Lingering Thoughts Upon My Exit

[Sweetie]

I'm leaving, it's been nice knowing most of you but I have some thoughts to share, things that I've been wanting to say for a long time. If you are faint of heart, I urge you not to read them.

To Liv:

You're an interesting person. I see someone who tries, who has problems with obsessive behaviors, I think to be honest, that you are even obsessive about being nice, a people pleaser if you will, so I think it's problematic, control issues perhaps.

I wanted to congratulate you and Widget on thinking it's fabulous to send porn and alcohol to someone who is ill. Granted, you may not have known that, but the reason I bring it up is for your sake. You seem to support so much sex and drugs, it maybe helps you with your depression and problems, so I realize that sex and alcohol aren't far off the mark from you, but I would wish that you would find something a bit more constructive to help yourself with and I wish you could be more open about these things, just so people are aware where you're coming from, it might help them digest what you put out a little better, and put it in perspective.

As a reference, I said to a friend from here once on the phone, "I guess we just have different values, me with my family and kids and you living like you do, it must be we just are different," and he says, "I don't recommend anybody be like me," ie: how I am is not good, how I live is not fulfilling, be like you are, you're better off, etc.

The Pink Unicorn thing is disturbing, really.

Otherwise, not much to say, thank-you for some things, can't think of anything, maybe for doing as I have a requested a few times, though you're an admin so it's only natural that you function as an admin even with a difficult person such as I.

A lot of the people who come here need your support, but I hope you recognize that it's generally because of a problem. It's good to help people with problems, I think though.

To maddog:

You're very nice. I do think you try so very hard. I think you should though, spend more time with people who can adequately defend their thoughts against yours, just to balance things out. People think highly of you, and they should, but it's healthier not to always have that stand for justification of all that you believe about personal interaction and such. Admiration has it's downfall sometimes.

To Crumb:

You're also very interesting. I do hope you can find some people in real life that can give to you what you come here for. Shyness needs to be overcome I think, and introversion sometimes, well, it makes people dependent on something less than the impact flesh and blood people actually have. It has been nice knowing you though, I have benefitted from your sense of humour, at the very least.

BDS:

Have enjoyed you very much indeed. I love your Jane Austin references, and Tolstoy and such, so don't stop, they are enlightening and often very fitting.

Warrenly:

I'm actually very fond of you, to be honest. I do hope your life continues to go well, and you can find lots of meaningful value in it. I wish you the best.

Dragar [Dags]:

You're a sweetheart, that's what I think.

Not much else to say, I guess.

Do all have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

I need to go through all my PM's though reading some of the one's from jman will break my heart, before I adminster a self-ban, so I might be here a couple times more. Will not respond again on the boards, however.

Peace

[Johnny Pneumatic]

We've worn her down. :yay:

[Kyuss Apollo]

ok... :hm:

at this one board I used to frequent (that shall remain nameless) this one character, beloved by all, would every so often up and announce his disgust and departure. Then a few days or weeks later, he would just start posting again as if nothing ever happened.

After about the third time I said to myself "self, do you really care?"

And I replied, "Why no, self. Xxxxx's pathetic self-important rants combined with cowardly swipes at people whose responses to them will supposedly never be read, followed by a bunch of ass-kissing posts from the sycophany 'oh don;t go we'll miss your brilliant words of wisdom bla bla bla' have become quite tiresome I must say."

One day I decided to stop posting there, for a number of reasons, the retarded drama notwithstanding. And everyone who cares there knows I have, because there are no more new posts coming from me. Look up me up, last post was sometime in late 2003. Not too hard to figure out.

See ya Sweetie. :wave:

[chick]

Oh internet, how you fail me.

[Angakuk]

Sweetie, as you have indicated that you are not going to post anymore, I expect you will not respond to this. I do hope you read it though. I am only posting this now because it may be my last opportunity to tell you just what sort of impression you have made with me.

I know, and have known, a great many people who bear the name of Christian. All of them, myself included, fall short of what a Christian ought to be. However, in my nearly 25 years as an ordained minister I don't believe that I have ever met a Christian who so consistently failed to demonstrate any of the Christian virtues. Your online persona appears to be entirely void of compassion, forgiveness, understanding, humility or simple human kindness and decency. If there was a competition for the worst representation of what it ought to mean to be a Christian, you would get my vote for the gold medal. I honestly hope that you really are as mean-spirited, vindictive and self-centered as your persona suggests. I would feel very bad for harboring such an opinion about someone who was actually suffering from a mental illness.

[ceptimus]

Bye Sweetie, :ciao:

Thanks for providing us with a wonderful example of the arrogant, self-centred, wilfully ignorant and vindictive people that exist in all areas of life, but most commonly and ironically in the field of organised religion.

I trust you will receive your just reward in your heaven.

[ChuckF]

Oh internet, how you fail me.
:lol:

omg, watch out for teh drama bomb! :bbb:

[Veritas]

You're an interesting person. I see someone who tries, who has problems with obsessive behaviors, I think to be honest, that you are even obsessive about being nice, a people pleaser if you will, so I think it's problematic, control issues perhaps.

How passive-aggressive is that? Anyway, the point I really wanted to make was:

I wanted to congratulate you and Widget on thinking it's fabulous to send porn and alcohol to someone who is ill.

These are two things I would definitely appreciate if ill, but I'd like to ask Liv where the heck was my alcoporn when I had tonsilitis earlier this year?

Oh. That's right. I was offline for a few months, so effectively incommunicado. Well - next time, maybe. Perhaps I should PM Liv my email address to make sure porn is forthcoming in '07? :glare:

[IRON MAN]

I didn't even know you could get a psychoanalysis via the internet. Do me! Do me! :eager:

Seriously: I never really had a problem with Sweetie - she seemed pretty much like any other xian out there. She's got a bug up her arse about sex and drugs? Well blow me down - what a shock. As a xian she's required to - it's in the handbook.

