Woot!

[seebs]

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/member.php?userid=6707

I am MIGHTY! Tremble before me, ye trolls and flamers, and beware.

[viscousmemories]

Uh-oh... a theist mod at IIDB? I guess we better prepare for the mass exodus.

Congratulations, seebs. The plot to turn II into another CF is underway.

[seebs]

I'm apparently the second theist mod, although I don't doubt they'll get resignations over this.

Amusingly, people at CF threatened to resign over me too.

EVERYONE HATES ME! I must be doing something right.

[viscousmemories]

Really? Who was the first?

I'm surprised, since I had heard that several admins and mods planned to bail should a theist ever become a mod and I don't recall seeing any mass departures.

So, not infidel enough for some and too infidel for others, huh? I guess you're the porridge Goldilocks chose. :D

[wei yau]

Uh-oh... a theist mod at IIDB? I guess we better prepare for the mass exodus.


I guess I spend too much time in the lower fora at IIDB. I can't imagine anyone getting worked up over something as innocuous as this. But, I guess I don't spend enough time in the fora with "hardcore" atheists .

In "real life", I don't care if someone is a theist. I care if they are a good person and that's enough. If they are performing a job, I care if they are competent.

I assume that seebs will be reasonably competent as a moderator, at least as competent as any other moderator there, so good luck and congratulations.

[livius drusus]

:woohoo:

Outstanding news, seebs. They are so lucky to have you. (Shoulda been EoG, though. ;) )

:appl:

[viscousmemories]

I guess I spend too much time in the lower fora at IIDB. I can't imagine anyone getting worked up over something as innocuous as this. But, I guess I don't spend enough time in the fora with "hardcore" atheists .
Oh wow. You must've missed this 15 page extravaganza (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=87370) when it was first announced that they intended to lift the requirement that mods be non-theists. It was one of several threads in that timeframe where the battle lines were drawn, and drawn and drawn some more.

This could get interesting. :popcorn:

[Sweetie]

Everybody doesn't hate you and you know it. :wtf: Some people think you are one of God's gifts to mankind. :P

Either way, I've always preferred hate to indifference so.

Congrats seebs! I should go over there from time to time to wach the fireworks, :popcorn: need some entertainment to relieve this incessant boredom. :doh: Hitting myself in the forehead isn't working. :doh: :D

[Ensign Steve]

I can't tell from your profile which forum you're a mod in. Congrats, seebs! :)

[livius drusus]

Sure you can. That little -- P stands for Philosophy.

[Ensign Steve]

Ohhhhh... I thought P was for ...

:blush:

[Lauri D]

I like it
I love it
I want some more of it!

(That's supposed to rhyme in some weird way...)

Congrats, seeb.

[wildernesse]

Congrats, seebs!

[Farren]

Well done Seebs!

And well done II! Its great to see a forum recognise the simple fact that our common humanity is a vast terrain and the small rifts that divide us are made chasms by perception alone.

Also, the presumption of ignorance seems far wiser than the certainty of truth. I can't remember where I read recently (it may have been a comment here) that the greatest threat to peace is that those who are the most narrow minded and ignorant are normally the most certain of themselves. In this light, anyone claiming a desire to see truth win out should encourage dialogue and equal say at all costs.

I think the administration at IIDB has recognised this and consequently recognised that having exclusively athiest moderators increases the chance of a consistent bias that stifles one view and ignores the excesses and absurdities of the other.

Your appointment makes my heart warm both because of the affection I feel for you (or at least your online persona) and because of the wider implications.

[LadyShea]

:clap:

[wade-w]

Congrats seebs.

I can't remember where I read recently (it may have been a comment here) that the greatest threat to peace is that those who are the most narrow minded and ignorant are normally the most certain of themselves. In this light, anyone claiming a desire to see truth win out should encourage dialogue and equal say at all costs.


There's a Bertrand Russell quote to that effect, Farren.


The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.

[Petra]

Hey, that's really cool.

Congratulations, seebs.

And congratulations to IIDB, too, for being so progressively liberal. :bow:

[Goliath]

Boy, am I glad I'm no longer at the IIDB.

Congratulations, seebs...I guess.

[pzmyers]

Am I ever glad I ditched iidb long ago. What a shame. What a disgrace.

And to pick such an asshole for the job...

[godfry n. glad]

Aw, jeez....and to think that I held you in such high regard, seebs.

Now.....this.

This is truly disappointing.

:qsigh:
godfry

[livius drusus]

I just have to say, the counterpoint of the last two posts has me quite literally laughing out loud. I genuinely adore you splenetic bastards.

[Sweetie]

nm :P

[pzmyers]

I just have to say, the counterpoint of the last two posts has me quite literally laughing out loud. I genuinely adore you splenetic bastards.

And there are some bastards I utterly despise.

And I sincerely regret that what was once a good board for atheists has progressed yet further towards becoming another contemptible theology board, and has caved in to the pressure of the yammering theistic vermin. And I'm sure it will only continue to get worse.

I could get more splenetic, if you'd like.

[livius drusus]

Never fear: IIDB remains characterized more than anything by utter contempt for theism (usually identified as fundamentalist Christianity). Besides, even when you liked it there you would have rathered give seebs head while wearing nothing but a rosary than step foot inside the forum he'll be moderating.

[pzmyers]

Never fear: IIDB remains characterized more than anything by utter contempt for theism (usually identified as fundamentalist Christianity).

That certainly wasn't the iidb I recall from when I was there. There were a few good firebrands around, but the bulk of that milksop bunch, especially among the board members, were the kind of feeble, flabby panderers to god-flogging parasites that Ingersoll would have kicked to the curb.

And it's clear they've become even more craven since I left.

[livius drusus]

Oh the board members... Well, they have PACs to run for a week and then shut down, Rev. Barry Lynn to join on a masthead and other political whatnots. They have nothing at all to do with the tone of the board which remains as decidedly anti-theist as it's ever been, only with the collective pinky raised for that classy touch. I believe the technical term is plausible deniability.

[Sweetie]

I've never spent any time at IIDB really, though I've lurked a bit. It's just like there's this refusal to establish common ground between people, the refusal almost, to recognize another as a person worthy of respect. In alot of the cases there's a superiority complex. To spend time at IIDB would be like spending time at Rapture Ready, it's the same thing repeated, the same mistake just at opposites. It's too much work and it's very sad. Who can live with the thought that they are better than everybody, or better and smarter than say, well if there's about 6 billion people on the planet, what are the stats, at least 95% of them are theists or relgious in some way, like say in the case of Buddhism which is not theistic but it is religious, I mean, it's absurd to think that, it's demented and delusional I think, to be honest.

And then what is this talk of nationalism and fascism? The minority want to force the majority? This is "their" country? If 90 some odd percent of the country is religious, who's fucking country is it? The religious are ruining their country? What made their country great in the first place?

[Petra]

Holy shit, so to speak, I'm horrified by the rampant conservatism within my ranks!

My views as expressed via vodka and orange on a sunny day are that seebs is a moderate and liberal Christian. His participation at IIDB over the years has been balanced, knowledgeable, considerate, and somewhat enlightened (even if we don't all agree)>

Personally, I am grateful for moderates that are also a littel theistic in their approach to life. Just as I am grateful for those moderates who are a little a-theistic in their lives. I commend our own current PM on her secular balance in this regard.

I believe (yes, believe) that seebs will do a splendid job as keeper of decorum and fairness in a forum that suits him.

I believe (yes, believe) that IIDB will benefit in it's secular mission with seebs on board.

