Name-calling
Please note that name-calling really is the lowest form of argumentative strategy:
- It completely lacks refutation
- It is hurtful
- It adds credibility to the opposing case
- It is not allowed by forum rules.
Comments
-
There are also different levels of name-calling....
-
@Jan said:
Please note that name-calling really is the lowest form of argumentative strategy:- It completely lacks refutation
- It is hurtful
- It adds credibility to the opposing case
- It is not allowed by forum rules.
Thank you, Jan.
I appreciate the pyramid of terms, particularly its lowest four members, which in my view appear in their correct ascending/descending order. I'm curious as to what you and others think about the first three members of the pyramid's list, however, which seem basically synonymous to me save for the first's explicit reference to a "central point."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
There are also different levels of name-calling....What "(level) of name-calling" was it when you called Wolfgang a "pig"?
The level deserved
-
I appreciate the pyramid of terms, particularly its lowest four members, which in my view appear in their correct ascending/descending order. I'm curious as to what you and others think about the first three members of the pyramid's list, however, which seem basically synonymous to me save for the first's explicit reference to a "central point."
This is how I would understand it.
Example claim: "Everyone knows that the Bible is just a collection of fairy tales".
Name-Calling: "Idiot!"
Ad Hominem: "You're not a historian, so you can't know this."
Responding to tone: "A statement that starts with 'everyone knows' can't be true."
Contradiction: "No. The Bible is historically accurate."
Counterargument: "No. The Bible is historically accurate. For example, most people and places in Acts have been proven to exist by historians and archaeologists."
Refutatioin: "No. The Bible is historically accurate. The New Testament has been accurately written down by eye witnesses, as proven by ample evidence from archaeology, and retraceably handed down without interruption until the council of Nicea accepted it as canon, as shown in J. Warner Wallace 'Cold Case Christianity'".
Explicit refutation of the central point: (Not enough space here - can be achieved by quoting several pages of the said book, outlining the actual archaeological evidence in greater detail, quoting church fathers to prove the chain of custody etc.) -
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
There are also different levels of name-calling....What "(level) of name-calling" was it when you called Wolfgang a "pig"?
The level deserved
High level of name-calling? Would that be somewhere inside the red bar then?
-
@Jan said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
There are also different levels of name-calling....What "(level) of name-calling" was it when you called Wolfgang a "pig"?
The level deserved
High level of name-calling? Would that be somewhere inside the red bar then?
Given the conversation, there was no debate. It was a gross post on the anniversary of an atrocious tragedy. The name was duly given to the poster as deserved.
-
@reformed said:
Given the conversation, there was no debate. It was a gross post on the anniversary of an atrocious tragedy. The name was duly given to the poster as deserved.
But if, as Jan reports, name-calling "is not allowed by forum rules," why does whether you - the name-caller - believe Wolfgang "deserved" to be called a "pig" even matter?
As to the issue of family separations at our nation's southern border, you've expressed rigid allegiance to the law, telling CM repeatedly that his arguments do not have standing because the parents broke the law. Isn't it true that when you called Wolfgang a "pig," YOU "broke the law" of these forums, and in keeping with your view of the precedence of the law regarding border crossings, you must acknowledge that the question of whether Wolfgang "deserved" the name, while no doubt significant to you, does not have standing in this instance?
-
@reformed said:
Given the conversation, there was no debate. It was a gross post on the anniversary of an atrocious tragedy.Where in the supposed "gross post" did I minimize or in any way demeanor the atrocious tragedy that happened on that day??
I only raised some questions and pointed to some sources which have some information that may prove rather important in determining what actually happened on that day and who really was behind it ...
I would think that searching for truth in this matter is not gross at all, nor is it dishonoring to the people who lost their lives that day or their surviving families (of whom, by the way, quite a number have raised rather important questions as well in order to cut through obvious discrepancies and possibly flat out lies given in the official story about the events that happened)
The name was duly given to the poster as deserved.
I think anyone can see for themselves and make up their own minds concerning your attitude and character ...
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Given the conversation, there was no debate. It was a gross post on the anniversary of an atrocious tragedy. The name was duly given to the poster as deserved.
