmise fom my brief interaction with you that you do. We are all eluded by man made definitions and interpretations. I boldly state in the precence of "El" and all present that you tiassa not only know that you are more than the sum of your molecules but that you believe you and ALL of us should be aware and reverant to that fact and have some respect and honor for that creation and be in awe of the cause of such a vast and miraculouse thing as life. I have yet to witness you denying the existance or need of such revelation, just a differance with the terminology or "box" that so called Christians have given it. And a dire need to point out the hipocracy of such christians. You are not wrong tiassa, you would in fact pointing out what is painfully obviouse to any believer that we are more than the sum of our parts. And that we are above ALL equal in not only our ignorance of knowledge but in our search for such knowledge.

I am not so much a statistical deviation if you look at the larger picture of men, theologians, scientists, and so labeled pagans and other meare mortals who hold to the same beliefs under different termonologys. It is time that true believers stand up and go against the status quo and speak the truth. Too long we have alowed ourselves to be equaled to the false indoctrinations and allowed the name of God to be associated with irrational and absurd teachings.

Elbaz,

Your thoughts on this matter are admirable and definitely worthwhile. However, I think you are overdramatizing what is happening here. This is not a collective condemnation of Tony1 due to his offences for all eternity. As a matter of fact, the door remains and will always (I hope) remain open for him to re-enter the forums as a civil, thoughtful and empathetic participant.

But he does deserve a slap on the butt for his behavior. Though he is demonstrably not a child, the analogy I believe is appropriate: mere admonishments and moral lectures do not always work on abusive children. Sometimes, it is appropriate to palpably demonstrate the personal ramifications of antisocial behavior when it comes to relationships with others.

You can go on and try to have mutual exchanges with him. Sooner or later, I'm willing to bet, you will come to the same conclusions.

Good luck.

Taken,

You are right of course with respect to learning from life. However, personally I'd rather not have such lessons to learn to begin with. It is one thing to stumble upon something that is manifestly new and therefore remarkable and worthwhile. But in this case, a person joins conversation while simultaneously breaking (it seems very deliberately) the very rules of conversation. It would have been ok if his point was to question the rules; however that is not the point. The only point, it appears, is to destroy. I should know; I entered that very mindset a while back and pelted him with his own medicine all over these boards for a couple of weeks. When I finally realized the futility of it and stopped, he was disappointed. He actually complimented me on producing "good" stuff and called out for more. Well, not from me thank you very much. The bad taste is still lingering in my mouth.

I also think that this should be a two week peroid.
In progress.....

I agree mostly with Cris's stance.
Tony1 shouldn't be cast out, nor any valid arguments he makes discounted.
What I believe is that while he's entitled to his views and opinions, I don't have to answer them, especially when they're just out of context quotes used to divert the path of our arguments.

Cainxinth, well done for bringing all of this to the fore!

Firstly, thanks for the compliment, Taken. But there is nothing to be ashamed of. I know lots of kids my age who act stupid, so you'd have good reason to assume the intelligence of an adolescent based on statistics. But I'd like to take it far deeper than that.

People are more than they show on the surface. Just like Tony1, and his behavior, adolescents are often misunderstood. You all have to look back to your teen years. When you walk into a store with some friends, the clercks watch you like you're going to steal something. I take from what I've seen that Tony1 is quite a disturbed person. All this fear of going to hell or what not, and brainwashing his parents probably gave him, led him to his present behavior. So we stereotype him as a narrowminded, adolescent, christian, where even religion shouldnt be dragged through the mud.

My point is, I dont care how he acts; i dont have to like him or even read all of his posts. I wont Judge anyone, its not place, I just trust proven virtues, more than sudden whims. I dont really like the guy, but I'll give everyone as much respect as I want to get back. Like, if I stereotype people, than I'd better expect someone to stereotype me.

Its nothing to do with tony1. Its not about anybody, but myself. If I want to improve myself and the world I will one day play a (hopefully) much bigger role in, then I gotta live with full awareness of the world around me, and give what I want to get back (I dont have to ramble on about ghandi). Its not for us to decide if he deserves a slap on the ass, we arent his parents.

((((BTW, I realize my posts are often emotional and sorta wordy, but thats just how I express myself the best, with emotion.))))

About the thing that people are more than just molecules, I have something I think I can add.

Now I am no scientist, but from what I collect of all these ghost and paranormal phenomena, which I've experienced myself, I'd say there is a form of energy not yet discovered. Lets call it life energy.

The reason it hasn't been discovered - science and society is still young. A hundred years ago we didnt have computers. It would have been nearly impossible for us back then to postulate the highest prime number, we need computers for that.

We knew very little about space, people still believed in the ether. Well you get my point. This 'life energy' manifests itself, in my opinion anyway, in the form of living organisms. From the most intelligent at the top, down to plants and bacteria. This probably ties in one way or another to evolution and all that but I dont want to get into a conversation about that. Its a huge topic.

Peace.

Originally posted by Elbaz


Now you're talking. :) Religions which tend to discover that life force are Neo-Paganism, Paganism and Budhism. Not in a scientifical way, but spiritual.
I myself prefer both methods combined, spiritual and scientific. They should give the best results. Mainly because the other side warns If I have gone too far in assumptions not facts.
It's an interesting thing to do-search for supreme life force and I beleive tht in ancient times people discovered tht, but we have forgot. Ar it was entirely a different culture[Atlantis]
[building of piramids, stonehenge, energized spots, Machu Pichtu, and many other places we can not explain.
Some have a version about aliens. It could be so. I think that there is nothing to argue about. You know - one side against another- who is right. The path to discovering those facts is more interesting than the results, so I think people need to stop fight about their differences and get to business.
Christianity, Islam and partly Hindu are blocking these processes.

I'll return to this later, have to go.
Bye!

It would not be so difficult if he were to use your exact statements when quoting, not the statement minus its meaning. Were he to use facts I might feel more compassion for him. He is very blatant in his deception and for this I must at least relent. He makes it so darn easy.

It would not be so difficult if he were to use your exact statements when quoting, not the statement minus its meaning.I think you've pretty much nailed the most glaring trend. He's been called on it in the past, and has expressed that he feels he is answering your intent instead of the dictionary definition of the sentence. The presumptuousness of this is ridiculous: he claims in effect to know your sentiments better than you, just as he claims to know the thoughts and processes of God by proxy of his assurance of his salvation and his declarations of demonic possession. He mentioned, even, that he feels he's trying to inject humor into the topics. In this sense, it would be that much more apparent if he was actually basing his humor on something real in the topic, and not some imaginary tangent. All in all, Tony1's excuses don't suffice.Were he to use facts I might feel more compassion for him.Again, Teg, you're pushing toward the heart of the matter. I fully understand the notion that the faithful think of the Bible as factual, and that's well and fine in and of itself. (As an abstract and independent concept, sure.) But we see in his lack of any real insight the paucity of that reliance. He presumes that everyone reads the words the same, or else that they should. But when he puts a bowdlerized Biblical quote and a couple of sarcastic digressions up, and expects his fellow posters to simply guess how the diversion is supposed to be relevant, we can only take his words according to what he presents. It hasn't occurred to him that perhaps certain sentences bear different weight for different people. It seems obvious to most of us: there are many, many Christians, and just as many interpretations of how those individuals relate to their chosen God. I just don't understand the apparent presumption on Tony1's part that we all interpret subjective ideas the same way. Nor can I accept the presumption that the same way that everyone should be interpreting subjectivity is coincidental to the prejudices of a narrow-minded supremacist.

And there we see a fundamental problem of supremacist notions. As far as I'm concerned, one can believe whatever the hell they want. Certain things, though, like supremacist philosophies, require the invalidation of the very liberty that allows their value. He can be as supremacist as he wants in his own mind, but if he can't explain that supremacy in coherent terms, he really shouldn't be using it to drag topics into the muck. In this case, if he could factually back his supremacist philosophies, they would at least bear enough merit to respect. It's really hard to invalidate a certain, inherent respect owed any human being, but consistent supremacist disrespect toward others is one of the quickest forfeitures I can think of short of crimes against a person. It's not that his human worth is any lower because of his spite, but his intellectual worth is demonstrably limited and that inherent mutual respect 'twixt persons is apparently best embodied--to judge according to his posts--as naked distrust and hatred.He is very blatant in his deception and for this I must at least relent. He makes it so darn easy.And that, to get back to a point discussed by Elbaz and Bambi, is exactly why we're taking this topic to examine the issue as a posting community. It is not necessarily "pushing somebody out of the group", and, as Bambi noted, it's not for all time. To wit: We cannot push anyone who can still post out of the group. But if, for instance, Oxygen chooses to run a moderated discussion on something, is there any violation involved in excluding irrelevant and disruptive posts? The portion of the posting community that spends its efforts in the Religion forum seem to be discussing cooperative moderation here.

