How do you solve a problem called....Tony

It was just a thought that hit me at the time. I stand corrected.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not Quite, Cupid

Isn't that all I ever asked? At any rate, it doesn't matter now. You chose not to come to the table for ... how many posts was that?

Thanks, anyway, Blonde Cupid. It was a nice try.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't be surprised Wet1

Tony1 has used several methods of marking his "citations" over time, so it's likely that some posters' methods will look similar. What is more remarkable, I think, is the common symptom of all these arguments on his behalf: uniformly, they voice general complaint and pick the strangest digressions to be specific about. That is what seems uncanny, the broad assumption that to accuse both A) acquits and justifies the self or object, and B) concludes definitively the guilt of the other.

I wouldn't say it's one poster trying to keep up across multiple flanks of a self-centered conflict. How psychotic would that be? Rather, I wonder honestly if this isn't one of those limitations of perspective that comes from assuming a finite sum for the Universe (e.g. defining reality exclusively via a book). It really does reflect a common experience of my life: the Bob Larsens, Lon Mabons, Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, and others of common ilk live by this method of conflict initiation and management. I've heard it all my life; it's among the vital results observed which lead me to be so critical of Christian faith.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

tiassa,


***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW you want me to do what I offered to do at the outset?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't that all I ever asked?***

Actually, no. It isn't.

 

But you can't demonstrate that, either?

Really, Blonde Cupid, I truly thought you would have learned by now.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Tony is an emotional vampire

I have read, heard and met these kind of people. After talking to them you feel emotionally drained. He/she sucks away all your emotional and spiritual energy. You know- after talking to a person you start to feel worse and start to blame everyone etc. But tht person still attracts you.
So what I think is, that Tony enjoys personal attacks on him, he creates them and then "charges up".
I duno why you are so much on him. I just excluded him from my line of sight. I see his posts, but I do not react to them in any way. /777 was more interesting, here is just a vampiric "christian"
punk+unlogical fundie(they mostly all are unlogical).
Just a theory though.

 

avatar,

Yes exactly. I share your conclusion.

 

i agree also, i guess something about Tony just gets under my skin. I can't let him get away with bad mouthing things so personally important to me. i can't ignore a person who tells me my whole life is a lie, when i know thats very much not the case.

 

tiassa,

***But you can't demonstrate that, either?***

Sure I can. It's actually very simple.

Really, I would except you continue to demonstrate that I'd be wasting my time.

 

I think I agree

A) If you could and it was simple, you would have.

B) You are correct that it's a waste of your time to continue to pursue this line of inquiry which you have established to have no basis whatsoever.

For someone with as big of an attitude problem as you've shown, though, I do wonder why you waste your time at all, since it's a waste of your time. Don't bother answering that, of course. On the one hand, it's a waste of your time. To the other, if you actually answer with all the dexterity and competence you've shown thus far since pointlessly rushing headlong into the current debate, we could be here a year from now and still not have your answer.

A piece of advice as you go along your merry way, angel: When you accuse someone of something, be very sure you can show what you think you're accusing. In other words, before accusing someone of something, make sure they're actually guilty of what you charge, and that you can describe that guilt. Or, it would be well enough if you understood exactly what you were charging a person with. Keep those points in mind, Blonde Cupid, it'll spare you the embarrassment and save the rest of the world from the headache that your brand of spite inspires.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

tiassa,

As a relative newcomer, I tried to put myself on both sides of the issues presented here and my intent was to offer you my perspectives. As I pointed out to another poster in this thread, offense can be viewed as defense and defense can be viewed as offense when you allow yourself to see things from both sides.

I understand that is a difficult thing to do when you were/are a major prosecutor of the subject charged in this thread with a substantial amount of time and energy involved in the prolonged feud.

From what I've seen on these boards, accusing someone of something and trying to make them out to be guilty - a reaction which appears to be prompted by malicious ill will or an urge to hurt or humiliate another (that would be spite) - is what I see exuding from the majority of your posts. (So, unbelievable as it might seem to you, when you accuse me of spite, I see the reaction and projection thing going on again). I will not be posting speicific quotes of yours which demonstrate the accusations and spitefulness because it is not my intent to hurt or humiliate you.

Since you seem to feel that giving parting advice is appropriate at this time, though, I'd like to suggest - seriously - that you at least think about taking your own advice.

I, too, will take it under advisement.