But if, as Jan reports, name-calling "is not allowed by forum rules," why does whether you - the name-caller - believe Wolfgang "deserved" to be called a "pig" even matter?
As to the issue of family separations at our nation's southern border, you've expressed rigid allegiance to the law, telling CM repeatedly that his arguments do not have standing because the parents broke the law. Isn't it true that when you called Wolfgang a "pig," YOU "broke the law" of these forums, and in keeping with your view of the precedence of the law regarding border crossings, you must acknowledge that the question of whether Wolfgang "deserved" the name, while no doubt significant to you, does not have standing in this instance?
Actually I didn't break any law. It is a guideline, not a rule. There is nowhere on this forum that lists any rules. Today is the first time it has been said "it is against the rules." The funny thing is there are no rules posted. It says "please avoid" there is nothing that says it is against the rules until today. So no "law" was broken. So no, I do not agree with you. You continue to be self-righteous and elitest. You call people names in these forums too. How often have you called me "Trumpster"?
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
There are also different levels of name-calling....What "(level) of name-calling" was it when you called Wolfgang a "pig"?
The level deserved
Wow! Unrepentant, doubling down. This attitude is similar to your President Trump whom you are addictively beholding. Any reasoning is like pouring water on a duck's back.
I guess Wolfgang summed up your position:
A rock is not a nut. CM
-
@reformed said:
Actually I didn't break any law. It is a guideline, not a rule. There is nowhere on this forum that lists any rules. Today is the first time it has been said "it is against the rules." The funny thing is there are no rules posted. It says "please avoid" there is nothing that says it is against the rules until today. So no "law" was broken. So no, I do not agree with you.
You sound determined to reserve your right to call other posters "pigs." I hope that gives you some kind of pause, reformed.
You continue to be self-righteous and elitest.
In my view, it's neither "self-righteous" nor "elitist" (we elites demand the correct spelling of adjectives that describe us) to expect participants in forums whose guidelines expect them to "criticize ideas, not people" NOT call each other "pigs." Notice that in Jan's forum-launching post, the expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people" is NOT phrased as a "please avoid" request: "You may wish to voice a contradictory opinion. That’s fine, but remember to criticize ideas, not people." Three examples of conduct then follow the words "Please avoid," but in context, it's CLEAR that name-calling is considered a sample violation of the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation (not request).
You call people names in these forums too. How often have you called me "Trumpster"?
A strong argument, reformed. In fact, let's update the old adage: "Please avoid thinking 'two wrongs don't make a right.'" There. Now if we don't want to hassle with that old chestnut, we don't have to. After all, it only says "please avoid."
What names do I call people? "Trumpster" and its variants, yes. But I argue that Trumpster is political jargon, like "elitist." It might surprise you that I don't think "elitist" violates the CD expectation. I dispute its applicability to me! But I don't contend it violates "criticize ideas, not people." The reason I don't think it does is that I think it's political jargon, a label/assessment/commentary about another's points of view - like liberal, conservative, socialist, or capitalist, though usually offered with a bit more snark. In my view, "Trumpster" doesn't violate "criticize ideas, not people" either.
"Pig" is not political jargon. Neither is "stupid," or "idiot," or "disgusting," all of which you have used to refer to other CD posters. You will not find a SINGLE ONE of my posts in which I referred to any CD poster by ANY of those names, or any other such personally dismissive and derogatory names.
Here's the real test, reformed, of whether my "name calling" belongs in the same discussion as yours: I am willing RIGHT NOW to commit never again to call any CD participant a Trumpster, a Trumpkin, or any other personally dismissive name you quote from my posts that I used to refer to other CD posters, AS LONG AS you commit RIGHT NOW never again to call any CD participant "stupid," an "idiot," "disgusting," a "pig," or any other personally dismissive term I quote from your past posts. I'll even let you keep "elitist" and "socialist"! But no more stupids or idiots etc. (I propose we ask Jan by to decide which of each other's words/phrases we submit to him by PM are personally dismissive and derogatory, and agree to accept his PM-distributed decisions, without any public forum comment.)
Deal? Or are you in fact determined to reserve your right to call other CD posters "pigs"?
