Not sure which discussions you think you're referencing. I note that you give no links. Could be a case of sour grapes, I guess.
In the first place, you never remember.
From about a year ago:
Maybe you ought to try reading some of Yazata's posts, to take one example. If you do that, you might see beyond this "dearth" you keep referring to. I could also suggest you read some of my own more thoughtful posts, but I can't see you running to take up that suggestion in a hurry, given your current antipathy. I'm doing other quality posters a disservice here by failing to mention them by all name, but it would take too long.
Besides, I'm not one who is keen on jumping through arbitrary hoops just to satisfy somebody who is determined not to be satisfied. What would be the point of me digging through the archives to find hundreds of counter-examples to your thesis? You could do that yourself. In fact, you should have done that yourself. Instead we get you up on stage, theatrically reciting the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.
An interesting point about a lack of links is your admonition that one read your own thoughtful posts°, but continuing either inability or unwillingness to point them out.
We
reconsidered this↑ earlier in this thread↑: When I said you're an antireligious bigot who doesn't appear to know much about the religions he criticizes, I recalled two of your threads as examples, and explained what stands out about those threads is that you don't really ever show any knowledge of the subject matter that isn't recycled through other atheists.
Your response was another excuse to skip out:
Meh. Even if that were true, maybe there's no need for more, especially given the typically poor showing by the theists in those threads.
Yeah, you and your memory. You never do remember, do you?
Like the quote from a year ago; you probably don't remember how that came about, do you? That you decided to move a policy dispute into the Religion subforum? Because here's the really interesting thing about
that policy dispute: Not only was it riddled through with your inability to remember basic stuff, like the topic of a thread, or even your own posts from one to the next over the course of less than a day, but one of the mileposts is you demanding evidence, editing your post to call off that demand, and then pretending some sort of useful to short-cut the process in order to save time and effort°°.
Can we safely predict you don't remember that one, either?
†
Part of the problem, James, is an appearance of perpetually playing to the fourth wall, as if you're essentially gambling that people don't want to be bothered with the detail, or the effort of accommodating your extraordinary needs. It's never been clear why you behave this way, but it is, I assure you, disruptive.
At Sciforums, and in life, I've been known to use the phrase,
square zero. I actually think the meaning obvious, but the years have convinced me to occasionally make the note; while it is not uncommon to find ourselves stumbling back to square one, as such, that's not necessarily how it goes, and on many occasions we can find ourselves worse off than where we started. It's not just running in circles, but treading a trench and spiraling downward.
That is what it is. People are human. It happens. Within human frailty, it also sometimes occurs that some people, for whatever reasons, behave in manners that would appear to seek such sprialing entrenchment in deepening futility.
What does it have to do with Sciforums? Well, sure, there's been a lot of it, over the years. What does it have to do with you? Well, here we are.
†
I have a joke, actually scribbled in some unposted notes from one or another occasion, but it goes, approximately, that you're not a bot or AI, or some such. It's not even funny, actually, but here's why it exists:
• Poe's Law, in common recitation, is insufficient. These days, it's not simply true believer versus parody thereof, but we must also account for bots, farm trolls, and basket cases, at least. Meanwhile, and particularly: You're not a bot, so it's not like you hit a thirty- or sixty-day threshold and suddenly your cache is cleared of all reference to the subject we're discussing. And, to be certain, an errant cache erasure—e.g., string syntax bug—didn't make you forget your own post hours earlier.
Still, it's true, we know, you're not a bot; you are a human. In the spectrum of human frailty, sure, I mean, yeah, whatever, but still, seriously and genuinely, it is disruptive.
And the thing is, if there's a reason for it, then there's a reason for it. But in all the years I've known you, yes, you've always been guarded in certain ways, so, sure, again, whatever. One of the results, though, is that you don't seem to actually know what people are saying. And that's not simply a product of your pandering to an audience; some days you really don't seem to know.
It wasn't just a potshot,
last year↗, when I said that an interesting thing about knowing you, better, is that it's actually hard to do. I didn't call you
duplicitous and manipulative and petty, to the point clownish self-defeat, just to zing you or hurt your feelings, or even to feel better about myself. It's really hard to talk to you about anything, James. Another joke I have is that it's these years later and you still never answered the question, but that's another story, a different point on the arc of Sciforums history. And, sure, part of it is that you always seem to be playing to the audience instead of dealing with the discussion before you, but what you don't remember, and don't seem to know, really are disruptive.
Like in this thread, when you wrote—
You're not one of those theists, are you?
—the problem could be that you're performing for the audience, or that you really don't know because you don't pay attention. And toward that latter, it's been
seventeen years, so accepting you really don't know presents curious questions. As with so many things that defy your imposed boundaries, you address caricatures that only really make any sense to you, and you often seem offended at the prospect of needing to explain what they mean and how they are supposed to work.
†
Here's an interesting example, from some months ago:
Meh. I have a lot of private conversations on this forum. I have 20 years of posts, as I mentioned earlier. To expect me to recall every detail off the top of my head might be regarded as optimistic by some. Your memory might be superior.
If I take the moment to pick and parse and then resolve at,
sure, twenty, at least in a quasi-biblical context inasmuch as twenty or seventeen, I still get what you mean, that's stills probably too much effort given to a distraction. To the other, it shouldn't be too hard to remember that the first fifteen years of those messages are already gone, but even that isn't the whole of the consideration, since the member had been around, at the time, for about eighteen months. The difference 'twixt twenty and seventeen years is a distraction compared to the difference 'twixt twenty years and eighteen months.
Still, though, you and your memory.
†
The longer versions with lots of links, we should remember, seem to offend you.
And it's not that there's no need for more, especially given poor showing by others. If you have precisely
one fact pertaining to a discursive subject, and must drag any and every discussion within that range back to your one fact, there will be a lot you're not discussing. Your argument seems to be not really about facts or outcomes, but personal satisfaction.
There's a weird job security joke for such occasions that people would pretend opposition to something but conduct themselves in a manner that would entrench what one opposes, that there will always be someone to fight with, and therefore a need to fight. And, in truth, I wonder that such explanations might be needed; to the other, it really does look like neurotic behavior. Which, just to remind, is perfectly human.
†
Your behavior is what it is, and whatever you might think you're accomplishing, it just doesn't help to say things like, "If you'd read enough of my posts on such matters, then you'd be aware that I'm a pretty evidence-focused person when it comes to accepting the reality of things", when you're already on the record to the other. And the contrast is something that actually bears shaping influnence at Sciforums.
I will confess, "agnostic atheist" isn't the two-word punch line I would use, but it's also true you wouldn't understand the two-word joke describing your behavior in its post-Christian, agnostic-atheistic context; it involves remembering a few things at once.
The upshot, James, is that what you do matters.
____________________
Notes:
° We should also acknowledge that you mentioned Yazata's posts, and, again, your point about not linking to examples reminds, but toward that, we should remember that Yazata's↗ one post in the thread about what people know about what they pretend to discuss actually answers the topic. Clearly, we see why you wouldn't want to point to that example, but the contrast does stand out.
°° Which says nothing of the political screed you managed in between.