 

Cupid, No one here is condemning Tony1 out of spite. We’re reacting to his attitude and his so-called “methods and practices.” Cris, Avatar, and Wet1 have told us that they are strong enough people that they can simply ignore Tony and the thoughtless things he says. I cannot. I have to meet fundamentalists somewhere. Their ideology stands in diametric opposition to mine, and in the next few years legislation that we disagree on is going to start working its way through congress. Things like genetic therapy/cloning, nanotechnology, virtual reality and holography, ubiquitous computing/communication. Tony thinks these things are fictitious, some deluded scientist’s flight of fancy. I think they’re real and they will have a momentous impact on us if only allowed by conservative forces who have a long and inglorious tradition of fighting progress and resisting change, of telling the Galielo’s and Newton’s of history to stop looking for answers in the wrong places. I’m going to have to meet the Tony1’s of the world eventually, and I might as well get used to it.

 

Cainxinth,

Superb. I too need to fight for those things.

Although tony1 is irrelevant he probably does make a good practice target. Good luck but keep your cool and never sink to his level. If you need any help on specifics then let me know and I will lend a hand.

Have fun
Cris

 

Cupid

I do every day. But what I consider more important is that I'm actually disappointed that you didn't come up with anything. Look, you wanted to offer your opinion. So we disagreed about the terms: on that count, I stand by what I wrote and what you read before you inserted yourself. Aside from that: am I rude to Tony1? Of course; it became quite obvious a long time ago that being polite had no impact. Am I rude to KalvinB? Of course; it's his preferred approach. Am I rude to Brad Rules? If you wandered over for that World Affairs debate, I'd ask you what you expected.

Do I push generalizations? Only the ones "you" give me. By "you", I mean the collective body that identifies themselves as promoters of Christian faith and politic. Take a look at the battle that has brewed over Tony1. There's Blonde Cupid, KalvinB, and even Jan Ardena pressing his defense. Of you, none has simply taken a full citation, explained your issue with it, and progressed from there. Of you, only Tony1 even attempts this, and that poorly. You have to understand, what is remarkable about his habit of altering citations is that academically, altering citations is acceptable; Tony1, however, responds to the altered context, thus sidestepping the actual point of discussion. Across the board, four of four, you've all swung and missed: there's a generalization right there that y'all delivered like John the Baptist's head. Do you know what actually riles me about this pattern? It's an archetype in my life. That's what bugs me the most. I hear so many people tell me about this wonderful thing called faith in Christ and I honestly don't see it for reasons mirrored in many of the conflicts taking place in this thread. Dealing with Christians, in my experience, is like an old Anthrax song, Caught in a Mosh: "Which one of these words don't you understand? Talking to you is like clapping with one hand." It is a consistent experience. If Christians would stop behaving so similarly in their disrespect, the issues I hold against the faith would sound a little less like generalizations.

You'll notice I don't communicate much with Taken. I don't honestly know what to think: while I'm happy as ever to see that famous Christian compassion rhetorically attempted, I'm puzzled by its sudden appearance. It's a bit of an oddity, to tell the truth. But why should I screw with it at all? So far our discussions have left specific religion out of it and relied on a common and empathetic trust in a convention of what constitutes right and wrong. If Taken and I are destined to collide, we'll definitely get around to it. In the meantime, strife seemed to follow me anytime I was near her topics; I may have tracked something into at least one of them. If you feel I've been comparatively quick out of the box, understand, please, I've been through this damn routine a lot lately. And it's virtually the same every time.

We've always had at least one vocal, edgy Christian posting regularly here. When it was Lori, well ... some of it was worth a laugh, but at least she kept more after her point. Even if my opinion is that she came up short more often than not, I can at least say to her credit that she stayed in the trenches after her central point. The current wave of Christian disruption seems to be quite pointless. While Tony1 has led the charge for the last nine months or so, we're used to having one or two around at a time. (I've known things were a little out of hand at least since I brawled across topics with Dan1123.) Presently, however, there's a glittering horde of you creeping about, practicing what seems an almost calculated plan of attack. Mind you, I doubt you're in cahoots, as you'd be more efficient if you were. But there is something just a tad scary about the rank-and-file BS coming out of the Angry Christian Front right now. It's kind of sickening.

Think about it ...

... there's not a single poster here that doesn't accept that. The poster you tried to defend has blown that consideration out his own ass. It's not that he doesn't deserve it; he doesn't want it.

I tend to think it's why those posting directy in his defense have nothing to offer but more of the same.

Frankly, isn't it a little late to be fielding this excuse? Actually, while I thank you for the sentiment, you can't really build your case without it, can you? And that's the problem in this debate. You can't simply expect everone to look at the topics and see what you see. We need to know a little about why you see what you see, as you need to understand of those who disagree with you.

It's why I'm not waiting nine months for your answers, and why you've spent what credit you have so quickly. Your lack of detail makes your assertions quite pointless indeed.

Thank you much for the parting advice, but like I said, I do every day.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

tiassa,

If you look at my position in this thread, I think you will find that I was not defending the behavior of any of the principals in this dispute, because what I see, quite frankly, are a lot of people who have been behaving badly towards each other for a long time. I honestly see two sides to the feud and I don't think that either side is more noble than the other.