-
For the record, I do not appreciate having been included in a select-group PM by @C_M_ with the personal complaint on this matter. I had nothing to do with it and do not sympathize with any side on the matter. I do not want to sit quietly as if I think it was ok and hide that it happened.
While I technically agree with the complaint, I do NOT think the complaint was fair or reasonable given the context. The complaint is the same strategy, behavior and very similar words used by some Bill Coley on a previous forum when attempting to bully other forum members.
I fully support the spirit and intent and request of Jan's response and I suspect that some others of us agree with it at some level. Unfortunately, it does not address the root issue here.
- Name calling is not usually an effective way to communicate nor is it constructive. There are exceptions--Jesus did so. While Mt 5:22 speaks of insulting others, Eph 4:29 of corrupt speech. Yet, Jesus called people hypocrites, snakes, fools, gossips, tombs, etc.
The posts of some here are extremely insulting, antagonistic and corrupt, and perpetrators have the gall to try to manipulate the forum owner into action for an "offense" that most of us here find very understandable even if we might have chosen a different route on the matter. I think Jan did the right thing. It is also true that Reformed's accusers behaved in a manner consistent with the beast described by the offender.
- Wolfgang's comment was in exceedingly poor taste of timing and topic. It is also true that he is not American and has a penchant for conspiracy theories--yet apparently, with a well-meaning heart. In light of that, I suggest a measure of grace.
Forum reader response to Wolfgang's post made clear what people thought of it. To politicise Wolfgang's faux pas by using it to manipulate Jan and bully Reformed, was a grievance worse than what that committed by either Wolfgang or Reformed.
- Name calling falls outside the forum rules for good reason. Yet, worse than the emotional use of calling someone a farm animal for a very offensive (but unintentionally) post is the behavior on the forums including:
- mocking
- trolling
- mockery of the Bible and its meaning
- multiple personas
- deliberately damaging threads with lies, politics and red herrings
- "name-calling" by adjectives and implication rather than nouns--which is equally wrong
Note:
Name calling by noun or adjective, adjective being the preferred method of some here, that is clear, derogatory implication and a hypocrisy and crassness that many find more offensive than just saying the word, "PIG.""PIG" is a strong and derogatory term. It is offensive, even in the context of Wolfgang's faux pas. However, while I don't know the author's intent, the term "PIG" spoke to me less of insult than it did of allusion (something a non-native English speaker might not pick up). In light of the prevailing "Lord of the Flies" behavior of some on the forums, the term "PIG" may be aptly applied.
I appreciate Jan's graph (I saved it to review) and support his intent and respect his right to moderate his own forum. I appreciate Jan's response on the forums to this situation. I do not expect that some here, including the acccuser, will respect that decision and will continue deliberately offensive behavior indicated above. I do not know what Jan will do about that. Perhaps nothing.
When is name calling right and when is it wrong?
- Wrong
When corrupt, lacking knowledge, slander
We are to be humble and not call others name to make ourselves look greater and our "enemy" lesser
- Right
When truthful, accurate, helping others recognize error and false teaching. Eph 5:11 says we are to expose false teachers. We are also not to take part in their behavior.
We are to expose sin and lies. May we be ever so careful in doing so, yet equally confident.
Searching My Own Heart:
Heed this advice:"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes.” Pr 26:4-5
(Yes, we know Bill uses this passage to show that the Bible contradicts itself and is likely to do so here again)
The answer is discretion. There are times to call people out for spreading lies. Too often, we are likely just feeding our own pride. Wisdom will make us know the difference.
Finally, whether we think name calling is justified or not, Jan stated above that name-calling is "not allowed by forum rules." To be allowed to participate here, we should respect that along with its implications included in the thoughts above.
-
@GaoLu said: "For the record, I do not appreciate having been included in a select-group PM by @C_M_ with the personal complaint on this matter. I had nothing to do with it and do not sympathize with any side on the matter. I do not want to sit quietly as if I think it was ok and hide that it happened".