The problem is that these are not moderated discussions; well, that's not the problem in itself. But, as noted, Tony1 makes it really easy to light up his posts by the fires of scrutiny. In that light we see nothing but evasions, sarcasm, and condemnation. What, Banshee is in the thrall of Satan? So why not just note that Tony1 is just another Nazi in sheep's clothing? Think about that: from zero to condemnation in 2.2 seconds, and, as you noted, Teg, no facts to back up his smarmy bigotries. It is Tony1's right to insert himself in discussions however he sees fit, and we as a community have come around to discussing what to do about it. As easy as it is to smash your head against the brick wall he offers in lieu of a point, we must do something to preserve our more relevant topics; it's too easy to join this Christian in his mad quest to destroy communication and learning. (What? He's even said he would be ashamed of himself if he ever had a new idea--e.g. if he ever learned something new.)

And looking back, Teg, it seems I've addressed this post more generally than specifically. Admittedly, I'm too lazy at this moment to go back and pull the specific references to you directly, so let me say thank you for the springboard .... ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Two hundred years or so ago this kangaroo court might have
debated the same fate, but that time the debate would have been
whether you wanted a ‘nigger,’ to be-a-writin on this here board.
But times are-a-changin and now the fingers are-a-pointin at folk
who believe in the all-evil-murderin, low down dirty god. How dare they express they feelins, on this a religious board.

Hehehe... This is the funniest thing I’ve seen on this board yet. You want to boycott another person because he gets up your nose.
So you form some sort of a government to decide his fate.

I suppose you could call it ‘democracy’ but I call ‘demo(n)-crac(z)y.

I can understand that he gets on your nerves, but this takes the biscuit.

Have you read some of your own posts?
I fail to see the difference in terms of insults and lack of information, to back your claims.

Originaly posted by Cris;
And this should not be seen as a dispute between ‘believers and non-believers’. Tony1 is largely indiscriminant with his incivility. Although I am sure the religionists may well feel reluctant to join this fray.
So have fun.

This is the basis for a democratic society. In the extreme we have Usama Bin Laden who has exhibited inappropriate behavior and he will be likely killed for those actions.
Cris

Of course it should not be seen as such, perish that thought.
I will try and have as much fun as I can.
I hope this sucker squirms.

Hey don’t just stop at bin Laden, what about all the stranded people, they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with his actions, after all, they do look a bit like him.

I'm sure, deep down, tony1 actually wants to believe creationism and CRAP, because religion is where he finds comfort, but blocks out the sheer relevance and truth of evolution by refusing to learn anything about it, or diverting the subject constantly.
Elbaz

Hmmmm! I know there’s an insult in their somewhere. But I guess as a creationist I’m just too dumb to find it.

And while the awesome power of fanaticism is manifest of late in the very tragedy of 9/11, perhaps it is more productive to drain the swamp instead of chasing after mosquitoes.

Bambi

Fancy not thinking like the rest of the pack. And especially with 9/11 and the possible threat of more attacks.

Hmmmmmmm........!

Yeah, you are probably right. this could lead to some serious word play, I say lets shoot the bastard, before its too late.

Loooone nut I just knew that Sir Loony Tune craped all over the thread!!.

Godless.

Loone, if I was you I would git the hell ouda town, we don’t want your kind here mixin wid us good ‘onest folk. And if we hear you bein all peacefull and talkin bout god on this religious forum agin, you will get the same treatment as terrorist Tony1. You are eider wid us or agin us.


I think it is a pathetic idea and microsm of the present day world at large.

Please feel free to boycott me.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Jan you make some valid points, but Tony1 is just a d*** plain and simple. Read his posts, he’s universally argumentative, he has poor manners to say the least, he constantly uses quotes out of context, and he’s just generally an annoying and obnoxious person. If you met someone like him in the real world you would keep your distance. Unfortunately in an online forum we don’t have that luxury. So, I took the initiative to exclude this jerk from the discourse of people who are interested in amicable and mutually beneficial debate, and frankly I think I made the right decision.

ROFLMAO :D :D :D :D ...Good one! Point made very well indeed.

damn right, taken. why is it funny though? Do you normally hang out with jerks?

Sorry, we must have posted at the same time, I was laughing at Jan Ardena's post.

I think it is a pathetic idea and microsm of the present day world at large.Jan, I'm curious: do you have children? What does one say, then, to a child who will not permit its parents to discuss something? What does one say when Mom and Dad are talking about where Dad's next job is going to come from and all the kid wants to do is sit there saying, "Daddy's the Devil! Daddy's the Devil!"

Will you ask the child to be quiet?

"No! You be quiet!"

What do you do?

Apparently, attempting to reason with the child, or adopting the stance of ignoring such deviant behavior is pathetic. It looks like we're back to woodshed parenting? I hadn't thought of that solution, but it might be worth it to fly out to where Tony1 is and thrash him with a block of wood. :rolleyes: I suppose you could call it ‘democracy’ but I call ‘demo(n)-crac(z)y.So what is a democracy, Jan? One where everyone sits around taking abuse from the village idiot? :rolleyes:

Seriously, man ... what, is a public library demoncrazy because you're expected to not scream at the top of your lungs the whole time you're inside?Hmmmm! I know there’s an insult in their somewhere. But I guess as a creationist I’m just too dumb to find it. Given that you see an insult in classifying Tony1's beliefs as "creationism and crap", I might ask you what you would call it. It's anticatholic bigotry with no basis aside from his own spite (his interpretation of the Bible is his only justification for his obssessive hatred for Catholics); his "science" is not science at all, but rather pointing out an incomplete data set and claiming that to be definitive evidence of falsehood ... where does he employ any affirmative argumentation? Where does the creationist in him offer any science to justify creationism as science? When does he offer any real evidence that Catholics aren't Christian? Opinions are not evidence.

You said you're a creationist: Can you show evidence? Or are you going to sit around like other creationists and tell the scientists what you think they're doing wrong? :rolleyes:

It's starting to be a disturbing trend: dismissal, accusation, dismissal, condemnation .... Do you realize that the biggest problem with Tony1 is that he portrays the worst in Christianity? If an atheist were to assert that such Christians exist in the world, s/he would be condemned as a bigot. Yet here we see it, a representative of Christ who aims to chase people away from salvation based on a solemn distrust of everyone. A pseudo-compassion that wants to elevate people's spiritual status to bitter and condemning--some elevation.

Tell you what, Jan: pop on over to the Religion and Human Division thread. Buried in there is a massive post outlining one of Tony1's patterns and digressions. He has chosen not to defend against the accusations, but to counter-accuse. His most vocal support has chosen not to demonstrate the errors of the outline, but instead to counter-accuse. And when, ever, do we see documentation of what is being complained about or commentary on why those points are problematic?

Why don't you pop on back through the nine-plus months of his posting history and tell me what you see.

You, even, chose to stick with the counterattack philosophy. Why? If you think the behavior is unjust, go ahead and condemn it, but be prepared to do better than the same sort of crap that has people upset in the first place.

You could show how one of Tony1's dismissals of history is proper. You could show how one of Tony1's accusations that people are in conspiracy against everything good (demon accusations, Satan accusations) is appropriate. Do you understand that's like me consistently referring to you as a child rapist because I decided it was the way I wanted to refer to you? Think about what Satan represents to Christians: this evil is what he accuses. And yet you would sit here and defend it? Should I hold you in league with those who would oppress and destroy cultures based on a delusional religious mandate? After all, Torquemada, it's what you're attempting to preserve with your counterattack. (I don't want to see word one about the excesses of calling you a mother-raping, child-burning, dog-kicking, insulin-stealing post-Inquisitorial Nazi because it would be hypocritical of you to protest in my words what you defend in Tony1's.)