It's like any other belief system that says:

Everyone should be free to do as they please as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others ... BUT ...

1. They can't work on Sundays

2. They have to face Mecca and pray three times a day

3. They have to recycle their milk cartons

4. They can't be gay

5. That doesn't include blacks obviously

6. They can't take drugs

7. [Insert any old subjective bullshit here - just think of something you don't personally like and make it law like you are king of the world or something - and just assert that it is some kind of "tough love" that's in the the person's best interests - you are a hero saving them from themselves]


This is the thinking that creates people who think they are being loving, but are actually self-righteous arseholes. Xianity's got it in spades. There are so many conflicting rules it's enough to drive a person off their fucking rocker, let alone get balanced and consistent members of the xianity group.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/949/robocoplr2.jpg

[wei yau]

...And to all a Good Night!

[Leesifer]

so I might be here a couple times more.
Please don't!
Will not respond again on the boards, however.
That's all for the good then.

[Veritas]

*whispers*

Can I mention anal sex now? Even though I'm a Christian, I do enjoy committing the unchristian sin of...not bumming, but winding people up about sexual perversions. Ho ho ho! :D

[Julie]

Sweetie, as you have indicated that you are not going to post anymore, I expect you will not respond to this. I do hope you read it though. I am only posting this now because it may be my last opportunity to tell you just what sort of impression you have made with me.

I know, and have known, a great many people who bear the name of Christian. All of them, myself included, fall short of what a Christian ought to be. However, in my nearly 25 years as an ordained minister I don't believe that I have ever met a Christian who so consistently failed to demonstrate any of the Christian virtues. Your online persona appears to be entirely void of compassion, forgiveness, understanding, humility or simple human kindness and decency. If there was a competition for the worst representation of what it ought to mean to be a Christian, you would get my vote for the gold medal. I honestly hope that you really are as mean-spirited, vindictive and self-centered as your persona suggests. I would feel very bad for harboring such an opinion about someone who was actually suffering from a mental illness.


Have I told you lately how much I love you?

[MonCapitan2002]

Don't forget to let the door hit you hard on the ass on your way out.

[Shelli]

... Will not respond again on the boards, however.:excited:

It truly is a Christmas to be remembered!! :8D

Such an awesome :apresent: ! :thankee: , Sweetie. :xmastree:

[maddog]

I confess that I do not understand the OP remarks addressed to me.

As to the other responses, I can't help thinking this is another exemplar of the rusty iron rule, rather than the golden/platinum rule, in play. I'm in the minority of people who think that, just because I feel a certain way, it's not necessary to act on those feelings. I still advocate that I have choices about how I behave in response to my feelings, no matter how strong my feelings are. I still don't think it's right to use someone ELSE's perceived behavior as a justification for doing something I would otherwise regard as wrong, inappropriate, or otherwise contrary to my personal ethical principles or standards. I find the :gloat: flavor of several of the posts, well, at the least, rather distasteful.

#1090

[Shelli]

We all have our personal set of ethics. I, myself, am a firm believer in "we reap what we sow". :garden:

[maddog]

I believe that, too, Shelli.

In general, I have control over what I do, not over what others do. I can control my efforts, I cannot control outcomes. IOW, I can only be in charge of the "sowing" part of the equation, and the universe will determine what I reap. Whilst some folks are busy "making sure" that OTHERS are "reaping" certain results, they are in fact simultaneously doing their own "sowing." I'm not sure it's a crop I'd want to raise.

#1091

[Clutch Munny]

I didn't even know you could get a psychoanalysis via the internet. Do me! Do me! :eager:

The conclusion that one's behaviour over the long term is indicative of one's character does not seem like any very contentious "psychoanalysis".

Seriously: I never really had a problem with Sweetie - she seemed pretty much like any other xian out there.

Fair enough. I, on the other hand, can't see any reason to link her frequent viciousness and consistently marginal coherence with her religious beliefs. But I accept at face value your reported inability to see a difference between Sweetie and Christians more generally. That's a useful thing to know about you.

By the way, I assume you're nearly done preparing your responses to the questions and challenges you received about your various assertions on Postmodernism. (Or, failing that, an honest retraction of those assertions as proceeding from your ignorance of the topic.)

[Shelli]

Whilst some folks are busy "making sure" that OTHERS are "reaping" certain results, they are in fact simultaneously doing their own "sowing." I'm not sure it's a crop I'd want to raise.I thought that too after I posted that, maddog. Very true and definitely something to think about before acting.

There's more that I could have said but didn't because I chose not to for various reasons. The bottom line is that due to her seemingly unending mean spiritedness, I'm honestly glad to see her go for my own self and for the whole of the :ff: .

[MonCapitan2002]

I think Sweetie is scum. I for one am glad to see the slimeball leave.

[IRON MAN]

The conclusion that one's behaviour over the long term is indicative of one's character does not seem like any very contentious "psychoanalysis".

The standard, "I disagree with anything IRON MAN says" response. What a shock.

Fair enough. I, on the other hand, can't see any reason to link her frequent viciousness and consistently marginal coherence with her religious beliefs. But I accept at face value your reported inability to see a difference between Sweetie and Christians more generally. That's a useful thing to know about you.

And your inability to see the difference between a strawman and real argument is a useful thing to know about you.

And why wouldn't someone's religious beliefs, (ie. reading a book that instructs them in ancient and generally fucked up "moral" values), have a negative impact on their personal interactions? The bible doesn't make the 10 Suggestions - they are divinely ordered to try to follow that bullshit.

By the way, I assume you're nearly done preparing your responses to the questions and challenges you received about your various assertions on Postmodernism. (Or, failing that, an honest retraction of those assertions as proceeding from your ignorance of the topic.)

Oh, I was waiting to see if anyone had noticed the egregious Ray Bolger sized strawman on that thread.