GaoLu,
I am disappointed in your using a group PM in the Public forum. Your above statement has no place here. You had every opportunity respond to me personally or to those included the group PM. The purpose of the PM is just that, personal message. I did offer my PM to be used, but in the PM format to the individual mentioned and not in the opened forum.If you would bother to ask, I included you, as one of the addressees, not as a violator of the rules, but to be informed. Yes, you Sir, GaoLu, were included out of respect, for the purpose of information. I, to my chagrin, assumed that you were still a fair-minded Christian man who would have agreed with my principle point. Although we have disagreements on many items, but could at least agree on a blatant childish name-calling. With your public action here, I am disappointed!
It's not beyond your comprehension that what's given in PM is to remain there, avoid public confusion, and internal correction with public appreciation. I wonder why you have taken this step and questioned now your commitment for peace and growth of these forums.
At no time did I intend, had a desire to control or to manipulate Jan to do anything. Jan, a man, is capable of making decisions regardless of a request made of him. He is not a mindless-person that needs to be watched over by you. He did what he deemed necessary in light of the purpose, growth, and development of the resurrection of CD. You action above, I would if you share such goals.
You, sir, have cast of shadow over the expected mutual understanding and brotherhood among CD Forum Users. I hope you will find a need to restore this immediately. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
There are also different levels of name-calling....What "(level) of name-calling" was it when you called Wolfgang a "pig"?
The level deserved
Wow! Unrepentant, doubling down. This attitude is similar to your President Trump whom you are addictively beholding. Any reasoning is like pouring water on a duck's back.
I guess Wolfgang summed up your position:
A rock is not a nut. CM
No, I don't feel bad. I had a relative die in the North Tower so this crap pisses me off!
-
@reformed said:
No, I don't feel bad. I had a relative die in the North Tower so this crap pisses me off!
This explains something. I guess was Jan right [not knowing your personal experience] when suggested no discussion of theories about the tower situation. Any of us for this matter. Heeding the counsel of the lead administration of CD, much pain and discomfort would have been avoided. However, I tried to provide threads of remembrance and addressing a loss. Hope and healing. CM
-
@GaoLu said:
For the record, I do not appreciate having been included in a select-group PM by @C_M_ with the personal complaint on this matter. I had nothing to do with it and do not sympathize with any side on the matter. I do not want to sit quietly as if I think it was ok and hide that it happened.Hmn .... interesting ... group talking behind my back ???
-
@C_M_ said:
This explains something. I guess was Jan right [not knowing your personal experience] when suggested no discussion of theories about the tower situation. Any of us for this matter. Heeding the counsel of the lead administration of CD, much pain and discomfort would have been avoided.Just to clarify something, to me -- and obviously to thousands of other people, including experts in fields relating to aspects of what happened on that day -- the official story is no more than a theory, which then was declared to be "the facts". Or do all others here think and consider it true that when a government declares something, it is automatically "true fact" ?
-
@reformed said:
No, I don't feel bad. I had a relative die in the North Tower so this crap pisses me off!I understand your reaction better now and have empathy with you in your loss, as I do with any others who lost loved ones and family relatives that day ...
However, IF I were in your position, I would be even more concerned than I am now as an outsider and person only indirectly affected with learning the truth about what really happened and would thus be angry with propagators of the official story that is full of holes and inconsistent and is sold as "the unbelievable happened that day".
-
@Wolfgang said:
@C_M_ said:
This explains something. I guess was Jan right [not knowing your personal experience] when suggested no discussion of theories about the tower situation. Any of us for this matter. Heeding the counsel of the lead administration of CD, much pain and discomfort would have been avoided.Just to clarify something, to me -- and obviously to thousands of other people, including experts in fields relating to aspects of what happened on that day -- the official story is no more than a theory, which then was declared to be "the facts". Or do all others here think and consider it true that when a government declares something, it is automatically "true fact" ?
Too close to the anniversary. "All that is right is not always expedient".
Timing, Wolfgang! Timing, Wolfgang! Timing, Wolfgang! CM
-
@Wolfgang said:
Hmn .... interesting ... group talking behind my back ???I am sorry. I chose not to participate and not to allow accusers to implicate me as a participant. I did not willingly do so.
-
There have been some very good thought's in GaoLu's post:
@GaoLu said:
1. Name calling is not usually an effective way to communicate nor is it constructive. There are exceptions--Jesus did so. While Mt 5:22 speaks of insulting others, Eph 4:29 of corrupt speech. Yet, Jesus called people hypocrites, snakes, fools, gossips, tombs, etc.He did indeed. The apostles did likewise. 2 Peter for example uses very strong language.