Would you like me to take the Tony1 tack? I can do that:

You need to shut the hell up, Jan, because you're not actually talking about anything. You aren't actually writing about the topic or any of our debates, just some stupid lie you've made up to call the topic or call a debate.

That is the "debating" tactic you're supporting.

A part of this community is sick of Tony1's crap. They've chosen to spend some time examining the problem. Tell me, Jan, if a drunk man is standing on the streetside, shouting insults and condemnations at your family, you'd permit this to go on? You would allow some dude to follow your wife everywhere you go and tell her she's possessed by the devil? Or would you take active steps to prevent that kind of harassment?

Judging by your post, I sincerely hope you have neither a spouse nor children. I'll bet your neighbors are real fond of you, too: do you prevent them from calling the police when there's some civil disturbance about? What about the kids across the street playing Satanic heavy metal with the volume cranked to 11?

But yeah, Jan. Get into the search engine on the site and pull up Tony1's posting history. There's nine months worth of his crap in there, and I'm curious to see what your assessment is. Don't worry about actually doing it, though: nobody else who defends Tony1's spiteful behavior has bothered to do that, either. :rolleyes:

Here, I'll help you: an early debate I had with Tony1--I love this one because a couple pages in, you'll hit Tony1's med-school bender. Remember, your body doesn't do anything to heal; healing just happens :rolleyes: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?postid=37886#post37886

Or here's another one: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=2571 For this topic, tell me please what his contribution is. At this point, he was tolerable in the sense that he largely ran around in circles, but you're going to have to tell me what looks so noble about his manner. The most part of his posts are diversionary at best, and one of my favorites is when he resorts, on 4/7, to the line that Catholics aren't perfectly wrong. Even back then, it would have been nice if he had anything to contribute to the topic.

Really ... just go to the search page and enter "Tony1" to search by user name. Follow his posting career and let us all know what you think. I well understand that in your two-plus months positng with us, Jan, you've seen a lot of hostility flung around the board. But then again, we might point out that it's only two months and already you're frustrated with things you see at the board. Give it another seven and let me know how it feels.

Anyway, I look forward to your assessment of Tony1's 1430 posts and the discussions he's chosen to involve himself in. It should be a bang-up review, no matter what you conclude. Ah, and one last thing: You may have noticed that some Christian posters here like to respond to citations that don't technically exist. I know it's a lot to ask when you're surveying that many posts, but if you're so compelled to cite and abridge sentences to comment on, it would be appreciated if you did not undertake the pattern we've come to know and love in Tony1, and which his vocal defender(s) seem to prefer. Specifically, don't rewrite sentences in order to accommodate an anemic, stock answer. I can't recall that you've done this yet, but I imagine it's tempting to do that in light of a paucity of evidence.

And somewhere in those 1430 posts is Tony1's admission that he doesn't have anything to contribute to the topics he disrupts. Let me know what you think of that sequence.

In the meantime, this congress of posters will continue to murmur until we either devise a solution or decide to not give a damn what Tony1 has to say. You'll note that Bambi even reminded that this isn't a permanent thing, and I'll reinforce that it's not really much of anything. It is, rather, people choosing not to continue destroying topics trying to communicate with him.Please feel free to boycott me.Well, if you insist. But why should we? You're known enough for posting reasonable and coherent topics at least; I'm curious why you've resorted to shooting back. I'm quite sure you're capable of expressing yourself more clearly than you did--we actually know this. So why shoot into the counter-accusing mode? Is it that you didn't read the posting history and don't know what the source of people's impatience is? Is it that you've ignored the direct inquiries as to his digressive nature? Really, if you're not ignoring the situation, and if you're reading the history, I'm sure you can give us a better condemnation of our hideous victimization of such an innocent and loveable persona. :rolleyes:

Seriously ... what have you got other than an anemic counterattack?

We're waiting.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I dont like Tony1, his tactics, or his beliefs.

Whoever does, like tiassa said, doesnt know him well enough.
I've seen all the crap he's posted and how stupid it is. Truthfully, I dont read all of his posts, I skim 'em sometimes, but thats beside the point.

Its his right, to have an opinion and beliefs, no matter who the hell he is or how stupid he is. Every person was born into the world with the same rights. Not necessarily on a level playing field for other qualities (eg intelligence), but rights. And I believe in preserving them for everybody. This guy has a right to, and we can tell him to tone it down, if he has a good bone in his body. Thats alright. And let me make it clear I knkow its not permanent, its not banishing him. Its all about the self. What kind of people we are.

I dont want to really get into this. But we should act like the better people, the adults. Deal with it head on. Tell the guy what we think of him and that we want him to stop. We dont have to act like little kids in old school.

Like that commercial. What do ya do when your kid has a tempertantrum in superstore? will ignoring them work? nope. Hitting them? nope. You gotta deal with it head on. This thread has definately accomplished that. Getting all the feelings out in the open. How we all feel about him.

Now I want to hear how he feels about our comments and his behaviour.

Ignoring it will just make it go back to normal in one week. only with more hate. I'll admit that now I realize what I hadnt before. We have to deal with it. I want to see tony1's feelings on all dis.

Also, look back at your behaviours, all. How would you feel if you got criticized like that. Would you like it. What would you think of the person who posted your post. Do you have any regard for their feelings and above all, rights? Does anyone see how childish this is. We shouldnt have to act this way, but I guess people just dont grow up. None of us.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena


You want to boycott another person because he gets up your nose.
...


Well Jan, do you recall the last time he used such a word as "because" in one of his proclamations? I think if you review my posts you will mostly (if not universally) see grounds given for my claims. Tony1 doesn't give grounds, except: I'm with God ergo I'm right. Questioning his grounds results in him declaring that a circular argument is perfectly fine as long as he believes in it. Sure, except following such an exchange I really have nothing more to say to the guy. After all, I'm hoping for someone who would reciprocate with thought (which, I hoped for a while, shouldn't be an insurmountable problem for someone that intelligent.)


And while the awesome power of fanaticism is manifest of late in the very tragedy of 9/11, perhaps it is more productive to drain the swamp instead of chasing after mosquitoes.

Bambi

Fancy not thinking like the rest of the pack. And especially with 9/11 and the possible threat of more attacks.

Hmmmmmmm........!

Yeah, you are probably right. this could lead to some serious word play, I say lets shoot the bastard, before its too late.


Merely an analogy, for those out there who put religion as a moral guide beyond reproach. Just the other day I've read of a couple Jewish extremists planning to blow up an LA mosque and a Congressman's office. And a few days ago I've read about the Christian "Army of God" plans to send terminally ill people strapped with explosives into abortion clinics to blow themselves up (mind you, of all the domestic terrorist organizations in U.S., how many are not Christian?)

But in all honesty, I now think Tony1 is too far gone to be reached. He actually believes in miracle healings even while at the same time attacking objective science. He goes so far as to say, in full seriousness, that his ills and hurts never heal naturally but rather instantaneously courtesy of his deity. Of course, we would all love him to provide material evidence of the supernatural by getting a team of scientists to document his miraculous healings. I can tell you his position on the issue though: he considers all scientists to be morons who are in addition insane, so good luck trying to convince him that he ought to either put up or shut up. But in all sincerity, do you think such statements are representative of a sane individual? This is so far beyond creationism, it has long since ceased to be funny. And whether he really is insane or merely chooses to act like it, what hope is there for a productive debate with him?

Of course I can only speak for myself, but I'm not boycotting any religion here. Nor am I boycotting the representatives of any religion. In fact, if I didn't want to discuss religion I wouldn't be on these forums. But I am boycotting an individual who leaves me no other choice. Mind you, if he holds true to his facade he won't really miss my replies; after all he had always considered me to be an insane moron anyway.

tiassa,

I have looked back and read the threads to which you pointed.

Do you want my honest assessment?

I'm going to be risky here, and Actually point something out...

Although I too detest Tony1 for the method that my first "Serious" post was turned around and shoved back at me, and every post since I have been as cheeky as possible at him.

I can't say I totally outright think that he should curl up and die, because without his deranged babblings and quotations, the whole religion forum wouldn't have someone to KICK around.