I believe (oh, never mind) that seebs is a balanced enough human being to respect doctrines and tenets that are anathema to modern Christianity.

I believe that seebs is a good choice for moderator, and that he will take on the responsibility as fairly and as impartially as he can. And that "as he can" will be wider and more inclusive in the overall overcooked breakfast of things than mere agitated, scrambled eggs.

I'd like to hear some solid reasons as to why seebs should not be made moderator and why we shouldn't celebrate his promotion. Cheers.

[Sweetie]

I'd like to hear some solid reasons as to why seebs should not be made moderator and why we shouldn't celebrate his promotion. Cheers.

There is no good reason, it's called bias.

[Petra]

...It's just like there's this refusal to establish common ground between people...
Yeah, in a nutshell, that's about 'it', really. It's a shame, I think.

[livius drusus]

I've never spent any time at IIDB really, though I've lurked a bit. It's just like there's this refusal to establish common ground between people, the refusal almost, to recognize another as a person worthy of respect. In alot of the cases there's a superiority complex. To spend time at IIDB would be like spending time at Rapture Ready, it's the same thing repeated, the same mistake just at opposites. It's too much work and it's very sad. Who can live with the thought that they are better than everybody, or better and smarter than say, well if there's about 6 billion people on the planet, what are the stats, at least 95% of them are theists or relgious in some way, like say in the case of Buddhism which is not theistic but it is religious, I mean, it's absurd to think that, it's demented and delusional I think, to be honest.

And then what is this talk of nationalism and fascism? The minority want to force the majority? This is "their" country? If 90 some odd percent of the country is religious, who's fucking country is it? The religious are ruining their country? What made their country great in the first place?

Fair enough assessment of IIDB, Sweetie, but your second para is just empty rhetoric, imo. The minority does not want to be forced by the majority -- quite a different thing than you're suggesting -- and the what made the US great line is quite frankly meaningless. Feel free to start a thread on the subject, though, if you're willing to make a reasonable argument to that effect.

[Sweetie]

Fair enough assessment of IIDB, Sweetie, but your second para is just empty rhetoric, imo. The minority does not want to be forced by the majority

Eh, that was just from what pz was saying in that other thread, we need to tamp them down, condemn them as if they're ants to be stepped on.

-- quite a different thing than you're suggesting -- and the what made the US great line is quite frankly meaningless.

Not if the foundational right to life is anything which is the basis of freedom upon which the country and other freedoms flourished which is itself put under scrutiny and is questioned and even possibly, put at risk by every other philosophy.

Feel free to start a thread on the subject, though, if you think you're capable of making a reasonable argument to that effect.

LOL, I'm capable of being scatterbrained these days.

Nah, had a few things to say to pz, but I don't feel like making a thread about it.

[Petra]

At this point, may I suggest Ballooning?

It's a beautiful thing to do...


...honest!


:lift:

[Sweetie]

At this point, may I suggest Ballooning?

It's a beautiful thing to do...


...honest!


:lift:

Oh ya, ya, keep talking you happy person, you with the oh so nice weather with the hot air balloons, me with the yesterday -34, -49 C with the windchill factor. :fuming:

La de da. *mutters under breath*


:D

*totally just joking around of course, but not lying about the weather. :eek: It's intolerable!

[Ymir's blood]

Having been a mod at IIDB, I won't offer congratulations to seebs, but rather my condolences... :wink:

I still recall the shitstorm that started in '02 when the idea was first proposed. I was against it then, not because a theist couldn't do the job fairly† but simply because of what it might mean to the community, discord-wise. Now I realize that the IIDB regulars doesn't actually need reasons for discord, so the objection seems pointless.

†There were certainly plenty of atheist mods who couldn't do the job at all.

[pzmyers]

I'd like to hear some solid reasons as to why seebs should not be made moderator and why we shouldn't celebrate his promotion. Cheers.

1. Seebs is a dishonest, hypocritical asshole.

2. Seebs is a christian. This usually isn't the same as (1), but the attributes complement nicely in his case.

3. Once, iidb was a board for atheists; something more than a chat board, with a solid secular mission. That mission has been corrupted.

I don't see any upside to this at all. Compromised principles are something to regret.

[livius drusus]

Eh, that was just from what pz was saying in that other thread, we need to tamp them down, condemn them as if they're ants to be stepped on.

Ah, well perhaps then speaking in passive generalities is not the best approach given that pz's perspective is very much his own.

Not if the foundational right to life is anything which is the basis of freedom upon which the country and other freedoms flourished which is itself put under scrutiny and is questioned and even possibly, put at risk by every other philosophy.

There is no "foundational right to life" enshrined in the governing documents of this country. Obviously. Or they'd have had a hard time justifying slavery and the death penalty. Nor as far as I know is there any such right enshrined in Christianity in general, including your own Catholicism, although it does better than most, despite its less than consistent history, in advocating a right to life in modern politics. I also doubt you can make an argument that such a right is the basis of "freedom", or that you can speak to what "every other philosophy" does or does not hold to.

Anyway, I'll stop derailing the thread. Suffice it to say, if you want to really talk about this, you're going to have to define your terms, narrow down the vague generalizations and take it to the Philo forum. :)

[livius drusus]

Having been a mod at IIDB, I won't offer congratulations to seebs, but rather my condolences... :wink:

I still recall the shitstorm that started in '02 when the idea was first proposed. I was against it then, not because a theist couldn't do the job fairly† but simply because of what it might mean to the community, discord-wise. Now I realize that the IIDB regulars doesn't actually need reasons for discord, so the objection seems pointless.

†There were certainly plenty of atheist mods who couldn't do the job at all.

:chuckle: It's funny 'cause it's true.

[Sweetie]

1. Seebs is a dishonest, hypocritical asshole.

Define hypocrite and show some sort of dishonesty on his part.

3. Once, iidb was a board for atheists; something more than a chat board, with a solid secular mission. That mission has been corrupted.

Dude, you're blind. Liberal Christianity is the inroads of secularization into Christianity, why do you not know that? Most people see it as secularism with Christian paint except those who hold it themselves who think it's true Christianity or that there is no such thing as true Christianity and if there is, there is no way to determine it, what is true about Christianity is what works for them. For your team, this is a good thing.

[viscousmemories]

3. Once, iidb was a board for atheists; something more than a chat board, with a solid secular mission. That mission has been corrupted.
When did IIDB have a functional, solid secular mission and what did it accomplish? And assuming there's a substantive answer to that, how has that mission been corrupted by the BoD's attempts to curb the open hostility toward theists?

[Sweetie]

Dude, you're blind. Liberal Christianity is the inroads of secularization into Christianity, why do you not know that? Most people see it as secularism with Christian paint except those who hold it themselves who think it's true Christianity or that there is no such thing as true Christianity and if there is, there is no way to determine it, what is true about Christianity is what works for them. For your team, this is a good thing.

To many Christians looking upon Liberal Christianity they think, why bother with truth then and to many atheists who look upon Liberal Christianity, the common response is, why bother with the Christian paint?

[seebs]

Having been a mod at IIDB, I won't offer congratulations to seebs, but rather my condolences... :wink:

Hey. I used to be a mod at CF, I think I can hack IIDB.

I still recall the shitstorm that started in '02 when the idea was first proposed. I was against it then, not because a theist couldn't do the job fairly† but simply because of what it might mean to the community, discord-wise. Now I realize that the IIDB regulars doesn't actually need reasons for discord, so the objection seems pointless.

My thoughts exactly.

†There were certainly plenty of atheist mods who couldn't do the job at all.

There are always mods everywhere who can't do the job. I figure I'll blend in excellently.

