Perhaps just posted "I disagree" and leave it at that. Or post "no, you are incorrect" and post the material that demonstrates that she was incorrect - and leave it at that.
Off Topic posts from "When is infidelity allowed"
- Thread starter Retribution
- Start date
So... you didn't actually read that thread either.
Amazing just how many of you feel qualified to comment when your opinion is based entirely upon assumption.
Come on, James, I'm still waiting.
I'll tell you what.
Let's try a little experiment - sort of a debate, if you will, with a similar ruleset although perhaps not quite so stringent. More of a courtroom scenario, I suppose.
Not sure how you'd want to play it (my guess is not at all), but we can refine that later.
At the end, we'll each post a summary, consisting of, shall we say, lessons learned. I'd like to really nail down what you're in support of, here.
You can even wear the white hat, if you like.
How does that sound?
I'll tell you what.
Let's try a little experiment - sort of a debate, if you will, with a similar ruleset although perhaps not quite so stringent. More of a courtroom scenario, I suppose.
Not sure how you'd want to play it (my guess is not at all), but we can refine that later.
At the end, we'll each post a summary, consisting of, shall we say, lessons learned. I'd like to really nail down what you're in support of, here.
You can even wear the white hat, if you like.
How does that sound?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
The thread this one was excised from questioned the morality of infidelity. Two members (perhaps more) moved slightly off-topic to consider the nature of infidelity from a biological and evolutionary standpoint. My impression was - very definitely - that those members responding to this deviation somehow misread it and took a moral position that, in commenting upon infidelity as a biological function we were somehow approving of it.
My perception is that Retribution in particular and myself to a small degree have been questioning that stance. Bells, in particular, has represented the other viewpoint. From my perspective, again an obviously personal one, I am at a loss to see why that attitude is there. Or, why Bells and others cannot see that the moral issue is distinct from the biological one.
Retribution could make his case more effectively if he kept the rigour of his replies toned down somewhat, and if he lost some of the 'paranoia', but his basic thesis seems to me valid.
I'm not at this point interested in whether or not he has an agenda. I'm just interested in why we cannot discuss the biology of infidelity with out implicitly being accused of being in favour of it.
My perception is that Retribution in particular and myself to a small degree have been questioning that stance. Bells, in particular, has represented the other viewpoint. From my perspective, again an obviously personal one, I am at a loss to see why that attitude is there. Or, why Bells and others cannot see that the moral issue is distinct from the biological one.
Retribution could make his case more effectively if he kept the rigour of his replies toned down somewhat, and if he lost some of the 'paranoia', but his basic thesis seems to me valid.
I'm not at this point interested in whether or not he has an agenda. I'm just interested in why we cannot discuss the biology of infidelity with out implicitly being accused of being in favour of it.
Your assumption, as usual, is incorrect.
Alright then, why did you say
Other than the part about leaving it at that, of course. I'll give you that, but I certainly don't agree with it as a viable course of action, unless you're here simply to observe. In addition, the current trend of assuming some internet link you throw into the fray constitutes inviolable evidence is driving me up the wall. I would hope there are others who feel the same way.
My assumption certainly isn't being proven incorrect.
Which is basically exactly what I did do, and was accused by a moderator of having not done, and later that it was irrelevant?
Other than the part about leaving it at that, of course. I'll give you that, but I certainly don't agree with it as a viable course of action, unless you're here simply to observe. In addition, the current trend of assuming some internet link you throw into the fray constitutes inviolable evidence is driving me up the wall. I would hope there are others who feel the same way.
My assumption certainly isn't being proven incorrect.
And as for you... Hmmph. "Paranoia" indeed.
Stating "I disagree" and leaving it at that means, by definition, you are not just observing. You are replying and disagreeing - then stopping any further posting.
When you vote, but are allowed only one vote, I assume you do not conclude "therefore I am not a participant in the process, just an observer."
See proof above.
If that's your opinion on the discussion process, fine. I'm not the only one who'll disagree with you as to it's effectiveness, though.
You haven't proved a damned thing, and I still have no idea why you, specifically, are here talking to me.
You haven't proved a damned thing, and I still have no idea why you, specifically, are here talking to me.
Like I said, if the only two options you can imagine are to post nothing or to call people cunts, then you have a poor understanding of the discussion process.
You don't really get the point of discussion, do you?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Who cares?
After an apparently quite reasonable start, you seem to have degenerated into yet another obsessive with a deranged, or drunken, vendetta, of no possible interest to anyone else. You are just filling the forum with junk. I've lodged a request for you to be banned, in the hope that such reports may contribute towards you incurring the requisite number of infraction points. Meanwhile, to save myself further irritation......[click].......