So in away, although I dispise him, I'm sticking up for him :D

I don't think he should leave the board, but admittedly you don't have to take what he says seriously, much like he doesn't take anything we say seriously.

I suppose you could say if we keep Tony1 on the forum then there is no room for any other religious fruitcake.

I haven't been aroud these parts in a while, but I am familar with Tony1. My take is it is just another case of mental masterbation tht comes around here once in a while.

He walks up to a hornet's nest pokes his stick in and rattles it up. Then runs over to the next one and does it again. He gets mad when he gets stung and all for what? Becuase it centers the attention around him.

There is nothing you can do to stop some one from this behavior except to ignore them and push them a way. The mabye some day down the line he will realize that it is his own behavior that has caused him to be an out cast.

I think it was Taken who made the statment that he is a daily reminder of what we should not become. Now imagine if you had some near you every day of your life that was an image of what you should not do or become. After a while it would just plain piss you off.

This is why we have the ability to learn. So we don't need a daily reminder of what not to do. Though some, like Tony1, chose not to learn, but to continue "blind folded" for one or several of manny reasons.

Of those and his other 1400 posts.

Whenever you get around to it.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule
is a person’s conscience.
Harper Lee

Originally posted by Cainxinth
damn right, taken. why is it funny though? Do you normally hang out with jerks?

Is that 'jerk' remark directed at me?

Love

Janardana.

tiassa,

***Here, I'll help you: an early debate I had with Tony1--I love this one because a couple pages in, you'll hit Tony1's med-school bender. Remember, your body doesn't do anything to heal; healing just happens http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...37886#post37886

Or here's another one: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=2571 For this topic, tell me please what his contribution is. At this point, he was tolerable in the sense that he largely ran around in circles, but you're going to have to tell me what looks so noble about his manner. The most part of his posts are diversionary at best, and one of my favorites is when he resorts, on 4/7, to the line that Catholics aren't perfectly wrong. Even back then, it would have been nice if he had anything to contribute to the topic.***

Although my posting history has been relatively shorter than yours and Tony1's, I do have some posting history with both of you which doesn't seem to fit the molds as described.

I took the time to read the threads you linked above because it seemed to be important to you that someone do that. Were these not meant to be representative of some issues as stated? Should I not have taken seriously the issues which you raised about your opponent's manner in these specific threads?

***Of those and his other 1400 posts.

Whenever you get around to it.***

Please keep in mind that an individual's posts do not exist in a vacuum so that when one goes back to review as suggested, one reviews the posts in the context of the thread.

Having reviewed Tony1's posts in the context of the threads pointed out, which threads include some of your posts and interactions between the two of you, my more-objective assessment is that a less-than-"noble" manner is being projected onto another poster.

I hope that your spirits are soon filled with the grace to forgive and to be forgiven.

Please keep in mind that an individual's posts do not exist in a vacuum so that when one goes back to review as suggested, one reviews the posts in the context of the thread.Um ... why are you reminding me of this? Anyway, I look forward to your assessment of Tony1's 1430 posts and the discussions he's chosen to involve himself in. I'm quite sure you read this, right? After all, it's in the post to Jan which you responded to by asking me if I wanted your assessment.Having reviewed Tony1's posts in the context of the threads pointed out, which threads include some of your posts and interactions between the two of you, my more-objective assessment is that a less-than-"noble" manner is being projected onto another poster.Perhaps you'd like to go back, then, and fill in the gaps of misinterpretation? Or is that something you should wait to do until you finish reviewing all 1430+ posts and their respective threads? After all, perhaps you could explain to us what is so evidentiary about the concept that something is so because someone says it is. Such as Tony1's anti-Catholic bender?

Like I said, there's a lot of them to go through. You've given your assessment of two threads with no explanation of how you got there, so it's a little hard to tell if you're making an objective assessment or just sticking with a party line.

Let's go for it. Pull up your examples and let me know how you arrive at your assessment. Essentially, you'll be filling in the gaps that Tony1 refused to contribute.

In that case, for instance, perhaps you'd like to answer Cupric's old question to Tony1 from the Pagan Fest thread? Tony1 hasn't given an answer yet, and still refuses to explain what data contributes to his uneducated assertions about pagans and human character.

Your limited assessment is only as valid as its weight in electricity right now; we'd love to see how you arrived at your conclusions.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tiassa,

Maybe we can narrow things down.

Again: I took the time to read the threads you linked above because it seemed to be important to you that someone do that. Were these not meant to be representative of some issues as stated? Should I not have taken seriously the issues which you raised about your opponent's manner in these specific threads?

Did you take the time to read your own posts in the two threads which were highlighted? If so, how would you assess your own manner?

Does that mean you have no evidentiary basis for your opinion?

Understand: Part of our difference of opinion is that we're viewing different data sets. You've seen what you've seen, but you haven't been following this running battle for nine months. That's why I encourage you to read them all.

Another helpful thing is if you provide some basis to explain your opinion.

And yes, I did read them ... I was involved in them. I remember them well enough. I wrote in them.

I think my assessments are spattered all over Sciforums.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tiassa,

Although I did not read them all my data set is much larger than the two threads which you highlighted. One cannot help but come across the bitter, prolonged hostility and I have an ample sampling of the interaction between you and Tony1.

Again: Again: I took the time to read the threads you linked above because it seemed to be important to you that someone do that. Were these not meant to be representative of some issues as stated? Should I not have taken seriously the issues which you raised about your opponent's manner in these specific threads?

Focusing on the two threads which you highlighted, how would you assess your own manner?

I've skimmed the last few posts and I see that there is some bickering on Tony1's past posts.

Now although I agree that almost every single one of them is worth much less then a deer turd, I'd like to turn from the past. Lets now look at the future.

Can Tony1 change. I know he is studying this thread, but not posting. he wants us to think he's left for good, which I honestly dont believe. And in all of this studying, i bet you just about anything that there may be just enough power to turn a crank in his brain which just might turn the thinking part on.

Thats all beside the case. Why dont you guys look at yourselves. See what you become. I see 5 animals in this room. Owls, sharks, wolves, turtles, and teddy bears. Which one are you? I will be back with a little quiz tomorrow to help you all determine that. sharks attack with their opinion in mind and only that, owls talk alot and look at all options, turtles withdrawl and dont care, foxes can become any animal that meets the situation, and teddy bears have relationships and the feelings of others ahead of their goals and wishes. Tomorrows quiz will help you determine who you are, the results may surprise.


In the meantime, look at the way you guys have posted in this thread. There is no criticism on the manner we are posting in, only the matter of someone else.



I'll ask you guys to think about this tonight. If someone was talking about you the way you were all talking about tony1, how would you all feel. What would you say back. What would you think of that person?

Elbaz,

If I had a problem with Tony1, or anyone, then I'd speak with him/them about it directly and I would hope that he/they would extend me the same courtesy.

Elbaz,

I'll ask you guys to think about this tonight. If someone was talking about you the way you were all talking about tony1, how would you all feel. What would you say back. What would you think of that person?

I would feel like I pissed some one off, and that I was acting like a jerk. Me personaly would appolagize for my actions.

As Tiassa has stated this is not about one action but many repeated over and over. I haven't read one theard that he has posted in that I have seen him go with out calling some one down personally. Uassaly it's an attack on thier intelligence.

Now I do have to admit that I haven't read every one of his post, but I have quite a few threads that he has posted in. At what point do you stop being nice about? The 50th, 60th, or the 70th time?

blonde_cupid,

If I had a problem with Tony1, or anyone, then I'd speak with him/them about it directly and I would hope that he/they would extend me the same courtesy.

Pepole have spoken to him about it. He doesn't get the point.


If he has a problem with what he has brought upon himself he should stop the behavior that is causing it.

666,

***If he has a problem with what he has brought upon himself he should stop the behavior that is causing it.***

You honestly believe that Tony1 is responsible for the actions of others who chose to slander him with their posts in this thread?

Now, that aside, what can you show us about the criteria by which you reach your assessment? If you need any clarification on how I reach mine, I remind you that there's nine months of it splattered all over this forum.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tiassa,

***Reactionary***

Was this meant to be a one word assessment of your manner?

I have asked Tony in the thread itself for several times if he can please speak up for himself...

All he does is calling other humans channeling demons and then he quotes, quotes and quotes again.