[seebs]

When did IIDB have a functional, solid secular mission and what did it accomplish? And assuming there's a substantive answer to that, how has that mission been corrupted by the BoD's attempts to curb the open hostility toward theists?

Perhaps, as someone now actively contributing to that mission, I could contribute my thoughts.

Ultimately, IIDB is split, and has been split for years, between promoting metaphysical naturalism, and promoting metaphysical naturalists.

These goals are often in conflict. People are safest and happiest in a free and open society with diversity of views; promoting a view can harm the proponents, as well as the people they're fighting with.

That said... Metaphysical naturalism is a really cool position, simple, elegant, and only slightly hampered by being false. Many of the components of these beliefs are of significant value to others. For instance, in a world where Islam is growing very rapidly, freedom of religion is a very good thing for Christians from a practical standpoint, even if we were to disregard the moral imperative. The freedoms that make secularists happy are also, in many cases, valuable to religious people.

Finally... Some of maddog's comments about the dangers of labels made something click for me. I'd thought about trying to mod at IIDB because I didn't like the fights between "my team" and "their team". But maddog has helped me realize that the entire notion of teams is a lie. They are people, like I am. We are on the same team, and I believe that well-run discussion boards are good for that.

Of course, this presumes that I'm useful as a moderator. From my experience, I do okay; I tend to result in discussions calming down and staying on target, which is good enough for me.

[Dingfod]

The religious are ruining their country? What made their country great in the first place?It wasn't because of religion, it was in spite of it.

Seebs, congrats, I guess, if that's the sort of thing you want to do.

Sweet Jesus, what's the world coming to... human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria...

[Sweetie]

It wasn't because of religion, it was in spite of it.

Hey, that's not fair, you saw the take it elsewhere post/posts. :chin: :P

[maddog]

Well, seebs, since "Woot!" and not "Oh no!" is your sentiment on it, I say, "Woot, indeed!" Congratulations! I know a little bit about doing one's level best to be neutral (fair) and unbiased (fair) and objective (fair) in performing a difficult task, and about doing so while necessarily filled with human frailties. I have every confidence in your approaching the moderating job with as much integrity as it is possible for a human being to muster. Well done! The nature of that job may mean that its burdens may at some point outweigh its attractions, but in the meantime, have fun with it!
#186

[Ray]

I cannot believe that pz is the only voice of reason in this forum. Seebs is clearly unqualified for the position of moderator, especially at II, given his obvious bias against the central belief system of the vast majority of its members.

Seebs may appear to be liberal to some, but this is clearly a false impression. His beliefs are so extreme that he actually accused (http://www.seebs.net/log/archives/000238.html) members of the ChristianForums staff of being poor Christians.

In addition, he has a long history of stating his own biased opinion (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/ceed62ae3bb3ba73) when asked for objective information, even in groups that he moderates, to such an extent that users have been forced to put him on their ignore lists. He later made attempts (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.c.moderated/msg/b8b0b8fe860a056b) to change the mandate of one of these groups, without even consulting the other moderators. Fortunately, his plans were unsuccessful.

Therefore I must reiterate my complete opposition to seebs' appointment as moderator. As pz correctly pointed out, the man is dishonest, hypocritical, and worst of all, he has no sense of humour.

[Goliath]

I'd like to hear some solid reasons as to why seebs should not be made moderator and why we shouldn't celebrate his promotion. Cheers.


Well, this has nothing to do with seebs in particular, but the appointment of a theist mod makes the IIDB too sickeningly pro-xian. In fact, at times I've wondered if one or more of the members of the IIDB BoD haven't secretly converted to xianity.

It goes back to when the goals of the IIDB were (unfortunately) altered to finding common ground with theists--a task that I find absolutely pointless...then again, we've had this discussion before. So, I'll leave it at that.

[Brimshack]

Congrats Seebs. I know you'll be every bit as great a moderator on II as you were at CF.

[Petra]

1. Seebs is a dishonest, hypocritical asshole.

In what way?

2. Seebs is a christian. This usually isn't the same as (1), but the attributes complement nicely in his case.

How?

3. Once, iidb was a board for atheists; something more than a chat board, with a solid secular mission. That mission has been corrupted.

Oh, Jesus. Are you serious? The world will crumble because a [very liberal] Christian is now a mod?

I have every confidence that seebs will not involve in any way his Christian belief in moderating his forum.

I don't see any upside to this at all. Compromised principles are something to regret.

Compromised principles?

What compromise? What principles?



Look, if seebs was a fundy type, then sure - I could see where your anger in this is. But he isn't, and what's the problem?


How disappointing it is to recognise my own fellow atheists as being as fundamentalist and as one-eyed in their extremism as the most Calvinist of Christians, blinded by bias.

[Dragar]

I've been waiting for this for quite some time.

Nice one, seebs. I honestly believe you will do an excellent job at IIDB, and I honestly hope that your work there will show certain theists and atheists that when two people disagree on matters of 'how the universe really is', it need not always lead to hate.

[Petra]

Well, this has nothing to do with seebs in particular, but the appointment of a theist mod makes the IIDB too sickeningly pro-xian. ....


I'm reminded of a notice that was placed in shop windows back in the early 1900's objecting to that abomination that was women having the vote.

http://www.geocities.com/toomuchsparetime_ak2/womnvote.gif

[livius drusus]

I've been waiting for this for quite some time.

Nice one, seebs. I honestly believe you will do an excellent job at IIDB, and I honestly hope that your work there will show certain theists and atheists that when two people disagree on matters of 'how the universe really is', it need not always lead to hate.

You get a big ol' unironic amen from me on that one, Dragar. :hands2:

[Dragar]

You get a big ol' unironic amen from me on that one, Dragar. :hands2:

Cool. But what is that smiley and what is it doing?

[viscousmemories]

You mean she's not writing her name in the snow?

[livius drusus]

the man is dishonest, hypocritical, and worst of all, he has no sense of humour.

And he seems to be some kind of computer nerd. That is completely unacceptable by any standard.

[livius drusus]

You get a big ol' unironic amen from me on that one, Dragar. :hands2:

Cool. But what is that smiley and what is it doing?

She's raising her hands in the air. You know... In the air.

You mean she's not writing her name in the snow?

Naw, a girl's gotta use at least one hand to do that.

[JoeP]

You get a big ol' unironic amen from me on that one, Dragar. :hands2:

Cool. But what is that smiley and what is it doing?

She's raising her hands in the air. You know... In the air.

You mean she's not writing her name in the snow?

Naw, a girl's gotta use at least one hand to do that.
Regrettably, that reminds me of a joke, at least the general theme of one.

This girl (we'll call her Liv) gets up one fine winter's morning to find her Daddy standing at the foot of the stairs, looking furious.

"What time did you get home, young lady?"

"Just before 12, Daddy." (Actually it was a bit later, but never mind.)

"Did you bring that new boyfriend of yours home?"

"Umm ... yes, Daddy, but he didn't come in."

"Look out of the window. What do you see?"

(Blushing) "My name in the snow ... But Daddy, that's not so serious, it's just a prank, it'll have melted by the end of the day."

"Liv, it's not so much the writing itself ... it's the fact that it's in your handwriting."

[Ex-zombie]

I am conflicted about the whole issue. On the one hand I enjoyed IIDB because I felt it was the one place I could go that was not in some way controlled by Christians. (Both my spouse and my boss are Christians.) With Christian mods in place that is no longer the case.

However, I also understand the whole fairness issue. I know how much I hate being told that only Christians are true Americans. Especially as I served in the US Navy. People can do a good job no matter their religious preference.

