Seebs, Economist, both endorse Kerry.

[seebs]

The Economist endorsed Kerry. (http://www.seebs.net/log/archives/000227.html)

I did too. (http://www.seebs.net/log/archives/000226.html)

Sort of interesting; I've written before about the POW thing, and I think it's interesting that it's such a high priority in discussions of this by some people, while many Republicans think it's no issue at all: For instance, these people think it's awesome. (http://www.christianforums.com/t997644-powsenemy-combatants.html)

[Socratoad]

Seebs, unless my browser is not rendering correctly, methinks you posted the interface to your own acct. at movable type .... I can't get in.

However I certainly am pleased. An endorsement from the economist is no small potatoes :yup:

[beyelzu]

I get nothing from any of your links either.

[seebs]

Fixed. As guessed, I posted the edit links, not the external ones.

Edit: Of course, I typoed. Again.

[livius drusus]

First link gives me a 404. Oops. Not anymore. :)

[beyelzu]

wow seebs


"This administration, which claims to be fighting for justice, the rule of law and liberty, is incarcerating hundreds of people, whether innocent or guilty, without trial or access to legal representation. The White House's proposed remedy, namely military tribunals, merely compounds the problem."

that is some good shit.

[beyelzu]

damn, seebs


As a Christian, I cannot possibly vote for a man who makes a mockery of my faith. As a believer in secular government, I cannot possibly vote for a man who is trying so hard to make his personal take on religion a part of the government I have to live under.

In short... I'd rather vote for a dog than vote for Kerry, but I'd rather vote for the decaying corpse of a squid than Bush.


I like your take on Bush's religious view, I wonder if other christians do.

[seebs]

The Economist article is wonderful. I've been arguing about the POW camp for a while, and the "oh, it's not a problem" responses I've gotten from Republicans at ChristianForums, quite frankly, disgust me.

[Socratoad]

Great stuff both from you and the economist

Thanks Seebs, this agnostic wishes to salute a fellow humanitarian. It sure is comforting to know that caring people can hold different beliefs and yet all be united in empathy :bow: :bow:

[livius drusus]

The Economist article is wonderful. I've been arguing about the POW camp for a while, and the "oh, it's not a problem" responses I've gotten from Republicans at ChristianForums, quite frankly, disgust me.
If the CF thread is anything to go by, I can see why. Your posts on it, btw, are excellent, particularly the ones to brewmama which lay the issues out just as well as The Economist has.

[seebs]

Honestly, anywhere but CF, I'd be asking brewmama why the FUCK she has that little cross icon, if she doesn't believe in anything Jesus ever said.

It's mild exaggeration, but... The total lack of concern about injustice is terrifying. We are supposed to oppose injustice all the time, even when it seems hopeless. Not to cheer it on because we can't do anything.

[seebs]

While we're at it:

One of the scariest fucking things I've ever read. (http://www.christianforums.com/t1082927-would-you-talk-to-a-terrorist.html)

WARNING: That's a thread in the "Republican" forum at CF, so non-Republicans can't argue with the genuine evil exposed therein.

But make no mistake; there is true evil there.

[livius drusus]

I just read ThinkAgain's post and I'm going to have to take a break already. It's monstruous.

[seebs]

Here's the scary thing.

With CF's "Nicene Creed Only" definition, you can't call him a non-Christian, but Loki, who isn't sure about supernaturalism, but follows Jesus, is a "non-Christian".

Eww.

[SharonDee]

While we're at it:

One of the scariest fucking things I've ever read. (http://www.christianforums.com/t1082927-would-you-talk-to-a-terrorist.html)
I think I'm going to be ill. :(

Check that; I'm going to be angry. :glare:

No, wait. I'm going to cry. :cry:

Fuckers.

[seebs]

Isn't it terrifying?

[Dingfod]

But, alas, all too common.

[Socratoad]

Geez, its not only very scary over there among those "gentle Christians" its also very disheartening. So many seem to have gained absolutely not one iota of wisdom from the lessons of history ...... as if just one more round of killing will actually help :(

[beyelzu]

I cant go to christian forums for some reason

I cant even see the site

[Goliath]

Okay, seebs, since you seem hellbent on keeping me from posting a comment on your blog, I'll say it here, where you can't censor me:

The phrase "crappy xian" seems to be quite nonsensical. One xian is just as much of a xian as any other xian.