No way of normal conversation, not to speak of discussion, possible with Tony...

Sad but true. I asked him in the threads itself. No normal answer comes out of him. Only his bible quotes after he quotes the humans he is throwing his bible quotes at...

I wish you luck Elbaz by trying to talk to Tony normally and get an answer back without being quoted and without stupid remark.

Have the feeling Tony does it on purpose...

--Tiassa :cool:

To the one hand, it's lovely to see your name around here again; to the other, I'm sorry you had to step into the middle of a shouting match.You honestly believe that Tony1 is responsible for the actions of others who chose to slander him with their posts in this thread?I hate to admit it, but he's got you on this one. After all, we could just stop coming to Sciforums and posting altogether. You know how it goes, right? The only way to be fair to an aggressor (as polite as I can put it) is apparently to let the aggressor have his way.

I mean, it's hardly a consideration at all, is it, that what Tony1 is actually responsible for is creating conditions whereby this comes about. As many posters have noted, repeated appeals for a better approach have gone unheeded and disrespected. And that disrespect is hardly Tony1's fault, right? His bigotry and spite must be something we are demanding of him, right?

As you noted--50, 60, 70 times? I always wonder what, beyond 100%, is necessary before taking action on the pattern observed.

Nobody ever answers that question, either.

Anyway, 'tis lovely to see you about; hopefully this place will get back to its former, more civilized days. But in the meantime, thank you for the springboard for a little sarcasm ... it did me some good. ;)

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

tiassa,

***Yes***

Was this meant to be a response to my question? I can't be certain because there was a post between it and the question I asked you and it was not addressed to anyone.

If so, it would be appreciated if you would be so courteous as to address your responses to me by using my name.

Thanks.

Was this meant to be a response to my question? I can't be certain because there was a post between it and the question I asked you and it was not addressed to anyone.

If so, it would be appreciated if you would be so courteous as to address your responses to me by using my name. A) Yes, that is a response to your question.

B) If you would be so courteous as to perhaps get around to providing those citations and explanations which demonstrate how you reach your conclusions, it will be more than simply appreciated. It will be taken as a demonstration that you're not FoS.

Seriously, Blonde Cupid, when are you going to stop demanding information and niceties and get around to addrssing the issues put before you?

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa,

It's nice to see that you are still around! I will most likly be around more often now. I got laid off back in Oct. Some body got affraid that they weren't going to get thier bonus this year and becuase I was the highest paid contractor I got the "axe". Oh well...

It's no big deal walking into this mess. Every board has it's turbulent times.


Blonde_cupid,


You honestly believe that Tony1 is responsible for the actions of others who chose to slander him with their posts in this thread?

I thought slander is when you state some thing about some body that is not true?

We are responsible For how we respond to pepole, but you can not expect pepole to walk on egg shells and worry about how how he feels when he consitently tramples on the feelings of others. Not that I was personaly "hurt" by any thing he has said. He has even berated me and called down my inteligence. It didn't "hurt" me, but this is his M.O. He walks into threads and disrupts them to the point that the thread is irelavent (SP?). He has done this to every thread I have read that he has posted in.

It would be iresponsible for me to walk up to him and punch him for being a jerk, but it is not iresponsible for me or several pepole who he continues to atack to ignore and push him a way. It is a normal and natural consequence for this to happen in society. Hell I think some thing similar happens in just about every society.


Ok on with my point (finally)....

If one does not wish to be excluded from a group, be it by offical rule or by natural consequence, he shouldn't use behavior that will obviously cause this. That is what he is responible for. Not for my actions, but for the natural consequences of life.

Allthough there might be a better approach for the users of this board to take and that is to loge a formal complaint with either Dave W. or to the moderator of this board Qxy. Especialy if you feel he is disrupting the post to the point of non discusion. After all we are here to discuss and not to prevent communication.

If you'd rather deal with it your self you can all ways set his screen name in your ignore list in the controll panle. I'm not sure if it's for private messages or all messages. Hell why not do both? In fact here is what it says in the help section...

Ignore lists are used for those people who's messages you wish not to read. By adding someone to your ignore list, those messages posted by these individuals will be hidden when you read a thread.

After all Blonde_cupid wouldn't this be taking responsibility for ones own actions by not dealing with the person that is causing the source of fustration and chosing to not see the source becuase you are so fricken tiered of it? Or should we all let him have his way and just take the what has to dish out and not discuss anything? If we were to just sit back take what he has to dish all we would be doing when we came here is read quotes from the bible and listen to how stupid and damned to an eternity in hell we are.

*Originally posted by Cris
...his lack of civility...*

Translation: tough questions.

*Originally posted by Elbaz
I'm sure, deep down, tony1 actually wants to believe creationism and crap, because religion is where he finds comfort, but blocks out the sheer relevance and truth of evolution by refusing to learn anything about it, or diverting the subject constantly.*

Nah, I tried believing in evolution while I was going to school, but it was just too stupid.

*Originally posted by Taken
He gets us thinking*

Only those who can.

*Originally posted by Cris
It is not so much tony1’s beliefs that we object to but his behavior.*

Awww, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

*they are met with further malice. The cycle never ends and the topics die as a result. *

Sure they do.
This topic is almost entirely about me and it took off like a rocket.
Besides, I intend no malice.
Specifically concerning you, if you believe what you say you believe then what is the problem with some testing of your beliefs?
I notice that your beliefs are rather weak, and that you prefer to scuttle away rather than defend them.

*Originally posted by tiassa
that he will enjoy looking down on them from Heaven while they suffer?*

Goes against everything I've ever posted.
No eternal suffering, therefore nothing to "look down" on.
Living on earth eternally, not in heaven, therefore not looking "down" anyway.

*More than once, the answer has come back that no, he didn't.*

In your drug-addled dreams.

*Originally posted by Bambi
Well, not from me thank you very much.*

What happened?
Did you run out of good stuff?

*Originally posted by Elbaz
All this fear of going to hell or what not, and brainwashing his parents probably gave him, led him to his present behavior.*

Not afraid of that.
No brainwashing, either, since I didn't become a Christian until after I left home.

*Originally posted by Teg
if he were to use your exact statements when quoting, not the statement minus its meaning.*

Don't blame me if your statements are minus meaning.

*Originally posted by Cainxinth
So, I took the initiative to exclude this jerk from the discourse of people who are interested in amicable and mutually beneficial debate, and frankly I think I made the right decision.*

If you do say so yourself.
Your version of debate is everyone agreeing with you.

*Originally posted by tiassa
You could show how one of Tony1's accusations that people are in conspiracy against everything good (demon accusations, Satan accusations) is appropriate.*

Some people want to get rid of demons.
Apparently, you don't.

*Originally posted by Bambi
He actually believes in miracle healings even while at the same time attacking objective science.*

Healings courtesy of "objective science" take too long.
Besides, given the atheist definition of "belief," I don't actually believe in miracle healing, since I have experienced and seen so many.
I know miracle healing is the way to go.
It's faster, much faster, and doesn't leave weird scars or other aftereffects.

*Originally posted by Banshee
Have the feeling Tony does it on purpose...*

Just the cat walking across the keyboard.

Guys, are you aware that this is a debate forum?
Someone has to provide a dissenting opinion, otherwise it isn't debate.

666,

***I thought slander is when you state some thing about some body that is not true?***

Not exactly.

***We are responsible For how we respond to pepole***

Exactly. Each one of us, as individuals, are ultimately responsible for how we respond to people regardless of mob mentality.

***but you can not expect pepole to walk on egg shells and worry about how how he feels when he consitently tramples on the feelings of others***

Not that I agree with your assertion that he consistently tramples on the feelings of others because he hasn't trampled on mine even when I've disagreed with him. Regardless... Who's advocating walking on eggshells? If you have a problem with someone, then talk with them about it. If you feel you have done your best and they don't respond, then do what you have to do. Do not attempt to coerce others into feeling or acting the same way towards another person. Interpersonal relationships are just that. Interpersonal. Not mob-personal or gang-personal.

***Not that I was personaly "hurt" by any thing he has said.***

Words can't harm you, 666, unless you let them. It's up to you.