I simply do not understand seeb's motives for wanting to be a mod at IIDB.

[viscousmemories]

I guess I view it like separation of Church and State. IIDB's policies as written support a naturalistic and humanistic viewpoint. The latter is more important to me than the former, but in any case neither in any way favors or endorses religion.

The same can be said about the moderator guidelines. There is nothing anti-atheist in them, and even if half the moderators were Christians that wouldn't change. IIDB is now as much a 'home' for non-theists as it ever was.

It seems to me that some people are bothered by exactly that: The fact that IIDB is intended to be for all non-theistic naturalists, not only for strong atheists or anti-religious extremists.

I have no idea if seebs will be a fair and balanced moderator, but even if not I'm confident he won't by far be the worst of them.

[JoeP]

I suppose I'll post an on-topic response, although I'm not really concerned about II or moderation in general. If the membership is open to Christians, why shouldn't they be of value as moderators? Is it necessary to have Christians active on the board at all?

If you want a board where people of other views don't get a say, remember there is still heathen hangout. What does that lack to be a good board for atheists?

EVERYONE HATES ME!Well done, sir. However, getting people like pz, goliath and godfry to hate you is not much of an achievement. Guys, :wtfsign: ?

I can't decide if this thread is too embarrassing & disappointing to read ... or if it's fun. :jerry:

[livius drusus]

To be fair, Joe, it's IIDB that godfry hates, which is why he (rather hilariously, imo) suggested that seebs was lowering himself by taking on the moderatorship, and Goliath was downright friendly to seebs, all things told. He, like pz, thinks seebs' appointment is indicative of a detestable, increasingly pro-theist slant at IIDB.

I disagree with that assessment, needless to say, but as far as I can see, pz is the only person on this thread who has expressed contempt for seebs as a person.

[JoeP]

Goliath's comments were quite respectful, now that you point it out.

[godfry n. glad]

Hey...When she's right, she's right, Joe.

I've no problem with seebs. He is what he is (a screamin' heretic, fer cryin' out loud). IIDB is 'nother matter.

godfry

[Brimshack]

Honestly, I don't think what people actually believe is all that relevant to the bulk of moderating decisions. It's a pretty mundane process, really, just rooting out examples of rudeness and so forth. In most cases, what side you're on, so to speak, just isn't that important. This is really much ado about nothing as far as I'm concerned.

[ApostateAbe]

I think seebs' designation might help to make IIDB more politically-liberal and anti-fundy.

[viscousmemories]

I think seebs' designation might help to make IIDB more politically-liberal and anti-fundy.
And someone around here was asking for a definition of irony... :chuckle:

[Dingfod]

If you want a board where people of other views don't get a say, remember there is still heathen hangout. What does that lack to be a good board for atheists?High minded discourse? Upper level fora? Standards?

Hell, at least a third of the admin/mods at HH aren't worth a tinker's damn. I'll not say who, but his initials are Warren.

The hell with that, we've got nekkid pics.

[Goliath]

Goliath's comments were quite respectful, now that you point it out.

Nah, what does it matter to you, JoeP? Why not just act as though I openly hate seebs and have threatened his life repeatedly? Sure, it's not true, but it would be more fun, now wouldn't it?

And as for you, luna, sure...why not act as though I'm advocating the taking away of suffrage for all xians. It'd be more entertaining than actually listening to a single fucking thing that I've had to say, woudn't it?

Not only am I deeply insulted (especially by you, luna), but I'm wondering why I even bother trying to communicate with any of you in the first place.

Edited to say: You know, you probably wouldn't believe the amount of restraint that I had whilst composing my first reply in this thread...but no amount of restraint seems to be enough. Why bother trying?

[Brimshack]

I agree that Petra's response seems a bit of an overreaction Goliath. But so does the assertion that appointing a Theist moderator makes II pro-Christian, sieckening or othwerwise. This simply is not the case.

[Goliath]

Brimshack, if you're not going to bother to read what I've written, then there's no need to respond.

[Dingfod]

Damn. Go take a chill pill Goliath, nobody was on your ass like you are on theirs.

[Brimshack]

Brimshack, if you're not going to bother to read what I've written, then there's no need to respond.

I did read it Goliath, and I made an honest attempt to pinpoint exactly where I disagree with you. If you don't wish to respond, then that is your perogative.

[Goliath]

If you don't wish to respond, then that is your perogative.

What would be the point of responding?

[godfry n. glad]

Hey, if seebs is the second theist to moderate at IIDB, who is the first?

godfry

...and please don't link me to II - I can't link. I don't want to link.

[viscousmemories]

I heard a rumor it was a Wiccan person a long time ago or something.

[livius drusus]

I just remembered who I was thinking of. tangiellis briefly moderated PD and/or MD and lists her beliefs as: "I am a Pagan (solitary witch) who has incorporated philosophy and Buddhist thought to find inner peace."

I want to say there has been someone else too, and I get the feeling seebs didn't mean tangie. :shrug:

[Petra]

Nah, what does it matter to you, JoeP? Why not just act as though I openly hate seebs and have threatened his life repeatedly? Sure, it's not true, but it would be more fun, now wouldn't it?

And as for you, luna, sure...why not act as though I'm advocating the taking away of suffrage for all xians. It'd be more entertaining than actually listening to a single fucking thing that I've had to say, woudn't it?

Not only am I deeply insulted (especially by you, luna), but I'm wondering why I even bother trying to communicate with any of you in the first place.

Edited to say: You know, you probably wouldn't believe the amount of restraint that I had whilst composing my first reply in this thread...but no amount of restraint seems to be enough. Why bother trying?


Right, Goliath. We must all listen to every single fucking thing you say, but you don't listen back. You just shout and scream and rant and throw tantrums with your mind as tightly closed as possible.

I see nothing different with the histrionic comment "sickeningly pro-xian" and the attitude of those that put the epicene women poster in their shop windows. The fucking sky is not falling down because a (very liberal) Christian is made a mod at IIDB.

Grow up, Goliath.

[Petra]

Isn't Jobar a pantheist, or something?

[Ensign Steve]

Hey, if seebs is the second theist to moderate at IIDB, who is the first?

godfry

...and please don't link me to II - I can't link. I don't want to link.

Yeah, I'm still wondering the same thing.

[Goliath]

Right, Goliath. We must all listen to every single fucking thing you say,



Must? Oh, most certainly not.

but you don't listen back.

I most certainly do, or I wouldn't be replying right now.



You just shout and scream and rant and throw tantrums with your mind as tightly closed as possible.



Yeah, like accusing people of trying to deny xians the right to vote...oh wait, that's you.



I see nothing different with the histrionic comment "sickeningly pro-xian" and the attitude of those that put the epicene women poster in their shop windows.



How about this: I do not wish to deny anyone the right to vote.

Grow up, Goliath.

Right back at ya.

[seebs]

1. Seebs is a dishonest, hypocritical asshole.

In what way?

I'd have to cede the point on that one. I'll answer to all three of those. Maybe not all the time, but... Yeah.

I have every confidence that seebs will not involve in any way his Christian belief in moderating his forum.

Actually, this is not entirely true. First off, humans are biased by nature; someone mocking Christian beliefs will probably offend me more than they'd offend one of the atheist mods (and vice versa). I think this will mostly be useful, though, as I may be able to call attention to insults that would have been missed by other staff.

Secondly, my beliefs have a great deal of influence on how I deal with things. For instance, my response to flames is different from what it might be if I weren't Christian.