- Wolfgang's comment was in exceedingly poor taste of timing and topic. It is also true that he is not American and has a penchant for conspiracy theories--yet apparently, with a well-meaning heart. In light of that, I suggest a measure of grace.
Again, comparing Christ's responses is key. He almost always responded with grace, and only rarely with name-calling, even after the loss of his friends and relatives (John the Baptist, Lazarus).
The proportion between grace and name-calling and other offensive behaviour in this forum is off compared to the example that we received.
- Name calling falls outside the forum rules for good reason. Yet, worse than the emotional use of calling someone a farm animal for a very offensive (but unintentionally) post is the behavior on the forums including:
- mocking
- trolling
- mockery of the Bible and its meaning
- multiple personas
- deliberately damaging threads with lies, politics and red herrings
- "name-calling" by adjectives and implication rather than nouns--which is equally wrong
I was reminded by some forum post that we have no "rules" but "guidelines". This is correct. They are verbatim the same guidelines as on Christiandiscourse (just the forum name had to be changed due to trademark issues).
I actually believe guidelines are better than a strict set of rules, because they cover all of the above, and much more, without explicitly listing everything.
- I appreciate Jan's graph (I saved it to review) and support his intent and respect his right to moderate his own forum. I appreciate Jan's response on the forums to this situation. I do not expect that some here, including the acccuser, will respect that decision and will continue deliberately offensive behavior indicated above. I do not know what Jan will do about that. Perhaps nothing.
Correct. If the worst is over, I will do nothing. If it gets worse, I might freeze one or two threads. I don't want to take steps toward heavy moderation (with the exception of clearing out all the spam).
We're all adults here, who have been called to ask forgiveness, and to forgive. It would be great to see that happen, but of course it can't be enforced.
I could also enable the profanity filter, but adding the word "pig" and other farm animals to it would cause more confusion than help the discussions.
When is name calling right and when is it wrong?
- Wrong
When corrupt, lacking knowledge, slander
We are to be humble and not call others name to make ourselves look greater and our "enemy" lesser
- Right
When truthful, accurate, helping others recognize error and false teaching. Eph 5:11 says we are to expose false teachers. We are also not to take part in their behavior.
We are to expose sin and lies. May we be ever so careful in doing so, yet equally confident.
I would personally add to that, unless directly prompted by the Holy Spirit, name-calling is not right, and the commands that we received apply (Eph 4:29 etc.)
But that's just my personal opinion. -
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
No, I don't feel bad. I had a relative die in the North Tower so this crap pisses me off!I understand your reaction better now and have empathy with you in your loss, as I do with any others who lost loved ones and family relatives that day ...
However, IF I were in your position, I would be even more concerned than I am now as an outsider and person only indirectly affected with learning the truth about what really happened and would thus be angry with propagators of the official story that is full of holes and inconsistent and is sold as "the unbelievable happened that day".
UNBELIEVABLE!!! I just told you I had someone die in the tower and you come back with this crap again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There are no holes in the official investigation. It makes perfect sense LEAVE IT ALONE.
-
However, IF I were in your position, I would be even more concerned than I am now as an outsider and person only indirectly affected with learning the truth about what really happened and would thus be angry with propagators of the official story that is full of holes and inconsistent and is sold as "the unbelievable happened that day".
UNBELIEVABLE!!! I just told you I had someone die in the tower and you come back with this crap again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There are no holes in the official investigation. It makes perfect sense LEAVE IT ALONE.
Reformed,
I'll say to you what I said to Wolfgang above:CM said: "Too close to the anniversary. "All that is right is not always expedient".
Timing, Wolfgang! Timing, Wolfgang! Timing, Wolfgang! CM
This being said, there is a time and a place for one to discuss the concerns that Wolfgang has. This public forum is one of them. Oh, what benefits or possible healing could be had? For Christians to discuss this matter, that touched so many lives, and is ingrained in the American consciousness, can prove to be therapeutic for one and freedom of expression for another.