I felt sure that someone like you, who has such a commitment to picking up on logical fallacy and honest arguments, doesn't only just comment on the ones that disagree with people who's point of view you personally dislike.

When liv and Shelli started applauding that strawman, I thought to myself: "Well I could waste my time answering such nonsense, but I don't have to worry because Clutch is on this thread, and he will pick up on it, and no doubt say so." Imagine my surprise when you posted again several times after and failed to even mention it.

And as far as your arguments are concerned, you seem to be suggesting that I am not an expert on something that I think is bullshit. Funny, James Randi is not an expert on how the quantum resonance of ESP transception works either. It seems to me he gets the same Emperor's New Clothes argument from purveyors of mystical bullshit - who also don't produce any useful results.

Just knowing you buy into, (and hide behind), pomo tells me a great deal about you and your supposed intellectual superiority.

Besides, I was sure in my absence you would've been happy to discuss the matter with Watser, who initially claimed that they and Scarlatti both, "hate it".

Well maybe they've changed their minds since you posted the opposite opinion. Wouldn't that be uncanny?

Bottom line: I had every reason to not waste my time on that thread endlessly responding to logical fallacy, and just figured I'd kick back and see where it went. As usual, I'm not impressed.

By the way, if you bring up arguments from other threads you might upset Scarlatti and Adam. They don't like it when people post off-topic. Then again, considering how fluid you and the Clutch Munny Fan Club seem to be with your "standards", maybe They'll make an exception for you.

Just like they probably believe you knew all along that the bullshit definition I posted was from the random pomo generator. Whatever. The fact that you were not certain and crowing about how you cleverly identified it as bullshit speaks volumes. You have a real Sylvia Brown/Montel Williams relationship going with some people here don't you?

I certainly can't blame Sweetie for wanting to bail considering the way some of you conduct discussions. Unfortunately for you, some of us aren't just going to go away.

If only some of you guys could discuss a topic - any topic - without allowing your preconceived point of view to result in egregious variations in the standards by which you argue. Put simply: Just because you personally have a bug up your little politically correct arse about the term, "tea-towel nigger", doesn't mean that pomo is not bullshit. And just because Sweetie's got an unrestrained opinion about sex drugs and rock n' roll, doesn't mean she's automatically some kind of mega-bitch from Hell.

Of course, the fact that many of you think so doesn't surprise me when you think saying "nigger" automatically equals racist. Some of us who actually are interested in the truth about life, the universe and everything, (some of whom are xian), don't have the political luxury of always defending the socially popular point of view.

[seebs]

I know, and have known, a great many people who bear the name of Christian. All of them, myself included, fall short of what a Christian ought to be. However, in my nearly 25 years as an ordained minister I don't believe that I have ever met a Christian who so consistently failed to demonstrate any of the Christian virtues.

You must not get out much!

Your online persona appears to be entirely void of compassion, forgiveness, understanding, humility or simple human kindness and decency. If there was a competition for the worst representation of what it ought to mean to be a Christian, you would get my vote for the gold medal.

Oh, come on. Haven't you seen yguy? The people at CF who started a systematic campaign to hunt down people who might have abnormalities in their home life which could be used as a justification to remove their "married" status from their profiles?

Sweetie is, by comparison to many, a really sweet person.

I mean, it's not that she's never done anything ill-considered or mean, but I've gotten apologies from her, which is more than I can say for about 80% of the asshole internet Christians I've seen.

I've never once seen her say that she's looking forward to laughing as her opponents roast in hell.

I'm not saying she's perfect, but I like her just fine.

[seebs]

I believe that, too, Shelli.

In general, I have control over what I do, not over what others do. I can control my efforts, I cannot control outcomes. IOW, I can only be in charge of the "sowing" part of the equation, and the universe will determine what I reap. Whilst some folks are busy "making sure" that OTHERS are "reaping" certain results, they are in fact simultaneously doing their own "sowing." I'm not sure it's a crop I'd want to raise.

#1091

I tend to agree. This is one of the reasons I almost always refrain from really telling people what I think when I'm mad.

Another is the disconcerting frequency with which I later find that I don't think it anymore.

[Clutch Munny]

The conclusion that one's behaviour over the long term is indicative of one's character does not seem like any very contentious "psychoanalysis".

The standard, "I disagree with anything IRON MAN says" response. What a shock.
True or false, now: The conclusion that one's behaviour over the long term is indicative of one's character does not seem like any very contentious "psychoanalysis".

Fair enough. I, on the other hand, can't see any reason to link her frequent viciousness and consistently marginal coherence with her religious beliefs. But I accept at face value your reported inability to see a difference between Sweetie and Christians more generally. That's a useful thing to know about you.

And your inability to see the difference between a strawman and real argument is a useful thing to know about you.
Well, you could prove this and have it mean something. Or just say it and have it be noise.

And why wouldn't someone's religious beliefs, (ie. reading a book that instructs them in ancient and generally fucked up "moral" values), have a negative impact on their personal interactions? The bible doesn't make the 10 Suggestions - they are divinely ordered to try to follow that bullshit.
Was this supposed to explain your inability to distinguish Sweetie's behaviour from that of most other Christians?

[Angakuk]

Oh, come on. Haven't you seen yguy? The people at CF who started a systematic campaign to hunt down people who might have abnormalities in their home life which could be used as a justification to remove their "married" status from their profiles?
Yeah, I've read yguy's posts, and LionsDen's too, for that matter, and I am not a great fan of either of them. However, for pure vindictive and spiteful rhetoric I don't think either can hold a candle to what I have seen of Sweetie. As for CF, or any other Christian boards, I don't frequent those locales. In RL I interact with Christians, of various stripes, quite a lot. I pretty much have to go on the internet to troll for the non-Christian types. Pretty much explains why I am hanging out here, even on Christmas Eve (I am between Candlelight services at the moment). I am glad to hear that Sweetie does have some redeeming qualities. I just haven't witnessed them and thus my comments reflect the impression that I have garnered from my experience of Sweetie here.