Now, obviously, I think these changes are improvements in how I do things. I think they make me a better moderator. But... I think it's true that my beliefs will influence how I do things.

What I don't see is how this is any different from the way in which the beliefs of the non-theist moderators influence how they do things. There are non-theist pacifists, non-theists who believe in disproportionate retribution, and just about everything else. Each of these views will also influence how someone moderates. What's the problem?

[seebs]

Isn't Jobar a pantheist, or something?

Yes, but also not currently a moderator.

Apparently, "Nice Squirrel" (I'm unsure of spelling and caps) is another Christian moderator.

[godfry n. glad]

1. Seebs is a dishonest, hypocritical asshole.

In what way?

I'd have to cede the point on that one. I'll answer to all three of those. Maybe not all the time, but... Yeah.



Do tell. :popcorn: Can you wait 'til I make some more popcorn?

godfry

[livius drusus]

Isn't Jobar a pantheist, or something?

Yes, but also not currently a moderator.

Allah akbar.

Apparently, "Nice Squirrel" (I'm unsure of spelling and caps) is another Christian moderator.

Nice Squirrel is a Christian? I had no idea. That whole squirrel persona thing makes it pretty obscure, I think. Cool. PD could use a little cheek turning.

[maddog]

Was Cynthia of Syracuse a moderator? Was she Christian also? The name sounds it, although of course names don't necessarily mean anything. I don't remember (and of course haven't bothered to look it up).
#195

[livius drusus]

She's a mod, maddog, but not a Christian. Her profile has her as a "Pagan atheist." The day they have a Christian mod in GRD will be a toasty day indeed.

:mob:

[seebs]

I simply do not understand seeb's motives for wanting to be a mod at IIDB.

I'm mostly power-mad.

Seriously, though... I think IIDB's moderation, while better than CF's, is hampered by a lack of diversity of perspective sometimes. I think IIDB would do a better job of many of its goals if more of the staff were more likely to notice inappropriate behavior directed at theists.

That, and... I dunno. I like to contribute to communities I participate in.

[viscousmemories]

1. Seebs is a dishonest, hypocritical asshole.
In what way?
I'd have to cede the point on that one. I'll answer to all three of those. Maybe not all the time, but... Yeah.
Uh-oh, a mod whose shit stinks? This doesn't bode well...

[seebs]

Do tell. :popcorn: Can you wait 'til I make some more popcorn?

Dishonest... It's not as obvious as it used to be, but just the other day, I caught myself overclaiming, and didn't bother correcting it 'cuz I was in the middle of a complicated dealie with a Qwest phone rep about a company charging spurious long distance to lots of Qwest customers. I'm a lot better about that kind of thing than I used to be. I have liar's instincts, but disapprove of lying, so I try to not do it, and to correct it when I do. I used to be one of those people who just says whatever's most useful, true or false. Worse, I was very good at it, and I come across as very sincere.

Hypocritical... Well, for an obvious example, I'm a fairly jealous sort, but there's a cute college girl who sometimes sleeps in my bed. (And yes, I really do mean sleeps.) Similarly, I expect people to be tolerant of my personal headbugs, but I'm not very good about coping with Beloved Spouse's bipolar and ADD traits. So, for instance, if I'm working, and she waits quietly for me to be done, I snap at her for hovering, but when she's working, I wait quietly for her to be done, and get angry if she's not polite about it. We have the exact same problem; hovering bugs us both. I'm just hypocritical about it.

Asshole... I mostly have this suppressed, but I love flaming people, I love to pick fights... I'm just plain confrontational and mean. I absolutely adore excuses to really unload on people. I think it's morally wrong, so I generally don't do it... But that doesn't change my temperament.

[maddog]

1. Seebs is a dishonest, hypocritical asshole.

In what way?

I'd have to cede the point on that one. I'll answer to all three of those. Maybe not all the time, but... Yeah.
Is this one of those -- because I am a human being with faults, and those faults necessarily (as w/ all human beings) include instances of dishonesty, hypocrisy and being a jerk, then, yes, I plead guilty to (in essence) having human faults -- admissions?

I have every confidence that seebs will not involve in any way his Christian belief in moderating his forum.

Actually, this is not entirely true.Is this an instance of taking the pat-on-the-back too literally? I.e., as a "truth statement" that one can remain uninfluenced by one's core beliefs? I think, rather, that the endorsement was one of faith in seebs's commitment to utmost fairness, all the while knowing that one's core beliefs, biases and influences cannot be wholly shaken off. First off, humans are biased by nature; someone mocking Christian beliefs will probably offend me more than they'd offend one of the atheist mods (and vice versa). I think this will mostly be useful, though, as I may be able to call attention to insults that would have been missed by other staff.

Secondly, my beliefs have a great deal of influence on how I deal with things. For instance, my response to flames is different from what it might be if I weren't Christian.
Seebs: I agree wholeheartedly with your "in the first place" statement, but disagree strongly with your "for instance" in the "in the second place" statement. IOW, this is, to me, one of those places where the label "Christian" obscures rather than elucidates. I venture to say that YOUR response to flames would be THE SAME whether YOU were "Christian" or not; the difference in how one responds to flames has, IMO, much more to do with empathy, kindness, anger, and other emotions. Thus, I believe that a more accurate statement would be, "my response to flames is different from what it might be if I weren't committed to kindness, or as empathetic as I presently am, or if I hadn't understood as much about emotions as I do now." IOW, from my point of view, a person's "response to flames" has much more to do with emotional maturity than with being Christian or not. I understand that having been involved in your Christian experiences may have been the mechanism that brought you to this position of emotional equanimity, but it's emotional equanimity, not being a Christian, that counts in how one responds to flames.

Now, obviously, I think these changes are improvements in how I do things. I think they make me a better moderator. But... I think it's true that my beliefs will influence how I do things.

What I don't see is how this is any different from the way in which the beliefs of the non-theist moderators influence how they do things. There are non-theist pacifists, non-theists who believe in disproportionate retribution, and just about everything else. Each of these views will also influence how someone moderates. What's the problem?Yes, this is essentially the "positivist" analysis, which makes sense to me. OTOH, even though this is a human endeavor, undertaken by beings with inherent subjectivities, we aspire to being as objective as possible in the conduct of these particular affairs. Yes, it's impossible to lay aside one's values and beliefs entirely. But if one of those values and beliefs, w/r/t the task at hand, is that objectivity is a good thing, then I trust you, as well as I would trust anybody, to do as well at fulfilling that value as it is possible for anyone to do, under the same or similar circumstances.
#196

[seebs]

Is this one of those -- because I am a human being with faults, and those faults necessarily (as w/ all human beings) include instances of dishonesty, hypocrisy and being a jerk, then, yes, I plead guilty to (in essence) having human faults -- admissions?

I dunno. I'd say I'm more of an asshole than most people I know. I actually act fairly nice, but I'm well aware that this is a conscious decision, not my temperament. I still hate people, and I still generally see them as maps of vulnerabilities and things I could use against them. I'm not particularly nice.

Is this an instance of taking the pat-on-the-back too literally? I.e., as a "truth statement" that one can remain uninfluenced by one's core beliefs? I think, rather, that the endorsement was one of faith in seebs's commitment to utmost fairness, all the while knowing that one's core beliefs, biases and influences cannot be wholly shaken off.

It may be. My counter to my natural dishonesty is willful pedantry. It's a fairly naive view of what truth is, but... It's one I can work with.