Well, now, I don't believe that is what I said at all. I believe my statement was that my only two options left were to do so after some fairly adverse circumstances, and asked you to go and investigate those circumstances for yourself without prejudice. Not quite the same thing, is it?
Perhaps it is you who does not understand the discussion process?
Tell you what, I'll give you a pointer.
The first thing is to comprehend what it is that has actually been said, sans the aforementioned jaundiced eye.
I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to have done to offend you, either?
Without investigating too much, I'd hazard a guess I've done more research, and offered more opinion, in the last few days on this site than you have.
Parroting an opinion without having anything to back it up doesn't make it any more true than it was yesterday, you know. Nor does throwing around the word "vendetta" when I've engaged Bells in only one thread, that I remember.
Ever observe that curious feature of the human psyche, where if you repeat a thing often enough, it becomes truth in the minds of many?
By way of example, I can post a screenshot showing I still can't log in under my actual name. This is in spite of Bell's accusation of me being a liar (from memory, a word used three times in a single paragraph) and concocting bizarre stories. Such an attitude, tch tch. Such forebearance.
It's not as if this is the real world, where customer service is actually important.
You can request for me to be banned, if you wish. I've said as much to someone else. If you garner enough "likes", you may get your wish.
The only thing you're proving to me, is exactly what you are. Ostensibly supposedly supporting one ideal, and yet acting in quite a different manner. You won't do the research, you won't ask the questions, you won't deviate from your beliefs because you don't want to. As you said... who cares, right?
And I don't expect you to. I've long known what this site actually is, I'm just having fun with it - here in this thread, at least. Elsewhere, I'm posting with a bit more care and attention.
Light the torches, boys.
I grow a bit weary of all this, you know.
I do take back the line "Without investigating too much, I'd hazard a guess I've done more research, and offered more opinion".
Just did bit of looking around, you are fairly prolific and at least reasonably knowledgeable (as far as scientific subjects are concerned), so my guess would probably be proven incorrect; I hadn't noticed because I don't frequent the "pure" science sub forums, It isn't an area I have any real knowledge of and I don't feel all that qualified to comment most of the time.
Still can't figure out what your problem is with me, though. Still can't figure out what your issue was with post #2 in that attacking morals thread, but I'm going to make another guess and hazard it stems from there?
Just did bit of looking around, you are fairly prolific and at least reasonably knowledgeable (as far as scientific subjects are concerned), so my guess would probably be proven incorrect; I hadn't noticed because I don't frequent the "pure" science sub forums, It isn't an area I have any real knowledge of and I don't feel all that qualified to comment most of the time.
Still can't figure out what your problem is with me, though. Still can't figure out what your issue was with post #2 in that attacking morals thread, but I'm going to make another guess and hazard it stems from there?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Of course you do. You are not dumb enough not to. Your posting style is abrasive. Its cute, informal approach is extremely patronising. Exchemist is simply reacting to those two intertwined stylistic elements. Now you may not be seeking such reactions - which would make you a troll - but you must be aware of the results.
I've seen nothing in your posts that is factually flawed, apart from the aforementioned paranoia. So I'm not perturbed by the style. Amused, perhaps. Unless your aim is to troll you would get a lot more success by amending the style.
Yeah, I know.
I'm trying, but I feel like a fake.
I prefer that people read and respond to what is actually being said, rather than who they think the poster is... I've even engaged with Michael (no offence, Michael).
I'm trying, but I feel like a fake.
I prefer that people read and respond to what is actually being said, rather than who they think the poster is... I've even engaged with Michael (no offence, Michael).
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Jaw, jaw is better than war, war. Winston Churchill
Astute fellow, Churchill.
He said that in the 50's, you know. Around the time the "other side" had obtained full nuclear capability and things had balanced up again.
Prior to that it was all (paraphrased) "We'll fight them bloody well anywhere they turn up"
(with the ends of broken beer bottles if necessary, or so the story goes).
He also said "When you are winning a war almost everything that happens can be claimed as right and wise", which has a least some pertinence on the subject. I don't even know if its pertinence is only limited to when one is winning, but that isn't relevant at this point.
He said that in the 50's, you know. Around the time the "other side" had obtained full nuclear capability and things had balanced up again.
Prior to that it was all (paraphrased) "We'll fight them bloody well anywhere they turn up"
(with the ends of broken beer bottles if necessary, or so the story goes).
He also said "When you are winning a war almost everything that happens can be claimed as right and wise", which has a least some pertinence on the subject. I don't even know if its pertinence is only limited to when one is winning, but that isn't relevant at this point.