[Clutch Munny]

To Liv:

I wanted to congratulate you and Widget on thinking it's fabulous to send porn and alcohol to someone who is ill. Granted, you may not have known that, but the reason I bring it up is for your sake. You seem to support so much sex and drugs, it maybe helps you with your depression and problems, so I realize that sex and alcohol aren't far off the mark from you, but I would wish that you would find something a bit more constructive to help yourself with and I wish you could be more open about these things, just so people are aware where you're coming from, it might help them digest what you put out a little better, and put it in perspective.

I'm not saying she's perfect, but I like her just fine.
Yes, who could find her conduct anything worse than "not perfect"?

[beyelzu]

I'm leaving, it's been nice knowing most of you but I have some thoughts to share, things that I've been wanting to say for a long time. If you are faint of heart, I urge you not to read them.

To Liv:

You're an interesting person. I see someone who tries, who has problems with obsessive behaviors, I think to be honest, that you are even obsessive about being nice, a people pleaser if you will, so I think it's problematic, control issues perhaps.

I wanted to congratulate you and Widget on thinking it's fabulous to send porn and alcohol to someone who is ill. Granted, you may not have known that, but the reason I bring it up is for your sake. You seem to support so much sex and drugs, it maybe helps you with your depression and problems, so I realize that sex and alcohol aren't far off the mark from you, but I would wish that you would find something a bit more constructive to help yourself with and I wish you could be more open about these things, just so people are aware where you're coming from, it might help them digest what you put out a little better, and put it in perspective.

As a reference, I said to a friend from here once on the phone, "I guess we just have different values, me with my family and kids and you living like you do, it must be we just are different," and he says, "I don't recommend anybody be like me," ie: how I am is not good, how I live is not fulfilling, be like you are, you're better off, etc.

The Pink Unicorn thing is disturbing, really.

Otherwise, not much to say, thank-you for some things, can't think of anything, maybe for doing as I have a requested a few times, though you're an admin so it's only natural that you function as an admin even with a difficult person such as I.

A lot of the people who come here need your support, but I hope you recognize that it's generally because of a problem. It's good to help people with problems, I think though.

To maddog:

You're very nice. I do think you try so very hard. I think you should though, spend more time with people who can adequately defend their thoughts against yours, just to balance things out. People think highly of you, and they should, but it's healthier not to always have that stand for justification of all that you believe about personal interaction and such. Admiration has it's downfall sometimes.

To Crumb:

You're also very interesting. I do hope you can find some people in real life that can give to you what you come here for. Shyness needs to be overcome I think, and introversion sometimes, well, it makes people dependent on something less than the impact flesh and blood people actually have. It has been nice knowing you though, I have benefitted from your sense of humour, at the very least.

BDS:

Have enjoyed you very much indeed. I love your Jane Austin references, and Tolstoy and such, so don't stop, they are enlightening and often very fitting.

Warrenly:

I'm actually very fond of you, to be honest. I do hope your life continues to go well, and you can find lots of meaningful value in it. I wish you the best.

Dragar [Dags]:

You're a sweetheart, that's what I think.

Not much else to say, I guess.

Do all have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

I need to go through all my PM's though reading some of the one's from jman will break my heart, before I adminster a self-ban, so I might be here a couple times more. Will not respond again on the boards, however.

Peace


glad your leaving, i will probably miss laughing at your retardation but i damn sure wont miss your evil snide bullshit like the above.

riddance.

[JonPaine]

...Happy Festivus and New Year, y'all.

[Shelli]

...In general, I have control over what I do, not over what others do. I can control my efforts, I cannot control outcomes. IOW, I can only be in charge of the "sowing" part of the equation, and the universe will determine what I reap. Whilst some folks are busy "making sure" that OTHERS are "reaping" certain results, they are in fact simultaneously doing their own "sowing." I'm not sure it's a crop I'd want to raise.I tend to agree. This is one of the reasons I almost always refrain from really telling people what I think when I'm mad.
For the record, I wasn't even the slightest mad or upset in anyway when I posted my initial responses in this thread and what I posted then is what I still think now. She opened a can of worms with this thread and she knew that when whe posted it. She'll just have to deal with the consequences of this and her other past actions like everyone else.

She is one of the meanest people I've ever encountered on the net. That's not talking shit about her; that's just how I see it.

[Chris Porter]

I'm leaving, it's been nice knowing most of you but I have some thoughts to share, things that I've been wanting to say for a long time. If you are faint of heart, I urge you not to read them.

To Liv:

You're an interesting person. I see someone who tries, who has problems with obsessive behaviors, I think to be honest, that you are even obsessive about being nice, a people pleaser if you will, so I think it's problematic, control issues perhaps.

I wanted to congratulate you and Widget on thinking it's fabulous to send porn and alcohol to someone who is ill. Granted, you may not have known that, but the reason I bring it up is for your sake. You seem to support so much sex and drugs, it maybe helps you with your depression and problems, so I realize that sex and alcohol aren't far off the mark from you, but I would wish that you would find something a bit more constructive to help yourself with and I wish you could be more open about these things, just so people are aware where you're coming from, it might help them digest what you put out a little better, and put it in perspective.

As a reference, I said to a friend from here once on the phone, "I guess we just have different values, me with my family and kids and you living like you do, it must be we just are different," and he says, "I don't recommend anybody be like me," ie: how I am is not good, how I live is not fulfilling, be like you are, you're better off, etc.

The Pink Unicorn thing is disturbing, really.

Otherwise, not much to say, thank-you for some things, can't think of anything, maybe for doing as I have a requested a few times, though you're an admin so it's only natural that you function as an admin even with a difficult person such as I.

A lot of the people who come here need your support, but I hope you recognize that it's generally because of a problem. It's good to help people with problems, I think though.