Seebs: I agree wholeheartedly with your "in the first place" statement, but disagree strongly with your "for instance" in the "in the second place" statement. IOW, this is, to me, one of those places where the label "Christian" obscures rather than elucidates. I venture to say that YOUR response to flames would be THE SAME whether YOU were "Christian" or not; the difference in how one responds to flames has, IMO, much more to do with empathy, kindness, anger, and other emotions.

Ahh, but see above. I love fights, and I love flamewars. They make me feel smart and competent. I accept teachings against them, and I am convinced of the truth of these teachings, but I have tons of very convincing excuses for why it's okay to flame people, which I would probably still be using if I were not convinced against them... But in this case, I don't think the arguments are quite as strong without the specific example of the one arguing them.

I understand that having been involved in your Christian experiences may have been the mechanism that brought you to this position of emotional equanimity, but it's emotional equanimity, not being a Christian, that counts in how one responds to flames.

In this case, though, my emotions don't reflect my beliefs; I have to decide to follow these patterns, even though I'm still fairly angry. (Not, thank God, as angry as I used to be.)

[Dragar]

seebs, what the hell is the difference?

You seem to say, "I'm not a nice person, because it takes conscious effort for me to be nice."

Hello? Your conscious effort is a part of you too! That's you, being nice, right there. And you'll probably blush and act all modest, or you'll think up some witty flame against me and then (due to 'counscious effort' no doubt) supress it and then claim the fact you thought up the flame proves you're not nice, all the while ignoring the fact that your conscious effor demonstrates that, where it counts, you are.

Sorry if this is coming across as harsh, but you keep beating yourself up over this, and it pains me to watch you do it.

[viscousmemories]

Hey that's an excellent point, Dragar. I guess I'm not half the asshole I thought I was. :D

[Dragar]

Don't let it go to your head. :P

[Dingfod]

What about people like me that would have to really really try hard to be mean? Oh, nevermind, don't answer that, I already know there aren't any people like me.

[Ensign Steve]

So it's okay for me to hate everybody I meet and wish horrible painful deaths to befall them and their loved ones, as long as I don't say it or act upon it? Hmmm... good to know! ;)

[seebs]

seebs, what the hell is the difference?

An interesting point.

You seem to say, "I'm not a nice person, because it takes conscious effort for me to be nice."

To do nice things, anyway.

Hello? Your conscious effort is a part of you too! That's you, being nice, right there. And you'll probably blush and act all modest, or you'll think up some witty flame against me and then (due to 'counscious effort' no doubt) supress it and then claim the fact you thought up the flame proves you're not nice, all the while ignoring the fact that your conscious effor demonstrates that, where it counts, you are.

Ahh, that's the thing. I think both aspects count. One is what kind of person I am, and one is what sort of person I choose to be, or am becoming... But even my "nature" is probably at least partially the result of earlier choices.

So, I grant that it's also usefully true that I'm a fairly nice person. People keep saying it... But it's not the whole story.

Sorry if this is coming across as harsh, but you keep beating yourself up over this, and it pains me to watch you do it.

Ahh, that's part of the thing. I'm not particularly beating myself up. Why bother? I've identified a problem, and I'm solving it.

However... if I forget that the problem was there in the first place, it will likely start getting worse instead of better. Furthermore, it might make me a lot more arrogant (something I don't need), and make me less capable of understanding people who are still wrestling with such things.

[maddog]

seebs, what the hell is the difference?

An interesting point.

You seem to say, "I'm not a nice person, because it takes conscious effort for me to be nice."

To do nice things, anyway. [editorial insertion by maddog: see? this is what I mean. AS IF it wasn't an effort for EVERYONE to become "civilized" and to recognize and to do nice things!! /end editorial insertion]

Hello? Your conscious effort is a part of you too! That's you, being nice, right there. And you'll probably blush and act all modest, or you'll think up some witty flame against me and then (due to 'counscious effort' no doubt) supress it and then claim the fact you thought up the flame proves you're not nice, all the while ignoring the fact that your conscious effor demonstrates that, where it counts, you are.

Ahh, that's the thing. I think both aspects count. One is what kind of person I am, and one is what sort of person I choose to be, or am becoming... But even my "nature" is probably at least partially the result of earlier choices.

So, I grant that it's also usefully true that I'm a fairly nice person. People keep saying it... But it's not the whole story.

Sorry if this is coming across as harsh, but you keep beating yourself up over this, and it pains me to watch you do it.

Ahh, that's part of the thing. I'm not particularly beating myself up. Why bother? I've identified a problem, and I'm solving it.

However... if I forget that the problem was there in the first place, it will likely start getting worse instead of better. Furthermore, it might make me a lot more arrogant (something I don't need), and make me less capable of understanding people who are still wrestling with such things.

Again, seebs, to me this is another place where imprecision of language is causing trouble. You seem to think, "I am not a nice person," as if this were somehow an immutable characteristic ["what kind of person I am"], and that what you DO -- you ARE nice toward people "doesn't count" somehow because what you DO isn't exactly always what you FEEL. There is something to be said for the point of view that what you DO is what you "are." IOW, if you DO nice things, then you ARE a nice person, despite your claims to the contrary.

In addition, there's this kind of immutability notion, as if what you ARE never changes. You say "I am not a nice person" as if that can never change. You resist people telling you that you ARE a nice person, because you know that you don't always act that way, i.e., it isn't a "permanent" condition. David K. Reynolds has something to say about "Sometimes this, sometimes that." IOW, there is no "I am" which never changes. Yes, SOMETIMES you might not be a nice person, but SOMETIMES you ARE. AND, you are a person who holds the value that treating others with kindness is a good thing. And you use many instances in your life to practice that. And you have certain feelings (anger, for example) which, sometimes, you act on, and sometimes, you don't. What you FEEL is divorced from WHAT YOU DO. You can DO something even if you don't FEEL LIKE it.

You have decided, for whatever reasons (most of which, I would argue, are social) that it is better to behave toward others in a certain way, most of the time, than it is to behave in a different way. Let's say you FEEL angry at someone, and you FEEL that you might LIKE to insult him/her, but that what you DO is to continue to speak politely and respectfully to this person. Does your FEELING mean you are a "bad/not nice person"? Not at all; it simply means you had a feeling, pretty much like most human beings. so what? So you ACTED a certain way, even if you didn't FEEL LIKE it. Does that make you a "good person"? No. It simply means you did a certain act, pretty much like most people. So what?

You are trying too hard to hold onto the notion that your core nature is immutable and bad. No. You are sometimes one way, and sometimes another. You are using your consciousness and will and effort to exercise certain behaviors that you have decided are desirable. That sounds to me pretty much like you are working on becoming more mature.

I am probably saying this badly, but I hope you can get the gist of what I mean.

#201

[seebs]

To do nice things, anyway. [editorial insertion by maddog: see? this is what I mean. AS IF it wasn't an effort for EVERYONE to become "civilized" and to recognize and to do nice things!! /end editorial insertion]

I have no idea. Maybe it is hard for them. Some people report that it's very easy. I don't know.

Again, seebs, to me this is another place where imprecision of language is causing trouble. You seem to think, "I am not a nice person," as if this were somehow an immutable characteristic ["what kind of person I am"], and that what you DO -- you ARE nice toward people "doesn't count" somehow because what you DO isn't exactly always what you FEEL. There is something to be said for the point of view that what you DO is what you "are." IOW, if you DO nice things, then you ARE a nice person, despite your claims to the contrary.

Hmm.

Separate out "immutable" and "characteristic". I believe that my nature can change, and indeed, it is changing; I'm a lot nicer now than I used to be. But I still think my nature is what I am, and that it counts; not for everything, but for the question "are you nice?"