***He has even berated me and called down my inteligence.***

If he did that, then he was wrong. Unfortunately, I've seen this happen many times with many posters - particularly at this forum. I am shocked, for example, at how some posters think nothing of calling another poster or his/her ideas "stupid" or "desperate" or "delusional" or "retarded" or "in the throes of hallucinations". I wonder how many posters would be left if we ostracized all posters who threw out intelligence insults?

***It didn't "hurt" me, but this is his M.O. He walks into threads and disrupts them to the point that the thread is irelavent (SP?). He has done this to every thread I have read that he has posted in.***

You know, 666, I'm glad you're not hurt and I have heard that mantra over and over again about how posts are disrupted by a particular individual. Quite frankly, it happens alot. In the short time I've been here, I've seen a number of threads where Tony1 stayed with the the flow. But, even if I hadn't seen that, it is not just one person who steers threads off track. There is much associative thinking going on in these threads and they rarely stay on topic. I find it all very interesting but I wonder how many posters would be left if we ostracized all posters who supposedly disrupted threads.

***It would be iresponsible for me to walk up to him and punch him for being a jerk***

I agree that it would be irresponsible of you. I do not agree to calling him or anyone else a jerk, though.

***but it is not iresponsible for me or several pepole who he continues to atack to ignore and push him a way.***

If you, as an individual, think he's attacking you then by all means, ignore him. That's not what is happening here, though. What is happening here is that one person is being attacked by a mob.

***Ok on with my point (finally)....

If one does not wish to be excluded from a group, be it by offical rule or by natural consequence, he shouldn't use behavior that will obviously cause this. That is what he is responible for. Not for my actions, but for the natural consequences of life.***

Sorry, 666, but I don't identify with this as I have never been concerned about whether or not a certain group accepted me. Behavior that would cause someone to be excluded from sciforums is stated upon registration. Apparently, Tony1's behavior is within the bounds of the group as defined by the administration of this board. Personally, speaking as a newer-comer, his behavior is like that of a pet rock compared to some others here. So, what behavior would be obvious for a newcomer to avoid?

Should the person who is doing 75 mph in a 70 mph zone be singled out for speeding and sent to jail when half of those on the same road are doing 80 mph?

***Allthough there might be a better approach for the users of this board to take and that is to loge a formal complaint with either Dave W. or to the moderator of this board Qxy. Especialy if you feel he is disrupting the post to the point of non discusion. After all we are here to discuss and not to prevent communication.***

That's more reasonable, I think.

***If you'd rather deal with it your self you can all ways set his screen name in your ignore list in the controll panle.***

I'd rather deal with all my interpersonal relationships myself so I won't be setting him or anyone else on ignore.

Just a different point of view.

Thanks.

I came to look around and found this thread and knowing that many members have expressed dissatisfaction with Tony1's posts and attitudes I took the time to read through the entire thread before making any comment. I know that I am not known for posting in this forum. However, here we have the majority expressing the need for action in responding to a disruptive member. This is not unique to this forum. You may choose to ignore Tony1's posts or respond to them. This has always been your option. Unless Tony1 does something to get hisself banned from the board, (and I do not see that happening, as Tony1 has a history but it is never truely out of the limits of of the boards rules)


By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.


then you will each in your own way have to come up with a way to deal with Tony1. Tony1 may be disrtuptive but he is a member of this community none the less. He supplies you with many a thought and responce. I do not personally agree with Tony1's behaviour and I understand the flustration that some feel when having to deal with Tony1's posts. If you feel this strongly about Tony1 then I would suggest that you take it up with Porfiry as to the disruption factor. Tony1 has his rights too. Whether you agree with them or not. So you must make your choice as to what you will do. A week or a month will not change anything other than delay your decision on what to do, that too, is a decision. I understand that most here are reluctant to take that step. It is evident from the consideration that has been given and expressed in thought here within this thread. I have no personal aminosity towards Tony1 nor can I say that I have any towards the other members of this community. There are those I choose not to respond to for one reason or another but that is my choice and not something I try to pass on to other members of the community. There are those on both sides of the issue here. It is your choice as to what you will respond to this post with but those are your choices as I see them. That folks are my 2¢.

*Originally posted by wet1
many members have expressed dissatisfaction with Tony1's posts and attitudes I took the time to read through the entire thread before making any comment.*

Undoubtedly you noticed that this was the religion forum.

*However, here we have the majority expressing the need for action in responding to a disruptive member.*

The only thing getting disrupted here are flights of fancy that some posters blithely soar off on.
You'll note that I don't post in the Science Fiction forums where flights of fancy or even pure insanity are the norm.

*There are those on both sides of the issue here.*

I'm on one side.
Those who disagree with me are apparently on the other side.
That's pretty close to a perfect definition of debate.

I guess that ends the failed experiment called “No Tony Week.” It seems a week of timeout had little to no effect on our post-happy friend. I think Wet1 has the right idea though, its up to each of us to deal with Tony in our own way: Ignore him, debate him (and I use that term very loosely), or find out where he lives and kill his pets, whatever floats your boat.

In more ways than one Tony has informed me that he thinks the modern study of biology is complete poppycock. He doesn’t really have any reasons for his belief other than scripture and clichéd creationist propaganda he picked up somewhere. He believes that God created the universe, period. Biology, archeology, astronomy, genetics, anthropology, chemistry, and physics are all terribly, terribly mistaken, and worse yet they are poisoning our youth with their blasphemous and incorrect views. Tony, please let me commend you on your strong will, it must have been difficult to go through your schooling without allowing science to cloud your better judgment. It shows incredible character that you were able to dismiss each and every science textbook you were ever forced to read.

By the way, feel free to haphazardly toss insults my way, misquote me, dismiss me as a fool, and all those other “debating” tactics your so fond of. After all, you wouldn’t be Tony1 if you didn’t.

Cainxinth,

This is the "Religion" forum. A fact which Tony1 has reminded us of many times. As such, why are you so offended by the expression of his religious beliefs in this forum? I could understand your reaction more, maybe, if he went into a science forum with the intention of disrupting it with such expression. However, this IS a "Religion" debate forum where I would expect to find individuals with strong religious beliefs.

If such is so offensive to you, maybe another forum would suit you better?

A good point cupid, but please allow me to explain my condemnation of Tony.

I have strong atheistic beliefs and many of you have strong theistic beliefs, but we are able to communicate with each other and discuss our ideologies despite their conflicting nature. Tony has shown through his actions that he is not interested in debating anything; all he is interested in doing is sneering at anyone and everyone from an ideology alternative to his own. I will admit my post was angry and rash, but only because of Tony’s frequent and crude attacks on the “holy books” of my ideology, science text books. With the exception of that last post when I admit i stooped to his level, I discuss alternatives to the creationist view in a manner that respects those who hold different beliefs than mine. Also, I have noticed that this is the religion forum, but i also noticed the prefix before the name of this website, so I think the scientific alternative to religion is relevant here.

So finally, Cupid, I was not “offended by the expression of [Tony1’s] religious beliefs.” I was offended his absolute disrespect for mine, and for the rudeness he’s shown me from the moment I was unfortunate enough to meet him.

As for everyone else, I started this thread because it appeared to me that Tony1 was affecting the entire forum. I thought I could get through to him by ignoring him. As we can all see that didn’t work. He still has the same attitude problem he always had.

***With the exception of that last post when I admit i stooped to his level, I discuss alternatives to the creationist view in a manner that respects those who hold different beliefs than mine.***

I'm not so sure about that, Cainxinth. See below.

***So finally, Cupid, I was not “offended by the expression of [Tony1’s] religious beliefs.” I was offended his absolute disrespect for mine, and for the rudeness he’s shown me from the moment I was unfortunate enough to meet him.***

Looking back in the 'Why I don't think god exists' thread which you started:

On 12-04-01, you had similar complaints about Elbaz and Taken.

On 12-05-01, you complained about Tony1.

On 12-06-01, you admitted that you were the one being antagonistic and arrogant and that your manner was less-than-civil or courteous.

On 12-07-01, you changed your mind and contended that the problem in the thread was with Elbaz and the rest of sciforums' "believers". Later that day, you popped in on that thread and called this place a nut house.

On 12-08-01, you checked back into the nut house and changed your tune with Elbaz after learning that Elbaz, a believer, also believed in evolution. Later that day, you apologized to Elbaz and called yourself a f****** idiot and a clod. You started this thread about Tony1 the same day.