To maddog:

You're very nice. I do think you try so very hard. I think you should though, spend more time with people who can adequately defend their thoughts against yours, just to balance things out. People think highly of you, and they should, but it's healthier not to always have that stand for justification of all that you believe about personal interaction and such. Admiration has it's downfall sometimes.

To Crumb:

You're also very interesting. I do hope you can find some people in real life that can give to you what you come here for. Shyness needs to be overcome I think, and introversion sometimes, well, it makes people dependent on something less than the impact flesh and blood people actually have. It has been nice knowing you though, I have benefitted from your sense of humour, at the very least.

BDS:

Have enjoyed you very much indeed. I love your Jane Austin references, and Tolstoy and such, so don't stop, they are enlightening and often very fitting.

Warrenly:

I'm actually very fond of you, to be honest. I do hope your life continues to go well, and you can find lots of meaningful value in it. I wish you the best.

Dragar [Dags]:

You're a sweetheart, that's what I think.

Not much else to say, I guess.

Do all have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

I need to go through all my PM's though reading some of the one's from jman will break my heart, before I adminster a self-ban, so I might be here a couple times more. Will not respond again on the boards, however.

Peace

I'll pray for you. :rolleye1:

[IRON MAN]

True or false, now: The conclusion that one's behaviour over the long term is indicative of one's character does not seem like any very contentious "psychoanalysis".

True or false: You are being a nitpicky little pretentious douchebag as usual and making a mountain out of an off-the-cuff semi-serious molehill. Your desperate lame attempts to counter everything I say no matter how it is intended is perfectly obvious. Wanker.

Well, you could prove this and have it mean something. Or just say it and have it be noise.

Obviously someone of your IQ needs some kind of visual aid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsYNH5yobbE

Was this supposed to explain your inability to distinguish Sweetie's behaviour from that of most other Christians?

As has been pointed out here she is by no means outside the spectrum of behaviour exhibited by xians, and internally justifiable behaviour within xianity. Do you think it is likely that she was born hating sex, drugs and rock 'n roll to the degree that she would castigate others about it?

Your pithy objections are once again exposed for what they are.

As I have said, your primary tactic, (and that's exactly what it is, a tactic, not a genuine discussion about truth), is to unnecessarily question the premises of your "opponent's" argument while merely asserting your own regardless of their implausibility.

Funny, because this is exactly the tactic a Creationist would use to attack evolution. They think if they interrogate the perfectly plausible, (but not 100% proven), premises of their opponents, at some point an honest opponent will admit he doesn't have absolute proof of his premises at which point they will swoop in and bald-facedly assert their own implausible nonsense as the only possible explanation, (eg. If science cannot adequately explain the process of abiogenesis then it must have been God). And these guys have absolutely no qualms about chasing premises back to the beginning of time, (literally), if they have to.

This is political wrangling, not academic discussion.

You've repeated the tactic once too often over obviously meaningless matters, making it plainly obvious just how full of shit you are.

But I know you have a problem with reading comprehension so in conclusion:

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/9656/stfubiglz4.png


Back on topic: It worries me that some people might be exaggerating Sweetie's "nastiness" just because they personally disagree with her point of view.

I gotta go with Penn Jillette on this one - if I can't agree with someone who's a religious whack-job, at least I can respect the fact they have the guts to state their point of view and not water it down.

People who get all giddy when someone they disagree with leaves worry me. I start to suspect that they want to live in their own little slice of heaven where nobody disagrees with them, and nobody says anything that will inflict damage on their paper-thin skin.

[Clutch Munny]

True or false, now: The conclusion that one's behaviour over the long term is indicative of one's character does not seem like any very contentious "psychoanalysis".

True or false: You are being a nitpicky little pretentious douchebag as usual and making a mountain out of an off-the-cuff semi-serious molehill. Your desperate lame attempts to counter everything I say no matter how it is intended is perfectly obvious. Wanker.
You could have just said, "I didn't mean it. No real criticism intended." Wouldn't that have been easier than trying to tweak noses, getting busted for being full of shit, and then trying to bluster out of it, only to have to admit anyhow (however gracelessly) that the criticism was empty?

Well, you could prove this and have it mean something. Or just say it and have it be noise.

Obviously someone of your IQ needs some kind of visual aid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsYNH5yobbE
Cool. Now, can you show that you were strawmanned? Whining in video form is not an argument. So far you've chosen the vacuous "noise" option.

Was this supposed to explain your inability to distinguish Sweetie's behaviour from that of most other Christians?

As has been pointed out here she is by no means outside the spectrum of behaviour exhibited by xians, and internally justifiable behaviour within xianity.
What behaviour is "internally justifiable"? Her relentless scanning of posts and careful memory for the tiniest personal details, which she then saved up and used a propos of nothing in clear attempts to wound when virtually anyone disagreed with her about virtually anything? Who showed that this was either normal or justifiable?

Having decided for obscure reasons that the issue is something to do with sex, drugs or music, you're apparently boggled at the thought that the objection was to other things altogether. It can't be that you're uninformed; it must be that other people are hypocritical and stupid!

As I have said, your primary tactic, (and that's exactly what it is, a tactic, not a genuine discussion about truth), is to unnecessarily question the premises of your "opponent's" argument while merely asserting your own regardless of their implausibility.
This is just unfathomable. Questioning other people's assertions is a central aspect of any "genuine discussion" aiming at truth. What did you think a genuine discussion should comprise? Other people falling over in stunned awe at the rational force of your errors and ill-informed bluster? You make claims, other people either accept them or ask for your grounds. The sign of an interest in genuine discussion is to give those grounds (or retract the claims) when that happens, not to spray bile and run away.

As for my own allegedly implausible claims: Of course you are free to point out any missing information, invalid reasoning or implausible premises when you see them. Curiously, though, this never happens. All we get are half-understood fallacy terms with no reason to think they apply, and links to pictures and videos.