I see it sort of like sexuality. There's a distinction between the question of which desires you experience and how you act on them. It's useful to have distinct words for nature and action, because this gives you something particularly important; it gives you some idea of what the conscious choices are.

In some ways, I like assholes who are trying to be nice better than I like nice people who aren't really trying. But both data points matter. (Note that there's three different parts; there's nature, there's action, and there's the difference between them. But knowing any two tells you the other one.)

In addition, there's this kind of immutability notion, as if what you ARE never changes. You say "I am not a nice person" as if that can never change.

Oh, I think it can. Maybe it will. I hope so; I'm certainly trying to change it.

Right now, for instance, I'd say I'm a pretty good spouse. A couple of years ago, I would have said I wasn't. (And my spouse would have agreed, I think.)

AND, you are a person who holds the value that treating others with kindness is a good thing. And you use many instances in your life to practice that. And you have certain feelings (anger, for example) which, sometimes, you act on, and sometimes, you don't. What you FEEL is divorced from WHAT YOU DO. You can DO something even if you don't FEEL LIKE it.

And curiously, over time, your feelings tend to align to these choices.

You are trying too hard to hold onto the notion that your core nature is immutable and bad. No. You are sometimes one way, and sometimes another. You are using your consciousness and will and effort to exercise certain behaviors that you have decided are desirable. That sounds to me pretty much like you are working on becoming more mature.

I don't think I'm arguing that it's immutable. I'm not even sure about "bad". Just not particularly nice.

But... If the question is whether or not someone could fairly call me an asshole, I think the answer is probably still "yes". I may later change enough that I no longer feel this way, but right now, I think it's a fair cop. I'm still doing my time on that one.

[TomJoe]

Seebs just isn't happy if he isn't lording over somebody. ;)

Congratulations Seebs.

[livius drusus]

Talk about woot. Nice to see you here, Tom. :yup:

[TomJoe]

Talk about woot. Nice to see you here, Tom. :yup:

Thank you. :)

Hopefully I'll be able to make some contributions... perhaps even a couple worthwhile ones. :)

[livius drusus]

Now, now... Don't lets be hasty. I'd hate to see you hurt yourself. :giggle:

[TomJoe]

Now, now... Don't lets be hasty. I'd hate to see you hurt yourself. :giggle:

Good advice. I wouldn't want to overextend my brain cell. :D

[viscousmemories]

:welcome: to the FF, TomJoe.

[Sweetie]

In some ways, I like assholes who are trying to be nice better than I like nice people who aren't really trying. But both data points matter.

I prefer honest assholes to superficial and ungenuine nice people but I think there's usually a happy medium. If one is a tempremental jerk, somewhat like me :P , then there is the grace of the hostess to be learned. I always admired grace, social graces, just have to try at them and then they make me feel ungenuine but then the hostess needs to learn to be honest sometimes too, there is room for honest anger and honest hurt feelings, etc. We can have the best of both worlds!

[TomJoe]

:welcome: to the FF, TomJoe.

Thank you, viscousmemories. :)

[JoeP]

If you want a board where people of other views don't get a say, remember there is still heathen hangout. What does that lack to be a good board for atheists?High minded discourse? Upper level fora? Standards?

Hell, at least a third of the admin/mods at HH aren't worth a tinker's damn. I'll not say who, but his initials are Warren.

The hell with that, we've got nekkid pics.
Those atheists are hard to please, aren't they?

[JoeP]

:wtfsign: What's happened to this thread? Now we're all trying to prove how nice seebs is? (Not that he isn't. A nicer dishonest, hypocritical asshole I couldn't hope to meet.) And saying hi to newbies (:hiya: TomJoe).

It was more fun with the fists flying. :jerry:

I declare this thread closed. Congrats, seebs. :sadcheer:

[Ronin]

What is the world coming to:

Seebs promoted to a supervisory role in the city of Infidels and I'm promoted likewise in the city of Christians!!

Oh, hey look..

:pigfly:

congrats, seebs, you'll be great

[Petra]

Oh, hey look..

:pigfly:



They give you guys wings now?




/me ducks and runs

[Ronin]

Yeah heh...that's right...run.

Bawk Bock Bawk

[Petra]

Ha! Argumentum Bantamumum. The fallacy of assigning chickenish thought to an opponent's smart actions.


I'll just keep running, if you don't mind.

:runwolf:

[Ronin]

You're looking a bit sluggish there...too much pasta perhaps?

Wow...look at the time.

:runaway:

[Brimshack]

Welcome to the board nyj/TomJoe

[Petra]

:glare:



Does my arse really wobble when I run? ....I should change these jeans, eh.

[Petra]

Welcome to the board nyj/TomJoe

TomJoe is nyj?

Really?

[viscousmemories]

So says his/her profile. :yup:

[Petra]

I hardly ever look at people's profiles. :blush:


I'da never guessed, though.


I don't have to start behaving myself or anything, do I? :eek:

[LadyShea]

Hmm, nyj is one of the few CF mods I liked IIRC.

[Petra]

Hmm, nyj is one of the few CF mods I liked IIRC.

I liked him sometimes, and not at other times.


I am surprised, though. Don't get me wrong, I'm not unhappy about it or anything. Just surprised. :shrug:

[godfry n. glad]

Seebs just isn't happy if he isn't lording over somebody. ;)



Ahem...isn't that "Lording"?

godfry

:D

[Brimshack]

:glare:



Does my arse really wobble when I run? ....I should change these jeans, eh.


Anyway...




Oink, oink. :piglet2:


We'll need to do some more research on the effects of locomotion on your ass. Could you just move around a little more while we stare at your butt? That'd be really cool.

[Mustaphile]

In this case, though, my emotions don't reflect my beliefs; I have to decide to follow these patterns, even though I'm still fairly angry. (Not, thank God, as angry as I used to be.)

I know what your talking about Seebs. ;)

We all deal with our 'personal demons', so to speak. That's the way I look at it anyway.

[livius drusus]

Me too. Welcome to FF, Mustaphile. :welcome2:

[TomJoe]

Thanks for the invites everyone ( even those who are surprised :P ) and a welcome to Mustaphile too. Also, I wouldn't think anyone would have to start behaving any more or any less now that I'm here. Seebs may demand such changes in behavior, but not me.

PS: Dogs are better than cats. :cool:

[godfry n. glad]

PS: Dogs are better than cats. :cool:

I haven't tasted any cats, so I can't say. Seems like an arbitrary assertion, though.

[TomJoe]

I haven't tasted any cats, so I can't say. Seems like an arbitrary assertion, though.

Definitely not arbitrary. I base my conclusions on empirical evidence... just ask Brimshack. (Ok, it's a lame reference to a discussion held long ago at CF).

On a sidenote, funny that you mention never tasting cats. People always get grossed out by the fact that I say that I would have no problem, at least trying, dog or cat or even this new genetically altered guinea pig that they're making in Peru. After eating snail, frog, snake, alligator and conch... what's a german shepherd, tabby cat or two?

[livius drusus]

Genetically altered guinea pig? Altered how, exactly? Is it like a guard pig or something? That would kick ass. Would you eat the normal kind?

[Ms.Babylon]

Congratulations Seebs and Hello Tom! (yes, I know you) :yup:

Dang, I joined this site last July and only have VIII posts. That's sad for someone who doesn't know when to shutup.

[livius drusus]

Very sad. Particularly since your avatar is so sexy. In fact, shouldn't you be spreading it around indiscrimately?

[Ms.Babylon]

I think you are right, Livius! Spread the love.

I love to say your name...Livius Drusus...it just rolls off the tongue.