No offense, Cainxinth, but I really think you are confused about the issues.

Tiassa

***O Mr Blonde Cupid, Wise Sage of All Things***

Would you go so far as to say that you have extended courtesy here? I wouldn't. Sarcasm, perhaps. But I'm sure that's not what you meant to project here since, as recent history has shown, perceived sarcasm could subject you to ostracism.

***A) Yes, that is a response to your question.***

Yes? Excuse me while I fill in the blanks... O.K. I think this brings us back to your own assessment of your posts in the highlighted threads... "Reactionary"... What do you mean by "reactionary"? As in ultraconservative? As in direct opposition to progress or liberalism? As used in Marxist theory? Other?

I’m asking for clarification, by the way, not demanding information. You know that, but since you choose to have a problem distinguishing the difference, I’ll take your one word assessment “Reactionary” to mean that your posts are characterized by reaction. It is on that basis that I will continue. Please feel free to correct my assessment of your assessment if you feel the need.

***B) If you would be so courteous as to perhaps get around to providing those citations and explanations which demonstrate how you reach your conclusions, it will be more than simply appreciated. It will be taken as a demonstration that you're not FoS.***

Speaking of my assessment that a less-than-”noble” manner is being projected onto another poster… the basis for my assessment is not only splattered all over these boards, as you put it, it is being adequately demonstrated in your current interaction with me in this thread.

1. I informed you that I reviewed the two threads which you pointed to and asked if you wanted to hear my assessment. You initially reacted by demanding that I assess all 1460 or so posts, softened later to “encourage,” before characterizing my clarifying questions as demands. Here we see the characteristic reaction of a less-than-”noble” manner being projected onto another poster. The projection of your own demanding attitude onto me.

2. In response to your demand that I assess all the posts, I asked you repeatedly if the highlighted threads were not meant to be representative of the issues and whether or not we should take seriously your complaint about another poster's manner… You reacted with an unwillingness or inability to communicate an answer (and then later implied that I was FoS because I hadn’t yet gotten around to providing citations and explanations as to how I arrived at my assessment). Here we see the characteristic reaction of a less-than-”noble” manner being projected onto another poster. The projection of your own unwillingness or inability to communicate an answer onto me.

3. You are content to post ambiguous, one-word responses addressed to no one in particular when communicating /reacting to me in this thread. When you are asked nicely to be so courteous as to address me by name you retort with sarcasm. (Yet, what you perceive as the failure of another to communicate fully, leaving you to fill in the blanks, and what you perceive as intentional sarcasm on the part of another poster is deemed by you to be unacceptable). Later, you insinuate that there is a lack of courtesy on my part because I had not yet provided citations and examples which support my assessment. Here, we see again the characteristic reaction of a less-than-”noble” manner being projected onto another poster. The projection of your own lack of courtesy onto me.

These examples are meant to be representative of the types of demonstrations which were the basis of my assessment. Similar demonstrations are splattered all over these boards. You know where they are.

*Originally posted by Cainxinth
I guess that ends the failed experiment called “No Tony Week.”*

I guess that demonstrates your understanding of science.
Lesson #1: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FAILED EXPERIMENT.

*It seems a week of timeout had little to no effect on our post-happy friend.*

I note one failed observation.
I wasn't even at my computer all week.
Weekend, that's it.

*...kill his pets...*

I'm not actually going to complain about this because it is so lame, but that is what the rules are talking about when referring to "threatening" and "violating laws."

*Biology, archeology, astronomy, genetics, anthropology, chemistry, and physics are all terribly, terribly mistaken...*

Not "terribly" mistaken.
Merely mistaken in one thing each.

*but only because of Tony’s frequent and crude attacks on the “holy books” of my ideology, science text books.*

Interestingly, that is why it is important to discuss evolution in a religion forum, rather than a science forum, although science fiction may seem more approprite.

*I was offended his absolute disrespect for mine*

Displaced offense you have going there.
I wasn't dissing your beliefs, I was dissing those of the clowns that taught you.
I had no idea that you had swallowed them hook, line and sinker.

*and for the rudeness he’s shown me*

Sorry, but what rudeness?

BTW, blonde_cupid, tiassa's posts should be read with the clear understanding that "Stoned" doesn't appear above his avatar for show.
The unfortunate thing about tiassa is that he is sufficiently skilled at placing words one after another that being stoned doesn't significantly affect the appearance of his posts.
The result is that he appears to be making very literate and cogent statements, but they are in fact a literate equivalent of word-salad i.e. sentence-salad.

Cainxinth,

A very good effort and as I said in an earlier post I almost made the same suggestion. But the issue I saw was that unless everyone bought into it then it was doomed to fail. Also since t1 only posts at weekends, which you may not have realized then a single week would have little to no impact.

And I entirely agree with you that it is t1’s attitude that is the problem and not his beliefs, no matter how weird we might consider them. Although, it is his weird beliefs that are responsible for his atrocious attitude so it is understandable that many here cannot separate the two.

However, some good views have been expressed, and you should stop apologizing for speaking your mind. Your views are shared by many here.

I have to admit I don’t understand why blonde_cupid cannot see the issue.

I’ll continue to simply skip over his posts for the foreseeable future and will hence refrain from any interaction with him. There are many interesting and fundamental issues concerning religion that should take our attention, and t1’s gibberish is distracting us from pursuing those more productive avenues of discussion.

I strongly recommend that everyone take the same approach.

Take care
Cris

Easily enough responded to, Blonde Cupid.Would you go so far as to say that you have extended courtesy here? I wouldn't. Sarcasm, perhaps. But I'm sure that's not what you meant to project here since, as recent history has shown, perceived sarcasm could subject you to ostracism.Would you go so far as to say that you have any courtesy left coming to you? We'll get to that in a moment.Yes? Excuse me while I fill in the blanks... O.K. I think this brings us back to your own assessment of your posts in the highlighted threads... "Reactionary"... What do you mean by "reactionary"? As in ultraconservative? As in direct opposition to progress or liberalism? As used in Marxist theory? Other? This one will do, from dictionary.com:reactionary \Re*ac"tion*a*ry\, a. Being, causing, or favoring reaction; as, reactionary movements.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.As to reactionary movements: there is always a cause that sets a reaction in motion. This is worth examining as much as the reaction itself. As to the other, that my attitude has favored reaction, I stand by it. That trend is evident in my exchanges with Tony1, KalvinB, Randolfo, and others, including yourself.I’m asking for clarification, by the way, not demanding information. You know that, but since you choose to have a problem distinguishing the difference, I’ll take your one word assessment "Reactionary" to mean that your posts are characterized by reaction. It is on that basis that I will continue. Please feel free to correct my assessment of your assessment if you feel the need.Well enough. And what do you mean that you're merely asking for clarification and not demanding information? After all, on 12/13 you offer an "objective opinion" for which you offer no support, and then continue to demand: Did you take the time to read your own posts in the two threads which were highlighted? If so, how would you assess your own manner? It is your assessment you asked to offer, and you've done nothing but give an opinion, refuse to support it, and continue to inquire as to my own opinion which, as has been stated before, is splattered all over nine months of people's topics. I offered repeated opportunities to explain the basis of your opinion:Perhaps you'd like to go back, then, and fill in the gaps of misinterpretation? Or is that something you should wait to do until you finish reviewing all 1430+ posts and their respective threads? After all, perhaps you could explain to us what is so evidentiary about the concept that something is so because someone says it is. Such as Tony1's anti-Catholic bender?And the best you could do is "ask for clarification".Again: I took the time to read the threads you linked above because it seemed to be important to you that someone do that. Were these not meant to be representative of some issues as stated? Should I not have taken seriously the issues which you raised about your opponent's manner in these specific threads?

Did you take the time to read your own posts in the two threads which were highlighted? If so, how would you assess your own manner?And without offering us a clue as to what issue you have trouble with, you demand "clarification" of the issue? Once again, you are demanding my opinion in lieu of providing the basis of your own. I even pointed out the lack of citation to support the "objective opinion" you claimed: Does that mean you have no evidentiary basis for your opinion? And again, without offering any background to how you arrived at your "objective opinion", you asked for "clarification" yet againAgain: Again: I took the time to read the threads you linked above because it seemed to be important to you that someone do that. Were these not meant to be representative of some issues as stated? Should I not have taken seriously the issues which you raised about your opponent's manner in these specific threads?