Funny, because this is exactly the tactic a Creationist would use to attack evolution. They think if they interrogate the perfectly plausible, (but not 100% proven), premises of their opponents, at some point an honest opponent will admit he doesn't have absolute proof of his premises at which point they will swoop in and bald-facedly assert their own implausible nonsense as the only possible explanation, (eg. If science cannot adequately explain the process of abiogenesis then it must have been God). And these guys have absolutely no qualms about chasing premises back to the beginning of time, (literally), if they have to.
Creationists are silly, all right. So are your allusions to them. With no argument to back them up, your frequent assertions of "you are like a psychic fraud!" or "wow, you remind me of creationists!" are empty wind.

I don't know how you became so confused, but it's as if you misread sceptics like Randi, who (often) examine, test and take seriously various claims before heaping scorn on them -- and their defenders -- when they turn to be false. But the examinations, testing and intellectual seriousness missed you altogether; somehow you've become convinced that the scepticism consists in the scorn itself. But heaping scorn when one is ignorant, and flinging abuse without argument, doesn't make one a sceptic. It makes one a dipshit.

You've repeated the tactic once too often over obviously meaningless matters, making it plainly obvious just how full of shit you are.
And yet you've been unable to make a coherent case for this even once -- nor have you even tried.

Back on topic: It worries me that some people might be exaggerating Sweetie's "nastiness" just because they personally disagree with her point of view.
Well, why don't you try finding out what people mean by Sweetie's nastiness before making this judgement?

I gotta go with Penn Jillette on this one - if I can't agree with someone who's a religious whack-job, at least I can respect the fact they have the guts to state their point of view and not water it down.
I wasn't aware that this was a sufficiently uncommon position to require attribution to Penn Jillette. But it doesn't seem particularly relevant in any case. Speaking for myself, my "problem" with Sweetie was largely to do with her methods, and very little to do with her views. That is, I have a problem with many of her views, but that's tangential to my perception of her as a person and a forum member.

[ceptimus]

Sweetie could have left without saying anything, or better, she could have said she was leaving without taking a parting swipe at others.

By posting what amounted to (in my opinion) an attack on several other posters, she invited (again in my opinion) a response in kind - and that's what she's got.

[Tanda]

I'll try not to cry. But I'll keep a tissue handy, just in case.

:qbye:
:pandarol:

[Watser?]

I gotta go with Penn Jillette on this one - if I can't agree with someone who's a religious whack-job, at least I can respect the fact they have the guts to state their point of view and not water it down.
I wasn't aware that this was a sufficiently uncommon position to require attribution to Penn Jillette. But it doesn't seem particularly relevant in any case. Speaking for myself, my "problem" with Sweetie was largely to do with her methods, and very little to do with her views. That is, I have a problem with many of her views, but that's tangential to my perception of her as a person and a forum member.
I don't care what her views are on most subjects, because they are usually obscured by her muddy way of expressing herself. It is just too much work figuring out what she means, when it is usually not very interesting anyway when I DO take the trouble. What I dislike about 'Sweetie' is that she takes every conflict she gets into about anything as a reason to attack her adversary with every weapon at her disposal. I have seen people fighting on internet forums before, but usually it is about something more substantial before it turns to total war. With 'Sweetie' EVERY conflict is total war.
I'm not celebrating the fact she is leaving (if she really is, which remains to be seen IMO), but I am not going to pretend I give a shit.

Anyway, what is so great about people stating their points of view and not watering it down? In itself it is not a very admirable trait, fanatics do that. Being able to compromise can be just as admirable. What is really admirable is to know when to do which.

[maddog]

Sweetie could have left without saying anything, or better, she could have said she was leaving without taking a parting swipe at others.

By posting what amounted to (in my opinion) an attack on several other posters, she invited (again in my opinion) a response in kind - and that's what she's got.
Agreed, she could have done things differently.

But, even if someone invites or provokes a response, that doesn't necessarily mean a response is required or even a good idea.

I can envision someone who feels a fellowship of community, such as a fellow Christian or a personal acquaintance or friend saying something that mgiht be hard to hear, but would be felt to be ethically necessary for the person's benefit. So I can see reasons why someone might say something that can be perceived negatively or as a criticism; it has a constructive or beneficial purpose. But isn't it a common feature of ethical systems (I'm thinking Rotary Intl, or Optimist Club, e.g.) to ask oneself, "Is it true?" and then beyond that, "even if so, is it kind?" and to act accordingly. Just because I think something is true ... that may be a necessary condition to my ethically saying it, but that's not a sufficient condition in and of itself. Other values are also in play.

How to respond to someone whose behavior standards are different from our own presents a tricky problem. but even if I think someone else, implicitly or explicitly, "asks for" negative responses, that doesn't mean that it's good, wise or right to "give them" what they may expect or be looking for. sure, enough people simply respond tit-for-tat as a kind of stimulus and response reaction. But one of the challenges of being a rational being, instead of simply an emotional or animalistic one, is to use reason to restrain our first impulses. to my mind, if a particular response doesn't increase, but decreases, overall kindness, generosity, happiness, etc., then I don't need, and in fact ethically shouldn't, do it. the pagans say, "an it harm none, do what ye will." I can't see how some of the responses here are not harmful. I might even go so far as to think some of them are intended to be harmful. I don't think that's right.


#1092

[quiet bear]

"Is it true?" and then beyond that, "even if so, is it kind?" and to act accordingly. Just because I think something is true ... that may be a necessary condition to my ethically saying it, but that's not a sufficient condition in and of itself.

This reminds me of something someone said to me a long time ago, that always stuck with me.

"Just because it's your opinion, that doesn't make it my truth"

Everyone is entitled to think what they want. Whether or not I choose to agree/believe, is my own decision.