There are and will be many questions on the collapse of the Twin Towers as long there are survivals and historical-academic reflections. In addition, given the American Government's track record for being transparent on matters where many lives have been lost at once or over a well defined time span: e.g. entrance into the Vietnam War, Iraq War, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, Flint Michigan Water Poisoning, Native American Land Agreements, etc.
CD has provided the forum and a thread topic can be chosen, but the timing is another matter. When is the most reasonable time? For some, the time is never, but in a public forum where such privileges are made available, one can't impose his will on the rights of another, regardless of loss.
How do we move forward? Allow others their rights to question and explore (time consideration) the topic at hand, in a clearly identified thread. Those with extreme sensitivity to the topic may choose not to participate or visit that thread. As for 9/11, I (CM) have provided two alternative threads: e.g. Grief and Loss: Helping A Loved One Through It and Remembrance ceremony at WTC site marks the 17th anniversary of September 11 attacks.
Let's keep in mind CD is not limited only to current users. Others from around the world with various interests and timing have been invited. Let's allow Christians to discuss at this point "debate" matters even if it's too sensitive for one to participate. A sign of true growth is uncomfortableness. e.g. pregnancy, giving birth, puberty to adulthood, clothes too small, etc.
So, Mr. Reformed, you're entitled to your sensitivity about the Twin Towers. Likewise, Wolfgang, you have the right to discuss your skepticism of the US Government Report ("official investigation") of the Towers collapse. There is a place on CD for both of you, as long as, the general guidelines are followed, until or unless, Jan says otherwise. Let's share in love and respect with brotherly considerations. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
However, IF I were in your position, I would be even more concerned than I am now as an outsider and person only indirectly affected with learning the truth about what really happened and would thus be angry with propagators of the official story that is full of holes and inconsistent and is sold as "the unbelievable happened that day".
UNBELIEVABLE!!! I just told you I had someone die in the tower and you come back with this crap again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There are no holes in the official investigation. It makes perfect sense LEAVE IT ALONE.
Reformed,
I'll say to you what I said to Wolfgang above:CM said: "Too close to the anniversary. "All that is right is not always expedient".
Timing, Wolfgang! Timing, Wolfgang! Timing, Wolfgang! CM
This being said, there is a time and a place for one to discuss the concerns that Wolfgang has. This public forum is one of them. Oh, what benefits or possible healing could be had? For Christians to discuss this matter, that touched so many lives, and is ingrained in the American consciousness, can prove to be therapeutic for one and freedom of expression for another.
There are and will be many questions on the collapse of the Twin Towers as long there are survivals and historical-academic reflections. In addition, given the American Government's track record for being transparent on matters where many lives have been lost at once or over a well defined time span: e.g. entrance into the Vietnam War, Iraq War, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, Flint Michigan Water Poisoning, Native American Land Agreements, etc.
CD has provided the forum and a thread topic can be chosen, but the timing is another matter. When is the most reasonable time? For some, the time is never, but in a public forum where such privileges are made available, one can't impose his will on the rights of another, regardless of loss.
How do we move forward? Allow others their rights to question and explore (time consideration) the topic at hand, in a clearly identified thread. Those with extreme sensitivity to the topic may choose not to participate or visit that thread. As for 9/11, I (CM) have provided two alternative threads: e.g. Grief and Loss: Helping A Loved One Through It and Remembrance ceremony at WTC site marks the 17th anniversary of September 11 attacks.
Let's keep in mind CD is not limited only to current users. Others from around the world with various interests and timing have been invited. Let's allow Christians to discuss at this point "debate" matters even if it's too sensitive for one to participate. A sign of true growth is uncomfortableness. e.g. pregnancy, giving birth, puberty to adulthood, clothes too small, etc.
So, Mr. Reformed, you're entitled to your sensitivity about the Twin Towers. Likewise, Wolfgang, you have the right to discuss your skepticism of the US Government Report ("official investigation") of the Towers collapse. There is a place on CD for both of you, as long as, the general guidelines are followed, until or unless, Jan says otherwise. Let's share in love and respect with brotherly considerations. CM
The problem is the skepticism is unfounded. All of it is easily explained and evidence to back it up. I'm sick of the disgrace.