Although I do agree with you that Dubya is a crappy president.

[viscousmemories]

Great posts, seebs. And thanks for the Economist link.

[seebs]

I have no clue what's up with the blog. It looks like it's not accepting ANYTHING right now, and I don't know why.

I have been out of town for a week, but now I'm gonna debug it.

[seebs]

Ah-hah!

Turns out my blog had started censoring the string "tp:".

Which catches just about everything.

So, Goliath, a topic for some consideration: Why did you assume this was specific to you? I don't know if anyone else here has mentioned this, but I know other people have commented on the blog comment filter recently... Others said "there's something wrong with the blog", you said "hellbent on censoring [Goliath]".

Not sure iif this'll help, but you'd expressed some interest in why you're attacked so much; perhaps in some cases you perceive attacks where none are intended.

You may rest assured that I did not block the string "tp:" from all comments and URLs to get at you. :)

[Goliath]

Fuck it...why bother? Whatever I say will probably not be read, anyways...

[seebs]

Actually, I was very curious.

(I also want to know where that "tp:" entry in my blacklist came from. Although it was very effective!)

[Goliath]

Fine, you asked for it.

Why did you assume this was specific to you?

Guess the hell what?! I didn't. Read, god damn it!

[seebs]

Okay, seebs, since you seem hellbent on keeping me from posting a comment on your blog, I'll say it here, where you can't censor me:

Okay, re-reading this, I see ambiguity in it. I interpreted it as being "specific to Goliath" because you said "censor me" rather than "censor opinions", and "keeping me from..." instead of "keeping people from..."

In other words, I interpreted it as specific because it seemed to be phrased that way. I guess I misunderstood it; nevermind!

[Goliath]

Okay, seebs, since you seem hellbent on keeping me from posting a comment on your blog, I'll say it here, where you can't censor me:

Okay, re-reading this, I see ambiguity in it. I interpreted it as being "specific to Goliath" because you said "censor me" rather than "censor opinions", and "keeping me from..." instead of "keeping people from..."

In other words, I interpreted it as specific because it seemed to be phrased that way. I guess I misunderstood it; nevermind!

Nope, you still don't get it. But since you retract your accusation, this isn't worth going into further.

[seebs]

Hmm.

Well, okay, I don't get it... But since you and I have a long history of miscommunications, maybe it would be useful for you to explain it to me, so I better understand the way you communicate in general. There are often subtleties to your use of language that I don't catch.

[Goliath]

If you'll go back and read what I actually said, I said that you seem to be hellbent on keeping me from posting a comment on your blog.

There's nothing subtle about my use of words above. In fact, subtlety is something that I'm downright horrible at.

[seebs]

Okay.

I guess my question, then, is why, to other people, it seemed as though there was a bug in the software, and to you, it seemed like an attempt to keep you from posting.

[Goliath]

I guess my question, then, is why, to other people, it seemed as though there was a bug in the software, and to you, it seemed like an attempt to keep you from posting.

I don't know. How should I know why it seemed that way to other people? I'm not a mind reader.

[xorbie]

Goliath:

Have you considered that perhaps you should make a little bit of effort at communicating with others? You said, and I quote:

Okay, seebs, since you seem hellbent on keeping me from posting a comment on your blog, I'll say it here, where you can't censor me:

Just because you said "seem" doesn't make this less accusatory. If I said, "Goliath seems to be a fucking moron," wouldn't that bother you?

Moreover, I think seebs is wondering why you seemed to jump to the conclusion that he was putting in such effort just to censor you, whereas everyone else seemed to accept the much more reasonable conclusion that there was a software bug of some sorts.

And you can complain that you aren't a mind reader all you like, but it doesn't excuse your lack of attempt to understand why everyone has problems communicating with you. We listen Goliath, we really do. But you don't make it easier on us by coming across as rather accusatory, and always jumping to the worst conclusions - that we all hate you and are out to get you.

[beyelzu]

Okay, seebs, since you seem hellbent on keeping me from posting a comment on your blog, I'll say it here, where you can't censor me:

Okay, re-reading this, I see ambiguity in it. I interpreted it as being "specific to Goliath" because you said "censor me" rather than "censor opinions", and "keeping me from..." instead of "keeping people from..."