You don't know me very well, but I can assure you that if you had been the subject of this thread, I would have taken the same position - the one that you see as defensive - regardless of any differences we might have in our spiritual beliefs. I'm not even quite sure what our differences are in that respect yet, to tell you the truth.

Now that I think of it, from what I remember of the results of that faith quiz that Cris posted, you and I were fairly closely matched with the "Friends".

Anyway, I MUST cut it short and go to bed now. Good night/morning.

 

Your declining integrity? Not my problem.

A few things here. We'll go out of order.

* Two sides to a feud/more noble: I always wonder, when Christians start a-feudin' with anyone in general, if they understand their own initial contribution to the problem. After all, since Christians aren't perfect, but just forgiven, perhaps they don't dwell on their own shortcomings as much--just let God take care of it and be along the merry life. As to nobility, I can't believe that after all this, the Christian faction in this dispute is once again perfectly happy to justify themselves as being equal. Unfortunately, in this case, I happen to disagree with your assessment. Given that in this dispute, the sides are arguing over myriad issues, I would say that one side is indeed more noble than the other. When we read through the various phases of the present dispute and review what's going on with each side, I think we'll find that between Tony1's dismissals and slanderous characterizations, KalvinB's openly demonstrated hypocrisy, and your own cowardice in defense of Tony1, it seems that one faction, in declaring nobody to be more noble, has at least achieved the rhetorical raising of their status to be at least on par with everyone else.

So on what basis do you draw your conclusions? If they're the same no matter what you're looking at, why did you ask to take part in the discussion, fail to answer the issue you chose to undertake, and resort to the aggressive tactics so common among conservative Christianity? It would seem you wasted your time, as well as mine and also anyone else who read or devoted any attention to our exchange. Is stalling and diversion the best your faith can muster?

I would hope that such a fact would serve to remind you of the diversity of individuals despite the general labels we can apply to them, and that such a realization would convince you of the need to clearly state your issues instead of relying on everyone else to understand things exactly as you do.

This part of your first sentence is what I wanted to get back to, and thus is the reason it's placed here, out of order. I, personally, think you're full of crap on this little lie, and I think we should take a look, eh?

I'm not sure what is more buggy:

* That this is the second time I've nailed you lying in this topic, or,
* That in those of your defenses of Tony1 which I have documented above, you uniformly seem to miss the target.

It even appears that, in this topic, you're even relying on redefining words to suit your argument: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=slander

So I'll tell you what, Blonde Cupid: I don't have time for your kind of liar. And I am not particularly thrilled about the prospect of what's to come. Does the future promise more lies? With no way to rely on your integrity to communicate, I'm no longer sure that there's anything to respond to; after all, your words become about as worthless as they can be when you stand on falsehood. It does poorly for your reputation.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

tiassa,

***If you look at my position in this thread, I think you will find that I was not defending the behavior of any of the principals in this dispute ....***

Let me get this straight, tiassa.. You didn't find what I thought you'd find, so that makes me a liar?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm sorry. I didn't know that your perception set the standard for truth. I was wondering why you felt so comfortable throwing the word 'liar' out at people. Now I know. I have found the great arbiter of TRUTH in tiassa. Oh, how ignorant I've been.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

***Apparently, Tony1's behavior is within the bounds of the group as defined by the administration of this board. (12/14)***

Apparently, so is yours, tiassa. Do you take that to mean that I'm defending your behavior? Please don't.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


***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. (12/13)***

There is nothing in this statement that attempts to defend the behavior of any of the principals in this dispute. It can only become a defense of Tony1's behavior if you allow his behavior to be justified according to the same standard that you justify yours, which would seem to boil down to him saying:

"With the way tiassa is behaving, what did you expect? I mean, really?"

If you do not apply a double standard, and you allow for that reactionary justification, then you are defending his behavior, tiassa - not me. On the other hand, if you apply a double standard, well... you know what that means.


***You honestly believe that Tony1 is responsible for the actions of others who chose to slander him with their posts in this thread? (12/14)***

This statement addresses the behavior of others. There is nothing in this statement that attempts to defend the behavior of any of the principals in this dispute.


***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. (12/14)***

This statement addresses the fact that the poster's assertion was in question in that the behavior described by the poster was not consistent across the board. There is nothing in this statement that attempts to defend the behavior described by the poster.


***If you, as an individual, think he's attacking you then by all means, ignore him.***

This sentence addresses an alternative option that an individual has available to them if they feel the need to shield themselves from the alleged behavior. There is nothing in this statement that attempts to defend the behavior described.


***That's not what is happening here, though. What is happening here is that one person is being attacked by a mob. (12/14)***

This statement addresses the behavior of the group of accusers here, in this thread, who are on the attack themselves. There is nothing in this statement that attempts to defend the behavior of any of the principals in this dispute.