-
Dear Brother Wolfgang,
You're welcome.Mr. Wolfgang, it is your right to refrain from expressing your skepticism of the US Government Report ("official investigation") of the Towers collapse or comply with Jan's request. However, the phrase "the pig" is not to let stand. This is not right or necessary for this forum or among Christian men. To give in this now is to contribute to and aid the dismantling of CD Christian standards. Today it's "pig" and tomorrow, there will be more nonsense to deal with in the future. Some of them have already rare its ugly head. Even hurt Christians have better ways to address and deal with their pain.
Am I stirring up trouble or trying to keep some confusion going? No! In the place of one who's not willing, sees no need or necessity, fix an infraction; I want to say publicly, Wolfgang, I am sorry for the "pig" expression. I speak for myself on behalf of the intent of CD's existence. We must guard against any erosion of standards for of operation. One can be sensitive to needs and accommodating, but not at the expenses of its principles and foundation. CM
PS. I don't have an alternative view and theory of the US Government Report ("official investigation") of the Towers collapse, but I do have some questions. When the time is right, perhaps, a full hearing can be given. CM
@reformed said:
The problem is the skepticism is unfounded. All of it is easily explained and evidence to back it up. I'm sick of the disgrace.A less than transparent US Government and a diversity of human minds, in the real world, skepticism has its place in practical every matter. Be encouraged and strengthen your soul through the Word. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Dear Brother Wolfgang,
You're welcome.Mr. Wolfgang, it is your right to refrain from expressing your skepticism of the US Government Report ("official investigation") of the Towers collapse or comply with Jan's request. However, the phrase "the pig" is not to let stand. This is not right or necessary for this forum or among Christian men. To give in this now is to contribute to and aid the dismantling of CD Christian standards. Today it's "pig" and tomorrow, there will be more nonsense to deal with in the future. Some of them have already rare its ugly head. Even hurt Christians have better ways to address and deal with their pain.
Am I stirring up trouble or trying to keep some confusion going? No! In the place of one who's not willing, sees no need or necessity, fix an infraction; I want to say publicly, Wolfgang, I am sorry for the "pig" expression. I speak for myself on behalf of the intent of CD's existence. We must guard against any erosion of standards for of operation. One can be sensitive to needs and accommodating, but not at the expenses of its principles and foundation. CM
PS. I don't have an alternative view and theory of the US Government Report ("official investigation") of the Towers collapse, but I do have some questions. When the time is right, perhaps, a full hearing can be given. CM
@reformed said:
The problem is the skepticism is unfounded. All of it is easily explained and evidence to back it up. I'm sick of the disgrace.A less than transparent US Government and a diversity of human minds, in the real world, skepticism has its place in practical every matter. Be encouraged and strengthen your soul through the Word. CM
Mind your own business. Wolfgang said he was going to leave it alone because obviously I am hurt and offended. (Thank you @Wolfgang you are not a pig). But @C_M_ you are acting the part of a mother like @GaoLu accuses you of and it is doing nothing but stirring up trouble.
-
@reformed said:
The problem is the skepticism is unfounded. All of it is easily explained and evidence to back it up. I'm sick of the disgrace.A less than transparent US Government and a diversity of human minds, in the real world, skepticism has its place in practical every matter. Be encouraged and strengthen your soul through the Word. CM
Mind your own business.
I am minding my business! Anything (as you once said to me, some time ago) on the opened CD Forums, I and all users, are at liberty to make comments. Please don't impose on my rights, extended to me by the lead administrator.
Just because you have been hurt, it doesn't give any rights or a free pass to answer me with such rudeness. You really need to check yourself. Please allow more of the sweetness of Jesus into your soul. It would help in knowing how you ought to speak or answer another. This, too, is a part of Christianity too.
When you arrived in these forums were sensitive and attentive to rudeness. And now, here you're carrying its banner. You can and must do better. If not for me, at least for the sake of CD's growth.
Wolfgang said he was going to leave it alone because obviously I am hurt and offended.
I am aware of what Wolfgang said. I respond to him. Because a concession was made in your favor, it is not a license to be unkind to others. In this life, you will be hurt (intentionally and unintentionally). There are other hurts to come. You can't go around hurting others because you have been hurt. This is not the way of Christ. You have to allow Christ to smooth off your rough edges, in speaking and dealing with others.