Livius Drusus! See, I can't stop saying it now.

[viscousmemories]

psst: she hates it when you capitalize her name... just fyi.

[TomJoe]

Genetically altered guinea pig? Altered how, exactly? Is it like a guard pig or something? That would kick ass. Would you eat the normal kind?

It has a much larger muscle mass than the average guinea pig, weighing (I believe) at least a couple of pounds more. I'm not sure how it's been altered, but I do not believe it was simply bred to be larger... I think they actually tinkered with it a bit (but for some reason I can no longer find the article... I'd be amazed if I simply made this whole thing up.)

Supposedly, in Peru, guinea pig is the major source of meat.

Would I eat the normal kind? I heard it's a lot of work to get the meat off the bone with your average, domesticated guinea pig... but sure, I'd try it. Now, if this "New and Improved!" guinea pig ever hit the US markets and was cheaper than chicken... I'd eat it at least once a week.

[Ms.Babylon]

Oops
livius drusus

[livius drusus]

Yeah! You'd better watch it or I'll start casting aspersions on your promiscuous sexual history.

Oh wait...

:giggle:

[Ex-zombie]

psst: she hates it when you capitalize her name... just fyi.

She hates that huh? Good morning Livius Drusus.


Do you think she will spank me now?

[TomJoe]

Guinea pig happens to be Number 32 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/tv_and_radio/50eats35.shtml) on the BBC's "50 things to eat before you die" list. I think I could stomach 49 of them on a regular basis.

[livius drusus]

It has a much larger muscle mass than the average guinea pig, weighing (I believe) at least a couple of pounds more. I'm not sure how it's been altered, but I do not believe it was simply bred to be larger... I think they actually tinkered with it a bit (but for some reason I can no longer read the article... I'd be amazed if I simply made this whole thing up.)

I'll look around and see if I can find anything on the subject, but so far they sound adorable. I want giant brawny pigs! Now now now now now!

Supposedly, in Peru, guinea pig is the major source of meat.

I've heard the same, mainly from the nice folks at the Heifer Project (http://www.heifer.org/), only for some reason they describe it as "adding much-needed protein to their diets" instead of "we send them cute fluffy guinea pigs so they can eat them".

Would I eat the normal kind? I heard it's a lot of work to get enough meat off the bone with your average, domesticated guinea pig... but sure, I'd try it.

If the Andeans can do it, I'm pretty sure you can too. Besides, it can't be any worse than negotiating roasted Cornish Game Hens.

Now, if this "New and Improved!" guinea pig ever hit the US markets and was cheaper than chicken... I'd eat it at least once a week.

Eep. :oyvey:

[Ms.Babylon]

Guinea pigs?!

Can't eat something that I've had as a pet.

[godfry n. glad]

I haven't tasted any cats, so I can't say. Seems like an arbitrary assertion, though.

Definitely not arbitrary. I base my conclusions on empirical evidence... just ask Brimshack. (Ok, it's a lame reference to a discussion held long ago at CF).

On a sidenote, funny that you mention never tasting cats. People always get grossed out by the fact that I say that I would have no problem, at least trying, dog or cat or even this new genetically altered guinea pig that they're making in Peru. After eating snail, frog, snake, alligator and conch... what's a german shepherd, tabby cat or two?

Well, to be honest, I've never tasted dog, either. I have been in a society that sees no problem in eating either. I understand that Chinese soldiers used to go to war with a dog on a leash....not a pet; K-rations.

As for "empirical evidence", what do you have?

godfry

[viscousmemories]

Peruvians get through something like 22 million of the fluffy rodents annually, which are said to taste of rabbit and have less fat and more protein than chicken, pork or red meat.
:eek: :vomit:

[livius drusus]

Do you think she will spank me now?

Yes. Yes she will. But first she's going to slap you around a little. :slapface:

[TomJoe]

If the Andeans can do it, I'm pretty sure you can too. Besides, it can't be any worse than negotiating roasted Cornish Game Hens.


Very true... I imagine the same holds for guinea pigs as it does squirrel and rabbit (which I've also eaten). :eat:

Eep. :oyvey:

Yep, I imagine I'm every PETA members nightmare. :D

[TomJoe]

As for "empirical evidence", what do you have?


When is the last time you saw a cat sniff out cancer in a cancer patient? :)

Yah, brimshack got on my case for equating utility with better.

[viscousmemories]

I've never really thought about it like this, but it occurs to me that eating small animals disturbs me specifically because you have to pick and tear and nibble at it. For some reason that just feels more barbaric than eating chicken, beef, or other large chunks of meat. I think that's why I haven't been able to enjoy cornish hens, rabbit, frogs legs, or the dim sum special: chicken feet. I had horse when I was in Belgium, though. It was served lunchmeat-style, just like beef or turkey is in the States.

[godfry n. glad]

As for "empirical evidence", what do you have?


When is the last time you saw a cat sniff out cancer in a cancer patient? :)

Yah, brimshack got on my case for equating utility with better.


Don't know as I have. How do you know you haven't? If they did, would they tell you?

Just out of interest, is it testicular cancer that dogs are good at "sniffing out", or all types? How do they do this? Do all dogs have this ability?

godfry

[TomJoe]

I wonder if guinea pig would work well as a soup.

[Dingfod]

I've heard the same, mainly from the nice folks at the Heifer Project (http://www.heifer.org/), only for some reason they describe it as "adding much-needed protein to their diets" instead of "we send them cute fluffy guinea pigs so they can eat them". My uncle works for those folks at Heifer Ranch (http://www.heifer.org/Get_Involved/Learning_Centers/Heifer_Ranch/Index.shtml).

[wei yau]

I've never really thought about it like this, but it occurs to me that eating small animals disturbs me specifically because you have to pick and tear and nibble at it. For some reason that just feels more barbaric than eating chicken, beef, or other large chunks of meat.

I once had cabrito at Rio Grande. It's grilled baby goat. I was served a haunch portion and as I began to tear at it, I realized it was roughly the size of my dog. If I ever cooked-up Bailey, she would look a lot like what was on my plate before me.

I finished it, but didn't feel too good afterwards.

[livius drusus]

My uncle works for those folks at Heifer Ranch (http://www.heifer.org/Get_Involved/Learning_Centers/Heifer_Ranch/Index.shtml).
That's totally cool, Warren. I'm a big Heifer Project fan.

[Dingfod]

My uncle works for those folks at Heifer Ranch (http://www.heifer.org/Get_Involved/Learning_Centers/Heifer_Ranch/Index.shtml).
That's totally cool, Warren. I'm a big Heifer Project fan.Uncle Bob is retired. He works as their equipment manager in exchange for living quarters on the ranch. I've been a fan of their work since I first heard about it two years ago.

[Ymir's blood]

psst: she hates it when you capitalize her name... just fyi.
Hmmm.... :innocent:

[Brimshack]

PS: Dogs are better than cats. :cool:

...and still you cling to these depraved illusions? I had hoped after all this time that perhaps the wounds of your fragile sould had healed, and that you might yet come to embrace the truth of this matter. As it stands Junkie and Fido will forgive your errors, though I don't know that I ever will.

Bad man!

[Brimshack]

As for "empirical evidence", what do you have?


When is the last time you saw a cat sniff out cancer in a cancer patient? :)

Yah, brimshack got on my case for equating utility with better.

Yes, cats know better than to submit themselves to the needs of a lesser species. We live to serve them, not the other way around. Fluffy may mourn the loss of a pet human once in awhile, if ever so briefly, but she leaves us to out own fate. If we want to stay healthy, she figures we can sniff our own asses.