Focusing on the two threads which you highlighted, how would you assess your own manner?What's the matter, Blonde Cupid? Why do you choose to wield an opinion you can't support? Even when you get your answer, you're not happy:Reactionary
Now, that aside, what can you show us about the criteria by which you reach your assessment? If you need any clarification on how I reach mine, I remind you that there's nine months of it splattered all over this forumOnce again, you are invited to demonstrate your assessment. Once again, you choose to ask for further "clarification":***Reactionary***

Was this meant to be a one word assessment of your manner?And I even went so far as to answer this digression for you. Really, who else was I talking to at that point, Blonde Cupid? What else could that be a response to? Okay, so I'll grant you that issue, but what do you expect? One word is all it's really worth, since you aren't paying attention to any of the others. This way, at least I know you're seeing it, because you continue to whine about it:Was this meant to be a response to my question? I can't be certain because there was a post between it and the question I asked you and it was not addressed to anyone.

If so, it would be appreciated if you would be so courteous as to address your responses to me by using my name.You'll notice that you're still asking questions and finding issues to focus on other than explaining the basis of your assessment. Which brings us pretty much to the present:Would you go so far as to say that you have extended courtesy here? I wouldn't. Sarcasm, perhaps. But I'm sure that's not what you meant to project here since, as recent history has shown, perceived sarcasm could subject you to ostracism. Like I said, and as I promised we'd get to: Would you go so far as to say you have any specific courtesy coming to you? As we've examined this morning, you pretty much seem to have no basis for the opinion upon which you mount your continued press. So I'm not particularly worried about whether or not I've extended enough courtesy to satisfy your ongoing demand for that which you will not give.***B) If you would be so courteous as to perhaps get around to providing those citations and explanations which demonstrate how you reach your conclusions, it will be more than simply appreciated. It will be taken as a demonstration that you're not FoS.***

Speaking of my assessment that a less-than-noble manner is being projected onto another poster the basis for my assessment is not only splattered all over these boards, as you put it, it is being adequately demonstrated in your current interaction with me in this thread.Is this one of those self-centered things where you think everyone in the world will look at a sentence and think it means exactly what you mean? There's nine months of it, and you seem happy to complain about it. Now, show us what and why, and be prepared to trace the history back to its starting point. You keep flinging accusations: have you anything to back them? It's all I've ever asked, which is more than we can say of you.1. I informed you that I reviewed the two threads which you pointed to and asked if you wanted to hear my assessment. You initially reacted by demanding that I assess all 1460 or so posts, softened later to encourage, before characterizing my clarifying questions as demands. Here we see the characteristic reaction of a less-than-noble manner being projected onto another poster. The projection of your own demanding attitude onto me.And here,sir, you are inaccurate. So here's my moral question: Should I assume the best in you, and wonder if you've just forgotten the chronology? Or should I assume that you're born into sin, and therefore prone to your worst side, and assume that this is a calculated slight of the facts? I initially reacted by what? Guess what, Blonde Cupid, and it's the second time at least that I will point it out to you:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, I look forward to your assessment of Tony1's 1430 posts and the discussions he's chosen to involve himself in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm quite sure you read this, right? After all, it's in the post to Jan which you responded to by asking me if I wanted your assessment (12/13/2001)So, I'll remind you of that again, and ask you to kindly respect the truth, if it isn't too difficult for you. When you put your chronology together, strive for a little more accuracy. Such distinctions may seem small, but you're the one flinging around the term less-than-noble. My core assumption is toward the better side of people; I can only assume this is an unintentional lexical fumble.2. In response to your demand that I assess all the posts, I asked you repeatedly if the highlighted threads were not meant to be representative of the issues and whether or not we should take seriously your complaint about another poster's manner You reacted with an unwillingness or inability to communicate an answer (and then later implied that I was FoS because I hadn’t yet gotten around to providing citations and explanations as to how I arrived at my assessment). Here we see the characteristic reaction of a less-than-noble manner being projected onto another poster. The projection of your own unwillingness or inability to communicate an answer onto me.Well? How long are you going to carry those self-righteous inquiries forth without providing the basis for the opinion upon which you hang that righteous notion? How long are you going to skip giving the honest assessment you asked to give back on 12/12? I see a couple familiar complaints being thrown at me; too bad you couldn't give the detail validating those complaints. I don't know why you won't.3. You are content to post ambiguous, one-word responses addressed to no one in particular when communicating /reacting to me in this thread. When you are asked nicely to be so courteous as to address me by name you retort with sarcasm. (Yet, what you perceive as the failure of another to communicate fully, leaving you to fill in the blanks, and what you perceive as intentional sarcasm on the part of another poster is deemed by you to be unacceptable). Later, you insinuate that there is a lack of courtesy on my part because I had not yet provided citations and examples which support my assessment. Here, we see again the characteristic reaction of a less-than-noble manner being projected onto another poster. The projection of your own lack of courtesy onto me.Still driving that point home, eh? Shall I ask you nicely again for the evidentiary basis of your opinion? I hate resorting to the I asked first tactic, but, frankly, I did ask first and this, like your other complaints, seems to be without any merit.

So what have you accomplished? It seems to me you've accomplished a complete restatement of yourself and again without offering any real basis for it, and also to have held up your own current refusal to provide the criteria of an "honest" and "objective" opinion in favor of pressing forth with your accusatory inquisition. These three points are a wonderful, if partisan, account of the breakdown of our own portion in this topic, but the simple fact remains that the opinion upon which you base your righteous press has no demonstrable merit; you've chosen it to be that way.

So now guess what? I've had to spell it out for you. You have, at this point, exhausted your credibility because I really would have thought you bright enough to figure out the necessity of supporting your "honest" :rolleyes: and "objective" :rolleyes: assessment. But it looks pretty sick, doesn't it, when you put it in order. And what seems really buggy about it is that you demonstrate that you've lost track of the chronology, and thus I assert that at least part of your attitude problem is, indeed, that the complaint you voice is FoS. I mean, come on: it's not even real on that point, what am I supposed to think?These examples are meant to be representative of the types of demonstrations which were the basis of my assessment. Similar demonstrations are splattered all over these boards. You know where they are.What, so in lieu of any examples from the debates 'twixt Tony1 and myself (you know, the ones you wanted to give your honest and objective assessment of?) you attempt to provide examples from a conversation you initiate in what is being revealed to be some hostile intent? What is it that is so damned important about me that KalvinB needs to hire help to set me up, that Tony1 needs to stop me from posting, and that you, sir, need to initiate disingenuously a conversation in order to build an evidentiary case? Indeed, we know where they are. Do you realize that people also get to follow your end of the conversation? That people get to watch you refuse to support your "honest" and "objective" assessment?

You're out of time as far as I'm concerned, Blonde Cupid. In proper faith to the human condition, I feel I owe you one post to redeem yourself. So let's see it. Start anywhere; we'll work backwards and you can eventually see the advent and growth of the rivalries which have brought us to this point.

It's up to you: I've done what I can.

--Tiassa :cool:

I’m not going to start splitting hairs about who here is nice and who isn’t. Cupid, if you cant see that Tony1 is a condescending jerk then you have far different taste in friends than I do. He treats people with different beliefs than his own like they were utter fools, like they are all drones that unthinkingly “swallowed” their current ideologies. I left the faith that I was raised in with no small amount of soul searching, it was a painful process for me, my family and friends, but one I felt I ultimately had to make, and I won’t be spoken down to or belittled by intolerant asses like Tony.

By the way Tony, I said it before but I guess you missed it: the scientific alternative to religion is reverent in the SciForums Religion board. This site used to be a Science News outlet (you know… blasphemy), how did you get here anyway?

*Originally posted by Cris
I strongly recommend that everyone take the same approach.*

To God, too.
Maybe if you close your eyes real hard, God won't be there.

*Originally posted by tiassa
As to reactionary movements: there is always a cause that sets a reaction in motion.*

Of course there is.
It is called "digging in your heels."

*It is your assessment you asked to offer, and you've done nothing but give an o