In other words, I interpreted it as specific because it seemed to be phrased that way. I guess I misunderstood it; nevermind!

Nope, you still don't get it. But since you retract your accusation, this isn't worth going into further.
I dont see the ambiguity or the accusation.

maybe you, goliath, should be more careful about your phrasing. Instead of backpedalling like mad and pretending that synonyms arent synonyms.

[beyelzu]

In fact, subtlety is something that I'm downright horrible at.

maybe it's your refusal to understand and/or use connotations.

[Goliath]

Have you considered that perhaps you should make a little bit of effort at communicating with others?

I'll have you know that I've put a lot of thought as to how to communicate on this board. But nothing that I seem to say matters.



If I said, "Goliath seems to be a fucking moron," wouldn't that bother you?



No.

You're a student of Mathematics...you should know that words mean things.



Moreover, I think seebs is wondering why you seemed to jump to the conclusion that he was putting in such effort just to censor you,



I jumped to no such conclusion.



whereas everyone else seemed to accept the much more reasonable conclusion that there was a software bug of some sorts.



Again, I have no idea why other people thought what they thought.



And you can complain that you aren't a mind reader all you like, but it doesn't excuse your lack of attempt to understand why everyone has problems communicating with you.



Fuck you. I've put most of the past several days in deep thought about how to communicate with you people, and then you spit in my face like this?!



We listen Goliath, we really do.



Who is this "we" of which you speak?

[Goliath]

In fact, subtlety is something that I'm downright horrible at.

maybe it's your refusal to understand and/or use connotations.

Connotations need not have a thing to do with subtlety.

And I thought you were "done with me" until you get that apology that you'll almost surely never get?

[Goliath]

I dont see the ambiguity or the accusation.

You didn't see the part where seebs accused me of accusing him of purposefully censoring me on his blog?



maybe you, goliath, should be more careful about your phrasing.



I always try to be very careful about my phrasing. Unfortunately, I'm not perfect.



Instead of backpedalling like mad and pretending that synonyms arent synonyms.

Bullshit. I am not backpedaling a single micron, and I stand by my first post in this thread 100%.

[beyelzu]

In fact, subtlety is something that I'm downright horrible at.

maybe it's your refusal to understand and/or use connotations.

Connotations need not have a thing to do with subtlety.

And I thought you were "done with me" until you get that apology that you'll almost surely never get?
this is another of those context things that you fail to understand. I have not, nor will I post in that particular thread until I get that apology. That doesnt mean I wont call you on your bullshit.

[Goliath]

I have not, nor will I post in a thread that is supportive of you until I get that apology.


Ah, my apologies. I misunderstood.



That doesnt mean I wont call you on your bullshit.

I look forward to the day when you actually back up even one of your hostile assertions against me.

[beyelzu]

here is some goliathian bullshit


you got all pissy about the use of the word certain instead of sure.

saying some typical bullshit about misrepresenting whatever.


and yet what do I find at dictionary.com, a sight I think you should use by the way

why look at the first fucking definition

Impossible to doubt or dispute; certain.

looks like sure means certain.

[Goliath]

and yet what do I find at dictionary.com, a sight I think you should use by the way

why look at the first fucking definition

Impossible to doubt or dispute; certain.

looks like sure means certain.

First of all, dictionaries do not dictate definitions, they prescribe usage. No one that I know of irl uses the word "sure" to mean "certain". Not a one.

Secondly, that's not what the first definition on webster.com says...so why should I give a fuck about a definition that an enemy adheres to?

A good try, but next time, try to actually prove that one of your claims about me is correct.

[beyelzu]

and yet what do I find at dictionary.com, a sight I think you should use by the way

why look at the first fucking definition

Impossible to doubt or dispute; certain.

looks like sure means certain.

First of all, dictionaries do not dictate definitions, they prescribe usage. No one that I know of irl uses the word "sure" to mean "certain". Not a one. and yet everyone I know does, so I guess we are at an impass.

Secondly, that's not what the first definition on webster.com says...so why should I give a fuck about a definition that an enemy adheres to?

I dont think of you as my enemy. Irritating yes, enemy no. dictionary.com was the first place I checked, because I know what the word sure means, I was certain that certain would be in the definition of sure. btw, webster includes certain as a fucking synynom of sure, gee I guess they have nothing to do with each other. Mental note, get pissed at the first person that says I am certain when I am actually sure. It would be fucking hilarious if it wasnt the subject of a rant at a wellintentioned poster.


A good try, but next time, try to actually prove that one of your claims about me is correct.


read goddamnit

check out my goliath style.

[Adora]

Just to be totally unfashionable and bring this thread back OT for a bit, if anyone knows: What are Kerry's policies regarding Iraq, Afghanistant, Saudi Arabia and Guantanamo Bay?

[beyelzu]

Just to be totally unfashionable and bring this thread back OT for a bit, if anyone knows: What are Kerry's policies regarding Iraq, Afghanistant, Saudi Arabia and Guantanamo Bay?
damn you for bringing up the op, what were you thinking



:D

It seems to me that kerry hasnt been really firm on the differences between him and bush in concrete terms, I just dont think he can do any more harm and seems likely to do less than bush.

[Socratoad]

If Kerry does not close that damned concentration camp at Guantanamo he will sink lower than a snake's belly in my esteem.

[Goliath]

I dont think of you as my enemy. Irritating yes, enemy no.

So what?



dictionary.com was the first place I checked, because I know what the word sure means, I was certain that certain would be in the definition of sure. btw, webster includes certain as a fucking synynom of sure, gee I guess they have nothing to do with each other. Mental note, get pissed at the first person that says I am certain when I am actually sure. It would be fucking hilarious if it wasnt the subject of a rant at a wellintentioned poster.


Fine. To stop this embarrassing temper-tantrum of yours, I'll let you have this small and inconsequential point. I shouldn't have used the word "sure" when I did (and I will not go back and find the original quote, because Corona is on my ignore list now, and will probably never come off of it).

Feel better now?

[Dingfod]

If Kerry does not close that damned concentration camp at Guantanamo he will sink lower than a snake's belly in my esteem.You got that right. Kerry never was my first choice to run against Bush because he hasn't differentiated himself enough, and even when he has, it was contradictory to an earlier stance (thus the flip-flop charge). Kerry says he'll get the troops out of Iraq in his first term and has hinted about sending more troops into Afghanistank to hunt down al Qaeder. We'll see.

As for Saudi Arabia, don't look for much change, we're still dependent on them keeping the oil valves open. The Saudis could devastate the U.S. economy if they were of a mind to, both by cutting off the oil and by cashing in their investments in the U.S.



Sidebar: Goliath made the very first slot in my very first Ignore list just so I could see what it's like. It's cool. I hope stating this is enough to get on his.

[Goliath]

I hope stating this is enough to get on his.

Nope. I'm puzzled why you'd put me on your ignore list, Warren. I enjoyed your feedback on my "Okay, I'll just up and ask..." thread (unfortunately, soon after, it turned into the usual situation of me having to fend off multiple attackers).

Oh well, you aren't seeing any of this anyway, Warren, but I thought I'd at least give a response that the others can see.

[Dingfod]

Oh, you're not really on my ignore list, I don't believe in them, it destroys thread continuity and I like to know when someone is bad-mouthing me. You mentioned you put Corona688 on Ignore and I was wondering what it was like to not see your posts. It was kind of weird.

[Goliath]

Oh, you're not really on my ignore list, I don't believe in them, it destroys thread continuity and I like to know when someone is bad-mouthing me. You mentioned you put Corona688 on Ignore and I was wondering what it was like to not see your posts. It was kind of weird.

Yeah, you're definitely right about disrupting thread continuity. Anyways, I really mean you no ill will, and I'm honestly sorry that I'm making this board a shittier place for you to post in.

[Dingfod]

Shittier for me to post in? Not possible. These folks are stuck with me, shitty posts and all.

[Petra]

I cant go to christian forums for some reason

I cant even see the site


You've been IP banned by the sounds of it.



American Republican Christians are among the scarier people on the planet, fo' sure. I see little that's different between them and "the terrorists", quite frankly. Ugly, ugly people. As for Brewmama - she's a horrble bitch - prolly wishes she could go back to them good ol' witch burning days so she can get her jollies lighting the fires. *shiver*

[xorbie]

If I said, "Goliath seems to be a fucking moron," wouldn't that bother you?



No.

Well, then I think there's really little hope. At the very least, you should realize that it bothers other people. I think you are really just missing the subtle points here. A candy coated torpedo isn't candy, and saying "you seem to be a fucking moron" is offensive.

You're a student of Mathematics...you should know that words mean things.



Goliath, I think that one day you will understand that Mathematics means very little in the real world. You are a mathematician. I am sure you can grasp the concept of connotation. I am sure you can grasp the concept of people not really meaning what they say.


Moreover, I think seebs is wondering why you seemed to jump to the conclusion that he was putting in such effort just to censor you,

I jumped to no such conclusion.



Perhaps you didn't understand what I said. "I think seebs is wondering why you seemed to jump to the conclusion..."

I never said you jumped to a conclusion, I'm saying that I think seebs thought you were jumping to conclusions. I believe the majority of people on this board who are not you would probably think you were jumping to conclusions. They would also agree you came across in an accusatory manner.



whereas everyone else seemed to accept the much more reasonable conclusion that there was a software bug of some sorts.

Again, I have no idea why other people thought what they thought.

Well I do, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that you can't. They assumed it was a software bug, because software bugs are regularly occuring things, as are human mistakes. Moreover, seebs is someone they know, and not someone they would suspect of trying to censor them on a blog.

So, let's say there are two conclusions. One is that seebs is censoring people. The other is that there is a bug, or that seebs accidently did something.

So now, there are two beliefs: A is that seebs is a generally cool dude who probably wouldn't censor someone. B is that seebs is not such a cool dude, who might censor someone. People with belief A, or people who didn't want to seem accusatory, would probably jumpt to the second conclusion. People with belief B, to the first.

Hopefully I've made it somewhat clearer why it looked like you were being accusatory.

And you can complain that you aren't a mind reader all you like, but it doesn't excuse your lack of attempt to understand why everyone has problems communicating with you.

Fuck you. I've put most of the past several days in deep thought about how to communicate with you people, and then you spit in my face like this?!

I'm sorry if I've offended you, but I think someone as intelligent as you are can tell none of us are mind readers. And yet, again, we tend to be able to communicate better than you. Hopefully I've explained above the general sort of thought process (which is usually not even a consious thing).

We listen Goliath, we really do.

Who is this "we" of which you speak?

The we who are the members of the board (at least some of us.)

[Petra]

Hey, can you guys drop it already?

Please.

:sadcheer:

[JoeP]

Have you considered that perhaps you should make a little bit of effort at communicating with others?

I'll have you know that I've put a lot of thought as to how to communicate on this board. But nothing that I seem to say matters.

Goliath, communication is two way. I believe you put a lot of effort into what you say on this board. I don't believe you put enough effort into understanding what other people mean, what the possible alternative meanings are (ie what is ambiguous in what they say). And I most definitely do not mean you try put more effort in understanding in the way you do now. It seems to anger you and it makes for frustrating threads. Rather, I mean you should step back emotionally and consider that sometimes your first sense of what has been said may be wrong.

joe

[JoeP]

Sorry, luna, I didn't see your plea before not dropping it. I should go back to avoiding replying to any threads that get into this state. :sadcheer: :sadcheer:

[livius drusus]

I'm with luna. If y'all want to discuss Goliath's approach, please do so in his Watering Hole thread instead of here. This derailment (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=890) is way icky.

[livius drusus]

To bring it back around to the topic, has anybody read about Kerry's position on the Guantanamo Bay prisoners? I'm ashamed to say I haven't.

[livius drusus]

I've found this article (http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/25/Opinion/Principles_get_pushed.shtml) on the matter. It doesn't look good. I don't see anything about granting the Guantanamo prisoners POW status and all the rights appertaining thereto. This (http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=guantanamo&x=17&y=10&sp-a=sp1001847f&sp-p=any&sp-f=ISO-8859-1) is the only thing I got from a search on Kerry's site itself, and the only references to the unconstitutional internment of prisoners is in the newspaper endorsements which only castigate Bush's position.

[viscousmemories]

I think it would be political suicide for Kerry to say anything that might be construed as soft on terrorism at this juncture. I think we'll have to wait 'til he's President (if he should succeed) before we find out where he stands on things like POW treatment.

[seebs]

My theory is that Kerry may not improve things, but I am marginally more tolerant of someone merely failing to fix a problem than I am of someone creating a problem and then not fixing it.