BTW...maddog rocks

[Veritas]

Having read through this thread, I'd like to add these comments:

Many a time have I seen a thread involving, or started by, Sweetie. I disagreed with many of her comments. Many, not all. A few times I felt patronised by her, but I don't know her well (I think I joined FF at a time she wasn't posting much) so brushed off much of what she said.

Soon, though, I noticed many other people here didn't like her, and in the back of my mind, I think I saw her as a person not to be taken seriously, perhaps even secretly reasoning, "If no-one else likes her, I can take this as validation of my own opinion."

Looking back to the times I injected my weird sense of humour into one of her threads or took the piss simply for the sake of taking it, I admit to feeling embarrassed by my behaviour.

While it's true that she offended a lot of people, this isn't a good enough reason for others to respond in kind. I think it would be better not to fight fire with fire, but to lead by example.

I was never directly involved in any of these disagreements; all I can say is she didn't seem like the kind of person I would get on with in real life; passive-aggressive, a professional victim, and, at the risk of being the world's biggest hypocrite, I'll add, an attention-seeker.

What embarrasses me the most is the sense I got of circling vultures, a pack mentality that recently showed itself more and more whenever Sweetie 'appeared' - and any times I joined in with this.

Occasionally I was bordering on joining in with this pack mentality when in actual fact none of Sweetie's threads directly concerned me, or at least I had very little reason to post in any of her threads, and I should never have joined in with people 'picking on her'. Sure, she was picking on other people, but...lead by example, remember?

I should have risen above it, and as I said it was wrong of me to join in with the collective baying for blood, it's also wrong of me to join in with the collective breast-beating. So, I'll shut up now and make sure that in future when I give opinions they are my own.

That's all. :)

[Clutch Munny]

I think your resolution for the future is admirable. But I'd note that the idea of "collective" responding is unclear.

It's possible, surely, for someone to say something to which an appropriate response is: That's mean-spirited. It's fair for more than one person to have that reaction. The more obviously beyond the pale the post, the likelier that multiple individuals, posting as individuals, will converge on a negative reaction to it. That's not a collective response -- not unless a set of responses that are divided on an issue is also a collective (but schizophrenic) response!

I think it admirably honest for you to admit that you felt swayed by group opinions. But that doesn't mean that most, many, or any others were. I do share your discomfort with many-versus-one situations, however they're characterized, but I think these result more from people acting as individuals (not being willing to let someone else's replies be the sole responses, for example, but wanting to contribute one's own response even though it's redundant) than from any collective action or groupthink.

[Tanda]

I thought that was admirable also, Veritas. Sometimes I felt a little guilty also. But then there are times, like the day before yesterday, when I told her my opinion on something that she said and she called me a "stupid bitch". I didn't feel so badly after that. :shrug:

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Veritas]

:blush:

When I mentioned people 'ganging up' on Sweetie, I guess I was referring to those who might see her as an easy target: "I don't like her, and there's no reason for me to be vicious to her, but if I am, it'll be hidden in the collective dislike, so here I can get away with more than I would normally dare." I guess that's what I was hinting at.

I don't like myself when I go along with the crowd just for the sake of not standing out. Don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid of expressing my opinion, and I certainly wasn't Sweetie's biggest fan. I'm referring to those times where I would express my opinion and add something on, perhaps stuff a bit more rudeness in unnecessarily. But I have to ask myself, would I be so disrespectful to her face-to-face? If I was the only one? If I knew her personally? I think there are ways to express one's opinion without being...well, cruel.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything here; that was just something I saw in myself, or the beginnings of something anyway, and I didn't like it.

Cripes. I'm not...maturing, am I? Like a bottle of wine? NOBODY SAY, "LIKE A STINKY CHEESE." :cheeseglomp:

Speaking of sweeties, I have two big tins of the things here; wonder how much toffee I could eat before Hogmanay? :mooch:

[Tanda]

Don't forget to share your toffees, while you're feeling all nice and mature and everything. :cheerful:

[Veritas]

Ah. Right. You got me there. :(

Does maturity REALLY have to cover your sweetie tin as well? Even the vanilla fudge and the orange crunches?

[Tanda]

You run the risk of personal injury if you don't share the vanilla fudge.

:confide: Don't say I didn't warn you.

[Veritas]

You run the risk of personal injury if you don't share the vanilla fudge.

:confide: Don't say I didn't warn you.

My dad and uncle both know I don't celebrate Christmas and they each gave me one tin - it would be rude not to take them.

Yours are the pink ones on the right. Touch my toffee pennies and I keel you! :glare:

[TomJoe]

Sweetie could have left without saying anything, or better, she could have said she was leaving without taking a parting swipe at others.
She'll be back.

[yguy]

But isn't it a common feature of ethical systems...

Those are for automatons, not people.

to ask oneself, "Is it true?" and then beyond that, "even if so, is it kind?" and to act accordingly.

If it's "kind", how do you know it's right? And if it's "cruel", how do you know it's wrong?

On second thought, maddog, never mind. Just consider those questions rhetorical, seeing how I can hardly read any of your interminable ruminations on interpersonal relationships without feeling like my soul needs a shower.

[Clutch Munny]

I can hardly read any of your interminable ruminations on interpersonal relationships without feeling like my soul needs a shower.

True enough, no doubt, given that P-->(Q-->P).

[godfry n. glad]

On second thought, maddog, never mind. Just consider those questions rhetorical, seeing how I can hardly read any of your interminable ruminations on interpersonal relationships without feeling like my soul needs a shower.

You should talk.

I must thank Sweetie. She has provided part of my regular user title, and for that I am pleased.

I've stated my opinion of Sweetie's opinions elsewhere. I see no reason to change them. I also see no reason to repeat them.

Ta, Sweetie.

[Crumb]

True enough, no doubt, given that P-->(Q-->P).
Does the fact that I laughed at that make me a :nerd: ?

[Clutch Munny]

True enough, no doubt, given that P-->(Q-->P).
Does the fact that I laughed at that make me a :nerd: ?