***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. (12/15)***

These statements explore our levels of tolerance. They do attempt to defend... not principals in this dispute, but principles of liberty. They are in defense of the right to express one's beliefs freely... in defense of the right to utter freely... in defense of the right to freedom of speech.

 

Good one, Cupid ... your mom must be real proud

No, Blonde Cupid, you lied ... twice. That is what makes you a liar. Twice in this very topic you have attempted to stand on statements which are demonstrably untrue.

No, it's not so much a perception, Blonde Cupid. It's the comparison between what you claim and what reality is. Twice in this topic you have attempted to stand on statements which are demonstrably untrue. That is what makes you a liar.

Why would I take your condemnation of my behavior to be in my defense? I'm not nearly as stupid as you're making yourself out to be. I'm sure you remember the whole of what you wrote. It's there in electric color, or some-such:

It seems to me that you have offered a defense of Tony1's behavior. That makes a third statement which you attempt to stand on which is untrue. You're piling them up.

I like how exacting you're trying to be, Blonde Cupid. You can't escape the fact that you're not talking about Tony1's projections of a less than noble manner onto another person. You can try, I suppose, but I think you know you can't escape that fact.

You know, Blonde Cupid, what's really funny about that is that quite technically, nobody knows what you're talking about. Specifically: some people might think they know, and perhaps rightly. Some of us might think you're just a bit obsessive in your quest for glory, and some of us do. But nobody actually knows what you're talking about because you haven't told them. For instance, when we say, With the way Tony1 is behaving ..., there are plenty of citations of and opinions toward his behavior to which he has chosen to either not respond or respond maliciously to. When you apply your turnaround, you have provided no such citations and no such opinions, therefore fostering no real discussion about. Even if I chose to behave as poorly as Tony1, I can't even begin to dismiss your examples because you've provided none.

Your statement included the word slander, which means that people have spoken things of him that are untrue. Would you like us to assume that you intentionally omitted from your consideration those whose allegations are true? Or would you prefer to simply admit that you used the word slander when you shouldn't have? By claiming that people's allegations of and therefore the basis of their opinions of Tony1's behavior were untrue, you defended Tony1's behavior. You discredited the allegations--many of which are well-documented and not refuted--as untrue. Sounds to me like you're defending his behavior, claiming that it wasn't what people say it was.

You counterpointed someone and established the criteria for offense as your perception of how he treats you. You have disagreed with the assertion that he trampled on the feelings of others and thus declared the assertion incorrect. Understand: Tony1's behavior is Tony1's behavior, no matter what you think of it. There is no changing what he has posted without losing ... well, there you go ... I guess he does still have a shred of honor left to forfeit. But there you go. You are defending his behavior by attempting to dismiss the allegations. If you're going to hide in semantics for the rest of your life, well, maybe there's a reason Christian philosophers call faith the sacrifice of the intellect. You seem to be using yours in order to avoid giving issues proper consideration.

I posted these two anemic responses of yours together because you cut the citation in half; my citation of your words is more complete than your citation of your own words. I like how you split out a sentence so you could hide behind the "this statement" line. You have asserted that one person (Tony1) is not attacking (behavior) someone, and that he is, instead, being attacked by a mob.

Why did you try to split those sentences apart? They seemed perfectly alright the first time you wrote them together. Why did you try to change the context before responding to the point, Blonde Cupid?

The statements defend Tony1's behavior by trying to justify that this is a religion forum; issues of his behavior are apparently unimportant, which is a demonstrative defense. What about one's religious beliefs allows them to insult people the way Tony1 has? Oh, that's right, you don't know what insults we're talking about because you don't want to read the posts in question. But since you don't seem to remember, you were responding to Cainxinth's mention of Tony1's disrespect for posters. I love your suggestion that we should explore our tolerance toward intolerance. What, do we somehow owe Tony1 that which he will not give? Do we suddenly owe him what he doesn't seem to think is worth having? You seem to be arguing that Tony1 is in a religion forum and therefore has a right to behave as poorly as he does.

Save yourself the bother, Blonde Cupid. I'm hoping you didn't put a lot of effort into that post for the length of it. Its sum was sadly pale.

Do you see where you put words in between the little stars? You know, other people's words? (Well, they're mostly your own words, but it seems you actually are capable of providing citation.) And then right after it where you offer some commentary, that is, your take on the issue?

What the hell was so hard about that?

I can only assume that you were unwilling to provide such similar citations to explain your conclusions drawn earlier in the thread. I'd rather you were incapable. Then, at least, it couldn't be helped.

Nice going.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Tiassa and Cupid, perhaps you should continue your argument elsewhere. I'm not the mod, but it seems like you guys are using the debate on Tony1's conduct as a means for attacking each other.

 

Cainxinth

Noted.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!