This is just more nonsense you adopted from GaoLu. Be your own man. I don't want to be or can't be his or your mother (figuratively nor literally). If you want to use a descriptive term it would be "paternal". Even this, I don't want to be for either of you. I have two grown sons. I am not a wanna-be father. If you insist on using the term "mother" ("maternal") are uninformed, rude and disingenuous. So, away with being a follower and stop the foolishness. I expect the two of you to be Christian men in these forums.
"...it is doing nothing but stirring up trouble".
No, it's not. What's said above, read by any reasonable mind, is clear and productive. Your statement above seems to be more wishful thinking than reality. "High ground", brother! CM
-
@C_M_ Consider this.
As long as you are present on this forum, either you or Bill or various aliases, this forum will likely never grow or mature into anything of interest to a community greater than yourself. It will remain a place where Christ and God are mocked by fake Christian platitudes, a place where politics overpowers reason, a place to celebrate filth in the name of Christianity. If there was a hint of sincerity in all that, then perhaps the conversations would be worthwhile. I detect none coming from your quarters. The mockery of Christianity is nauseating,
Until something changes, we will not win more interest unless we win only others of your ilk or unless you, Bill, or whoever creates even more personas, aliases and trolls themselves for personal entertainment.
Maybe I have been a fool, but I tenaciously hoped that one-day these forums, connected distantly with Logos, could amount to something, perhaps be cleaned up, perhaps be of interest to people with knowledge and counsel and wisdom. I had especially high hopes when Jan took it on.
Unfortunately, very few people who are real and sincere have stuck it out. Over a couple years, we lost many Logos users--some very capable and good contributors. We lost Eric and Ellyn, we lost Lu and David and several others. Brian, who is a wealth of knowledge, rarely comes out of the woodwork these days. Even Dave hardly speaks up nowadays. We lost a lot of great contributors--all because of trolling by people like you (many of these people have specifically said so). Some of these have migrated to other forums. Even though we had a wide range of differences and practices, some of us became friends--we still keep in periodic contact, one of them opened his own forum, we have talked on the phone, shared burdens, prayed together.
Every forum has a few fruitcakes. Some, we embrace kindly and absorb their presence with grace. We have had our share of fruitcakes, and we have lost a lot of fruitcakes--many of which appeared to be multiple aliases and personas mocking certain personality types--all invented by one sick person for sport. Such aliases are a lot of work to maintain, so they slip away. But not all fruitcakes are not necessarily trolls. Trolling is a special kind of fruitcake and trolls sometimes take down forums. I suppose that is really fun for trolls and the ultimate reward.
Presently the value of these forums would be primarily for some social science or psych undergrad to use to poke wierdos with verbal sticks to be secretly amused by their responses. That is very effective. I regret that I have done that sometimes.
I do appreciate Reformed and Wolfgang and Jan. I have no idea why they stick around. Or why I have. Perhaps for the reasons I listed above, in hopes that one day this could amount to something useful.
Could you change? Maybe. Very unlikely, but maybe. I don't think I will wait for that. Unless something changes soon, I will go as well and eventually that one person can troll themselves with countless aliases to their heart's content and I suppose it won't cost anyone much to allow that to happen. Now and then someone may stumble over the site and stop by to gawk at the mess. Maybe.
I am very grateful to Jan for providing this forum and for his contributions. I and a couple other former CD contributors live away from American culture, largely isolated from Christians or English speaking people. A forum provides a lot of blessing for us. A chance to think in English, to interface with mature Christians, to have ideas challenged, to hear ideas that make us dig. That has occurred a few times here when engaging with mature, thinking people. Forums provide a place to think, meditate, grow, worship, touch and be touched by Godly people, especially when we swell in dark corners of the earth. Trolling has pretty much removed any such benefit from this forum. So it is.
I suggest that those of us with any continuing interest get our heads together to see if the forum is worth salvaging and if so, how to do so. Yes, I expect the trolls to smear this request into oblivion. Is it worth the effort to take the forums back? I can't do it alone. I will watch.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