A :nerd: with a sterling sense of humour, moreover.

[Crumb]

:joecool:

[erimir]

Well, I can't say I'm unhappy about Sweetie leaving. I didn't really interact with her much for the first few months I was here, so I didn't really get why people disliked her. But I understood why everyone called her a bitch after the first time I debated something with her. Oh yeah, and the insulting things she said about gays probably attributed to my dislike as well.

I also tried rationally engaging with her (on that first occasion, and several other times) and I never really got anywhere with her. I also tried to explain to her how she could change some of her behavior, but she would always respond that she didn't give a shit what anyone on this board thought of her/her behavior. Which was of course bullshit, but it did demonstrate that she didn't care that her behavior was shitty.

[biochemgirl]

cough, cough, DRAMA WHORE, cough, cough.

I never interacted with you sweetie, but my biggest pet peeve on internet boards are these big, "I'm leaving, curse you, I care so little about you that I post this in the first place to check your reactions and to make sure I get my last little digs in"....it's just so old and played out and does nothing more than show your insecurity and well..drama whoreness.

[Dragar]

Dragar [Dags]:

You're a sweetheart, that's what I think.



I hope you send a PM now and again.

I think you commit gross errors of reasoning, more social faux pas (is that event the plural?) than even I do, and aren't exactly the most lucid writer I've ever come across. I don't think the root of it all is vindictiveness, but you do have a nasty habit of causing hurt in your interactions with others. I hope you can find a way around that.

Either way, I also hope you have a Merry Christmas, and that all your future festivities are joyous.

[Sock Puppet]

When Sweetie posted her latest passive-aggressive horseshit in the Secret Santa thread, I didn't respond. I did consider just posting "Merry Christmas, Sweetie."

I'll miss her, sort of. She was one of a kind, somehow managing to combine muddle-headed thinking, attention-seeking, guilting, and vicious vindictiveness all in one persona.

Then again, I have the feeling she'll be back. Watch for the contortionistic reasoning she goes through to justify why she's back, just as she employed when trying to explain away the clearly stated objective of her nipple-exposure.

As far as the tenor of these responses, including mine, all I'll say is that my code of ethics is my own, and my posts are consistent with it.

Goodbye, Sweetie. I hope the people in your real life get better treatment than you've given here. I'd rather they just got that better treatment, rather than whatever labyrinthian justifications you've used here for your behavior. Failing that, feel free to eat shit and live to savor it.

[Tanda]

You run the risk of personal injury if you don't share the vanilla fudge.

:confide: Don't say I didn't warn you.

My dad and uncle both know I don't celebrate Christmas and they each gave me one tin - it would be rude not to take them.

Yours are the pink ones on the right. Touch my toffee pennies and I keel you! :glare:

:giggles: Gee, thanks!

:cheerful:

[quiet bear]

Touch my toffee pennies and I keel you! :glare:

boy, did I read that wrong the first time around.

[Shelli]

Touch my toffee pennies and I keel you! :glare:

boy, did I read that wrong the first time around.
I didn't the first time, but I did the second time. :unshock: :ungiggle:

[Shelli]

.. feel free to eat shit and live to savor it.Hey! :alarm: There's a smilie for that, ya know! :glare:

:eatshit:

[godfry n. glad]

.. feel free to eat shit and live to savor it.Hey! :alarm: There's a smilie for that, ya know! :glare:

:eatshit:

Yeah, but it doesn't lick it's fingers afterwards, satiated.

[Veritas]

Touch my toffee pennies and I keel you! :glare:

boy, did I read that wrong the first time around.

Touch my toffee pennies and I leak on you? :giggle:

[Shelli]

.. feel free to eat shit and live to savor it.Hey! :alarm: There's a smilie for that, ya know! :glare:

:eatshit:

Yeah, but it doesn't lick it's fingers afterwards, satiated.
ewww :giggle:

[godfry n. glad]

Touch my toffee pennies and I keel you! :glare:

boy, did I read that wrong the first time around.

Touch my toffee pennies and I leak on you? :giggle:


Well... I read it as "Touch my toffee panties and I keel you". :chin:

(and I'm still reflecting upon what an excellent idea that is...toffee panties.) :lecher:

[Shelli]

:chuckle:

[JaredM]

I also tried rationally engaging with her (on that first occasion, and several other times) and I never really got anywhere with her.

Well, all I can say is, that in the few interactions I had with Sweetie, she demonstrated herself to be painfully stupid. Which is why I chose not to engage her, rationally or otherwise.

[Dingfod]

Warrenly:

I'm actually very fond of you, to be honest. I do hope your life continues to go well, and you can find lots of meaningful value in it. I wish you the best.:swoon:

I confess that I do not understand the OP remarks addressed to me.Whew, it's not just me.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

Stop browsing the forums already. Christ.

[Dingfod]

Me?

[Veritas]

Well... I read it as "Touch my toffee panties and I keel you". :chin:

(and I'm still reflecting upon what an excellent idea that is...toffee panties.) :lecher:

Could get sticky, though.

[JoeP]

And regular panties don't?

[Shelli]

Depends on the situation of the other. :wink:

[erimir]

Stop browsing the forums already. Christ.
Me?Isn't it obvious that she's talking to Christ?

Jeez... twit.

[Dingfod]

I was high.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

I'm sure she likes to think she's Christ v2.0.

[Kyuss Apollo]

Well, she can climb down off the fucking cross--we can use the wood.

[TomJoe]

...

[Petra]

Hey, TomJoe - cute pic of Jeff in your av. I'm not a big Jeff fan, but I sure used to have a mad crush on his dad. And by joves, young Jeff looked like his daddy!

*swoon* :hearts:

[Kyuss Apollo]

Touch my toffee pennies and I keel you! :glare:

boy, did I read that wrong the first time around.

I thought you read it "toffee penis."

As in the oft-repeated quip "Touch my toffee penis, and I keel you! :glare: