Author Topic: a new Island in the Red Sea  (Read 2852 times)

Richard

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: a new Island in the Red Sea
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2012, 03:59:48 AM »
Arthur, have you noticed over the years how many times you have made comments about me like this and addressed them  to someone else? :o

Have you noticed how many times I have responded, and said why don't you address me directly and back up what you are saying? :o :o

I have.  You have never shown much willingness to do that. ::) ::) ::)
What are you trying to provoke?

So go ahead.

Let's discuss my posts in comparison with Robert's and we'll see if there is a case to be made that they are" exactly alike."




 author=ArthurStone link=topic=2322.msg7012#msg7012 date=1325791686]
Denise, haven't you noticed over the years that Richard is EXACTLY LIKE Robert except with opposing opinions.  They both go out of their way to provoke arguments.
 :o   ;)   ::)   :P   :-X  :-X   :-X  :-X   :-X
[/quote]

ArthurStone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1563
  • UCC from the New Light Christian Connection
    • View Profile
    • Christian Connection Info
    • Email
Re: a new Island in the Red Sea
« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2012, 04:33:18 AM »
Perhaps I was trying to help Robert see that his jabbing was no different than yours Richard, and that the two of you should make up and be friends. 

Yes, I find Robert's style of discourse offensive even when I have some agreement with his comments.  Much the same, I find your discorse with you just as exasperating and often just as hopeless even when I want to agree with you on some points.  I have tried discussing this in the past, but neither of you seem to be interested in how your discussions make me feel.  In the end it always seems pointless to presue.

My opinion and feelings are just that and nothing more.  I do not come here to discuss such matters, and I suspect you would rather not as well.  Perhaps you do not see your dialog with Robert as an eye poking contest, but from where I sit, I have a hard time finding any of it edifyling.  Yes, I know that you feel that Robert's opinions need to be challenged because they are often way off target and misdirected.  Did you ever wonder if Robert feels the same way about your comments at times?

I have never shown much willingness to write or debate much more about this because I am sure that it is close to being violation of proper manners and forum rules.  And I know that I have become just as much a jerk by even trying to point out a bit of what I percieve to be truth (that no one wants to hear).

It's so easy to milk a cow. Any jerk can do it.
1) Jesus the only head
2) Christian a sufficient label
3) Unity our purpose
4) The Bible our guide
5) Respect everyone’s right to interpret scripture
6) Christian character a sufficient test
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/people/jburnett.html

Richard

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: a new Island in the Red Sea
« Reply #32 on: January 06, 2012, 06:55:23 AM »
Perhaps I was trying to help Robert see that his jabbing was no different than yours Richard, and that the two of you should make up and be friends. 
Perhaps it would be better to address your comments about Robert to Robert, and your comments about me, to me.
 In either case, you should expect a response.
Generally, I suggest that it is better for all concerned in a discussion forum not to make comments that you aren't willing to discuss.

Quote
Yes, I find Robert's style of discourse offensive even when I have some agreement with his comments.  Much the same, I find your discorse with you just as exasperating and often just as hopeless even when I want to agree with you on some points.  I have tried discussing this in the past, but neither of you seem to be interested in how your discussions make me feel.  In the end it always seems pointless to presue.

I don't know when you think you've pursued, let alone had much of any discourse with me.  My recollection is more like fleeing from it. I really can't spend much time wondering how people who won't and don't engage in a discussion feel about it. That would be a rather impossible pursuit. How much time have you spent showing any interest in how I feel about your comments here?

Of course, Robert's style, is, of course, offensive, and exasperating. Yes, of course, it needs to be challenged.
Lot's of "agreement"" Lot's of people have said that.

So, go ahead.  Where is the challenge? What's holding you back? What do you think is holding everyone else back?

Maybe it's the response that they know they'll get. The same one I keep getting. The same one Denise just made, the same one you just made, the same old tweedle dum and tweedle dee crap- why you're just engaging in an eye poking contest. Why you're just the same. Why there isn't any difference.
That isn't a challenge to anything. It's just moral mush and does nothing for the gospel, nothing for the  church, nothing for anyone in it.
Get's tiresome.




Quote
My opinion and feelings are just that and nothing more.  I do not come here to discuss such matters, and I suspect you would rather not as well.  Perhaps you do not see your dialog with Robert as an eye poking contest, but from where I sit, I have a hard time finding any of it edifyling.  Yes, I know that you feel that Robert's opinions need to be challenged because they are often way off target and misdirected.  Did you ever wonder if Robert feels the same way about your comments at times?

Then so are everyone else's posts just their "opinions and feelings and nothing more," then everyone's posts are just like everyone else's. No way, no point, no purpose, to distinguish anything from anything. No need for anyone to comment about any other post, just keep posting their own personal feelings and opinions.

No, I don't see my dialog with Robert as an eye-poking contest.
Instead of just sitting there, ask a question now and then and discuss things. That might be edifying.

No one ever has to wonder how Robert feels about anyone or anything.
I can only wish more people actually wondered what I think, read what I said, and responded to it, iand asked a question or two, instead of telling me what they feel my thinking is like, and what they feel that I think.

I have never wondered how Robert or anyone else feels about my posts-. Most are willing to express how they "feel" about them, and quite willing to label them. I have directly asked them to discuss their posts, my posts, and everybody else's posts.
Not much luck there.
I have wondered ( and directly asked) why so many people have  opinions and feelings about so many things and other people that they feel a need to express, and no need to discuss.

There is a reason this is called a discussion forum, not an opinion forum or a feelings forum. And a reason why there is a "cafe" section for "light conversation."

Maybe we should adopt the recommendation that you made regarding Gary's contributions. Let's have everyone start their own personal thread for every topic, and just say whatever they think or feel. Don't anyone disturb anyone else's thread  thread with comments. Have a completely separate thread for that. Maybe we should have everyone post any comments they want to make to someone else's  personal thread in their own personal comment thread.




Quote
I have never shown much willingness to write or debate much more about this because I am sure that it is close to being violation of proper manners and forum rules.  And I know that I have become just as much a jerk by even trying to point out a bit of what I percieve to be truth (that no one wants to hear).

It's so easy to milk a cow. Any jerk can do it.

The forum rules for the UCC forums are much like the UCC Constitution and Basis for Union.
Robert has violated them multiple times, and been banned three times. So what? Why worry?

Could you say what the UCC Constitution actually constitutes in the UCC today? ( I can't)
How would you describe the union that exists in the UCC today? ( I can only guess)
What is the basis for it? ( I can only guess)

If you really want to discuss a bit of what you perceive to be the truth, I'd say go for it.
I've done the same.

Not to be argumentative, but I don't think any jerk can milk a cow., or, at least. they shouldn't. The cow might have anudder opinion and kick back.


--------------------------------
( just my personal feelings and opinions in all that. Nothing more than that. Nothing to discuss. If anyone agrees, that feels fine. If they disagree, that feels like they are engaging in  an eye poking contest)


« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 08:50:12 AM by Richard »

PowerPoof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
  • Harvey Milk - LIVES
    • View Profile
Re: a new Island in the Red Sea
« Reply #33 on: January 06, 2012, 09:25:16 AM »
just to add my 2 cents to the dialogue.... I don't know how it came about that folk understood that Ritchie and I were mortal enemies.... I didn't tink we were  - in fact I've stated to him and in public - I like the guy... and I say what I mean and mean what I say

I don't give a rat's arse if he's a capitalist - he engages me civilly and provokes my thoughts, he responds to everything I say nearly and he doesn't get personal - not once.... and I like his remarks about my so-called left leanings - they're quite clever.... you can tell the guy is educated and I enjoy his bent on words and meanings

who I don't like and think is quite evil for-the-record - if I haven't made it quite clear already and would prefer the guy to give me a wide berth - is Steve, for all the things I've written about him.... but primarily 'cause I think he’s homophobic & not just marginally so - but fanatically so and seeks to maintain an agenda here.... and of late there's a creepy feeling about him - let's just say I'm glad I live where I am and he can do me no real harm relatively speakin... and to a lesser extent Grant 'cause he lays dormant mostly but whenever there's a chance to have a swipe at me - he pounces - don't know what's driving that, but it's got my radar up

again Ritchie’s ok - just a righteous capitalist 'cause it's probably been good for him.... I am a leftie but I know decent bosses and such, and I imagine him to be of that ilk.... and he's definitely not homophobic - least ways that's how he comes across.... maybe a little conditioned to heterosexual normality - 'cause blokes like him don't think much upon such things - give 'em a spanner and they're fine, but ask about issues of social inequality and such - they scratch their head, 'cause generally they've never been guilty of it - they treat all the same - decently.... but don't understand or just can't get it - that sometimes discrimination is systematic and institutional and sometimes societal

nope I could have a beer with ol’ Richie – no worries…. Steve however, I’d cross the road to avoid him.
WARNING - Steven Clifford will abuse the privilege of personal information you reveal concerning yourself to his advantage - he will also seek to intimidate you with anything you share about yourself to advantage his BWF position - this www is not a safe place for vulnerable people... esp. glbt folk

PowerPoof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
  • Harvey Milk - LIVES
    • View Profile
Re: a new Island in the Red Sea
« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2012, 09:35:00 AM »
Quote
It's just moral mush and does nothing for the gospel, nothing for the church, nothing for anyone in it.
it's just moral mush... that's right, that's all it is - and all it's ever gonna be - but it's in that moral mush where words incite feelings [btw I'd like to engage you on feelings if u like - just didn't tink u gave 'em much value - u come across as an engineer or such and tink emotions r a nonsense - least ways that's how engineers I've come across here see it] - that create hope, create creeds, create nations, create a people
WARNING - Steven Clifford will abuse the privilege of personal information you reveal concerning yourself to his advantage - he will also seek to intimidate you with anything you share about yourself to advantage his BWF position - this www is not a safe place for vulnerable people... esp. glbt folk

PowerPoof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
  • Harvey Milk - LIVES
    • View Profile
Re: a new Island in the Red Sea
« Reply #35 on: January 06, 2012, 09:46:36 AM »
Quote
Could you say what the UCC Constitution actually constitutes in the UCC today? ( I can't)
How would you describe the union that exists in the UCC today? ( I can only guess)
What is the basis for it? ( I can only guess)

I don't know the in's and out's of your petty Roberts rules of order within your various synods or general meetings or whatever u label 'em as

but I'll tell u this & know it to be true Ritchie - your denomination has got something with it's ONA ting

it's not just about the 'gay' ting - it's more.... listen to it, hear it - OPEN.... and....   AFFIRMING.

and think and see and hear where your denomination is goin as a result - from where I am - it's fireworks, it's amazing, it's adventurous, it's a miracle, it's where I'd like to be

albeit the folk sometimes here get me down but the wider glimpse I see from the denomination's own website and stories on the mass media give me a hope for the universal 'church' I long ago divorced, as having any real hope and promise for the future, to sight in the debris one tiny seed of renewal and inspiration - which is your ucc

don't mourn the passing of your youth or the church that u thought u may have known - see how it's blossoming and the many wonderful colourful flowers busting out anew - and see God's radiant sunshine beaming down upon it
« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 09:50:20 AM by PowerPoof »
WARNING - Steven Clifford will abuse the privilege of personal information you reveal concerning yourself to his advantage - he will also seek to intimidate you with anything you share about yourself to advantage his BWF position - this www is not a safe place for vulnerable people... esp. glbt folk

PowerPoof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
  • Harvey Milk - LIVES
    • View Profile
Re: a new Island in the Red Sea
« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2012, 09:52:53 AM »
Quote
What is the basis for it? ( I can only guess)

our heritage maybe 2000 years old, but our tinkin is notno matter who u r ..... you're welcomed hereONA ona ONA ona ONA ona[/color]
God's put a comma, not a full stop! [/color]
God is stilll speakin
« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 10:35:11 AM by PowerPoof »
WARNING - Steven Clifford will abuse the privilege of personal information you reveal concerning yourself to his advantage - he will also seek to intimidate you with anything you share about yourself to advantage his BWF position - this www is not a safe place for vulnerable people... esp. glbt folk

Richard

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: a new Island in the Red Sea
« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2012, 01:03:24 PM »
just to add my 2 cents to the dialogue.... I don't know how it came about that folk understood that Ritchie and I were mortal enemies.... I didn't tink we were  - in fact I've stated to him and in public - I like the guy... and I say what I mean and mean what I say

I don't give a rat's arse if he's a capitalist - he engages me civilly and provokes my thoughts, he responds to everything I say nearly and he doesn't get personal - not once.... and I like his remarks about my so-called left leanings - they're quite clever.... you can tell the guy is educated and I enjoy his bent on words and meanings.

Imagine that. Somebody else who recognizes ( at least occasionally 8) ) that words have meaning-- even when  I dispute the meaning of lot's of words he chooses.

here's a recent slice of conversation I had with Robert:

Quote
I suppose these are really rhetorical questions, not the kind where the "?" has any real semiotic value.
Sounds more like the desperate attempt of some Grand Power Master Chairman Kommisar Wannabee to ward off the imaginary takeover of the imaginary horde of extreme right wing heteronorms.

But, since you asked so nicely....

Robert, why the rattle, rant,and rave doctrine? If you really need to rant and rave, at least get the things you're ranting about right and try to rave with at least some slim connection to some form of reasoning and at least a hint now and then of some kind of internal logic.

This is pathetically sloppy and incoherent thinking..
Quote
if so - then all of humanity can become Gods? can't they?! - otherwise you are faced with the fact that somehow Jesus was special - inferring not quite human, again making the Trinity doctine a mistake! even a heresy itself!!

Sorry, but no. Pick any verse or verses you like, believe anything you want about them. .
Either way, there is nothing in the scripture and nothing in your post that makes any "if so," or "otherwise..." and no "making the Trinity..." anything.
The scripture does not say you will become God,. You won't become God, and you won't have proved anything about anything whether you do or you don't become God, the demiurge, a butcher, baker, or a candlestick maker.

Did you get this stuff from one of your theology courses? Sue 'em and get your money back. I'll testify for you. You was robbed, comrade.

Oh, the horrors of it. Get the children to safety. More terrible eye poking and personal attacks from the Worlds Worst Possible People delegate to the UCC forums. ::) ::) ::)

What a bunch of bloody gallahs. About to call for the divvy van because they can't tell the difference between argy bargy and havin' a blue.

 :o Here's the guy who supposedly just got his eye poked, evidently back from hospital.



Quote
again Ritchie’s ok - just a righteous capitalist 'cause it's probably been good for him.... I am a leftie but I know decent bosses and such, and I imagine him to be of that ilk.... and he's definitely not homophobic - least ways that's how he comes across.... maybe a little conditioned to heterosexual normality - 'cause blokes like him don't think much upon such things - give 'em a spanner and they're fine, but ask about issues of social inequality and such - they scratch their head, 'cause generally they've never been guilty of it - they treat all the same - decently.... but don't understand or just can't get it - that sometimes discrimination is systematic and institutional and sometimes societal

nope I could have a beer with ol’ Richie – no worries….

 :o :o Yikes. You've just destroyed some major social constructs and paradigms here in the forums.
We're supposed to be mortal foes, locked in combat.
We can't have a beer together. What will the neighbors think?

All other issues aside, Robert, you and I are amongst the very few here who couldn't care less whether what he have to say is popular or not, and don't have a problem with someone disagreeing- as long as they are up front and straight about it.
And they don't seem to grasp the nature of argy-bargy.

Like I said above, nobody has to wonder what you think about anything. No need to wonder about what  I think either.

You'r gonna have to translate "spanner" before I can fully figure out what you mean above. 
Of course I'm a little conditioned to heterosexual normality. Did id ever occur to you that you might be "a little conditioned" by homosexual normality? How do you figure I got to be the way you perceive me to be without my thinking about it much? I drive most of my friends crazy because they say I  think too much about anything and anything. Worse than that, I want to talk about what I think, and find out what you think. Especially at meals. They don't understand that the purpose of a snack is eating food, the purpose of a meal is talking. That's why there is more food- because you'll be talking a lot, so you have to keep your energy up.


Now, Robert, since you asked so kindly, hold on to your Grand Master Power Kommisar constructs and paradigms of hetero-normativity and churches and the clergy, and I'll tell you what I thought- as part of my process of considering the call to ministry.

Early on, I happened to have just joined the Episcopal Church- which  had just had the first ordination of women. No big deal to me- the Reformed Church I came from had been doing it for over a century. For the local Episcopalians- major earthquake. I was astonished- congregations were splitting, and a large number in the state left the denomination. This first group of women published a book describing how they had come to recognize, understand and respond to what they understood as a call to the priesthood.  I read it and found them describing my own experience-- understand this now---  --I am speaking specifically to what they wrote - and they each wrote in that book a section that specifically  told about their understanding of God and their experience of the call-- not the response of others, not the institutionalized sexism they were confronted with. Just their personal understanding of God , and the call they believed they received.

There was no difference between their experience and mine. It struck me-- epiphany type of struck me-- If I had any comprehension of God, so did they. If they were wrong, I was wrong. If God was nothing like their experience  God, then God was nothing like my experience of God. If they had no call, neither did I.


Now slow down-- make sure you get this. Again, there wasn't anything at all odd, let alone nothing startling  to me about women as priests/ministers.  The church I grew up in was Women-as-minister-normative.

The epiphonal impact on me was personal and in connection to my early grappling with the call--and finding someone else clearly describing to me their experience of their call, which helped me in understanding- and reassuring me in my own. I had found some other people to relate to with whom I had a  shared call-to ministry-normative. This was early in the process for me- I'd only just joined a congregation after some years of estrangement from church land. There was more to come with the epiphany- but much later. I had no idea at the time what was to come down the road. ( which is why God invented time. If everything happened much quicker, we'd never figure anything out and probably go crazy)

I did attempt to think about it outside of the personal impact, and relate it to others in regard  to the issue in the Episcopal church at the time. I had little to no luck trying to explain that to the people who were horrified because if they didn't stop this, God would surely rain down calamity on their house, the crops would fail, their women would be barren, and we would enter another Dark Age.

Feelings? Thinking?  I did not experience a "thought" about ministry. I experienced A CALL. The call to ministry is visceral. It is all encompassing.

But so was the reaction of those I just described. Their horror was a feeling, and it too was visceral. My attempts to explain it were useless. They couldn't think about it, they didn't know how to think about it.

Now zoom ahead- years later-- to hetero-normative me, joining the UCC-- and the issue is gays in the church , and gays in ministry.
This is not hetero-normative. I have no history, no experience,  and no place to draw from to make sense of it all.  Thought's...?  sure.
Feelings..? Plenty. Of course they are all hetero-normative thoughts,and hetero-normative feelings, but I had never heard of the word at the time, so no help there.

This is why God invented epiphanies.

When I thought some more, I did have an experience to draw on-  and an experience of sorting out  the conflicts of thinking and feeling, and specifically in relation to issues of faith. And an understanding of how impossible it seemed to explain it to someone who had a visceral reaction and didn't know how to think about it-- only this  time the person who didn't know how to think beyond the feelings was me. 



I came upon a book- again--actually, a web site discussing a book by a gay person and his experience of his call to ministry, and a comment section including other gay folks and their stories of their call.


The way I "felt" about gay people was not the same way I "felt" about women.
But the way the way I thought-and felt- about their stories of their call, when I read it, was the same way I thought, felt, and experienced viscerally before:

If I had any comprehension of God, so did they. If they were wrong in their comprehension of God, I was wrong. If God was nothing like their experience  God, then God was nothing like my experience of God. If they had no call, neither did I.
There was no difference between their experience and mine.

So, the heck with the neighbors. Let 'em say whatever they want.
I'll have a liquid gold with anybody I want to.

This is why God invented the internet. And beer, of course

I'll consult my social calendar and the bloody time difference charts , and get back to you.
How many different time zones in Australia, and which one are you in?
« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 09:48:58 PM by Richard »

Grant

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
    • View Profile
Re: a new Island in the Red Sea
« Reply #38 on: January 06, 2012, 09:19:54 PM »
Robert,
I've have never deliberately pounced you.  I once pointed out that the "new" Wesleyan Quadrilateral" you had discovered is more than two hundred years old.  You responded by saying that I was putting myself in your cross hairs.  When you have been uncivil to other posters I've pointed that out to you.  You recently implied that the half time ministry position I have gives me a lot of money when you have no idea how much I make.  Whether I ignore your posts or respond to them, you respond with verbal abuse.  That is why I do not respond very much any more.  This time, you mentioned me and I responded in my own defense.  I don't plan to respond very much more to your posts because I am tired of being verbally abused.

ArthurStone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1563
  • UCC from the New Light Christian Connection
    • View Profile
    • Christian Connection Info
    • Email
Re: a new Island in the Red Sea
« Reply #39 on: January 07, 2012, 01:04:34 AM »
For the record, my stated view point is purely about my perception.  The responses above from both Robert and Richard, serve only to confirm what I have already stated.  Let me put it another way.  It is my perception that both of you insist on dialog done only your way.  It is my perception that if we don’t do it your way then we should stay out of the conversation.  That is my perception.  So far your arguments have not changed my feelings about my perception.  So why talk about it any more, clearly neither of you wants to change how you go about dialog.  Nor do I feel like doing it your way.

Robert, I believe your view of Steven is off base, as I have tried to state in another thread.  Clearly you have more fear of his words.  I suppose Steven should be thankful that his words affect you so, even though you say otherwise.

Here is the latest quote from my reading:

=== Meyers, Saving Jesus p.123-4

The peddling of fear in any form as incentive to faith remains the most egregious sin that can be committed in the name of Jesus.  It feels very good to name the enemy and thank God that you are not like “those people.”  But if Christianity is to survive, someone needs to stand up in the middle of one of those hapless sermons and quote the comic-strip character Pogo: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

From twenty-four-hour cable news stations to pulpits that duel over “much ado about nothing,” everyone has climbed on the condemnation bandwagon.  We enjoy being right so much that we have forgotten just how little this has to do with being a follower of Jesus.  In our time, the land is full of culture warriors and their indignant disciples.  What we lack are statesmen and –women.  What we hunger after is kindness, patience, and an antidote to ego, instead of its sanctification.  Worshiping Christ keeps us locked into theological battles over who is right and who is wrong.  But following the example of Jesus liberates us to imitate rather than judge.  What’s more, the means to measure such imitation is utterly simple.  The ministry of Jesus was, and is, and will always be about compassion – pure, unbridled, reckless compassion.
1) Jesus the only head
2) Christian a sufficient label
3) Unity our purpose
4) The Bible our guide
5) Respect everyone’s right to interpret scripture
6) Christian character a sufficient test
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/people/jburnett.html

Jeff Fairchild

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 425
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: a new Island in the Red Sea
« Reply #40 on: January 07, 2012, 01:33:51 AM »
For the record, my stated view point is purely about my perception.  The responses above from both Robert and Richard, serve only to confirm what I have already stated.  Let me put it another way.
For the record, I really appreciate the responses above between Robert and Richard.

Quote
It is my perception that both of you insist on dialog done only your way.  It is my perception that if we don’t do it your way then we should stay out of the conversation.  That is my perception.  So far your arguments have not changed my feelings about my perception.  So why talk about it any more, clearly neither of you wants to change how you go about dialog.  Nor do I feel like doing it your way.
Arthor, its my perception that you are the one who is insisting on dialog done your way.  It was you who jumped in here and tried to change the "way" Robert and Richard dialog, not them jumping in a dialog you were having and asking you to change "your way", and in the quote above, it is you who is cutting off dialog because you don't like Robert's "way" or Richard's "way" and you don't think they will "change" in the way you insist.  Richard and Robert aren't cutting off dialog here, you are. 

It has never been my perception that Robert or Richard insist on any "way" to dialog, although they do state preferences and frustrations over the "way" some do dialog.  On the other hand, it has been my perception that several other people have walked away from these forums, or seriously limited their participation here, because they were not successful in their insistence on a  particular "way" to dialog.   
« Last Edit: January 07, 2012, 01:49:43 AM by Jeff Fairchild »

gary sechler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1367
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: a new Island in the Red Sea
« Reply #41 on: January 07, 2012, 05:03:16 AM »
Wow! Talk about an Island in the Red Sea.

Richard

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: a new Island in the Red Sea
« Reply #42 on: January 07, 2012, 08:43:14 AM »
Friday Night Roundup: New Paradigms and Social Constructs for Eye-Poking Contests

The entries are:



 
Quote
haven't you noticed over the years that Richard is EXACTLY LIKE Robert except with opposing opinions.  They both go out of their way to provoke arguments.

Quote
Well, yeah.  Although Robert does sometimes simply comment rather than insist on responses. 

Quote
I find Robert's style of discourse offensive even when I have some agreement with his comments.  Much the same, I find your discorse with you just as exasperating and often just as hopeless even when I want to agree with you on some points.  I have tried discussing this in the past, but neither of you seem to be interested in how your discussions make me feel.

.  Perhaps you do not see your dialog with Robert as an eye poking contest, but from where I sit, I have a hard time finding any of it edifyling.

It is my perception that both of you insist on dialog done only your way.  It is my perception that if we don’t do it your way then we should stay out of the conversation.  That is my perception.  So far your arguments have not changed my feelings about my perception.  So why talk about it any more, clearly neither of you wants to change how you go about dialog.  Nor do I feel like doing it your way.

My opinion: Oh, Yeah?   Sez who?

Quote
in fact I've stated to him and in public - I like the guy... and I say what I mean and mean what I say
again Ritchie’s ok - just a righteous capitalist '

Quote
nope I could have a beer with ol’ Richie – no worries




Arthor, its my perception that you are the one who is insisting on dialog done your way.  It was you who jumped in here and tried to change the "way" Robert and Richard dialog, not them jumping in a dialog you were having and asking you to change "your way", and in the quote above, it is you who is cutting off dialog because you don't like Robert's "way" or Richard's "way" and you don't think they will "change" in the way you insist.  Richard and Robert aren't cutting off dialog here, you are. 

It has never been my perception that Robert or Richard insist on any "way" to dialog, although they do state preferences and frustrations over the "way" some do dialog.  On the other hand, it has been my perception that several other people have walked away from these forums, or seriously limited their participation here, because they were not successful in their insistence on a  particular "way" to dialog.   

Quote
For the record, I really appreciate the responses above between Robert and Richard.

My opinionated perception:

-Appreciation is better than getting poked in the eye by somebody insistently demanding that I stop being insistant.

but

-Beer without worries is even better.

I'd have to say Robert has made the most edifying contribution to the thread.


The winning entry:   Beer Without Worries: A New Paradigm




Richard

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: a new Island in the Red Sea
« Reply #43 on: January 07, 2012, 08:52:24 AM »
Gary has demanded  we change the topic.

Wow! Talk about an Island in the Red Sea.


OK. I'll go first.

                  You were the only survivor of a shipwreck in the Red Sea, and managed to swim to a deserted island.


-What is your biggest worry?
       
..Making a social construct
..Making a new paradigm
..Making beer

-How would you figure out  if you were a conservative, moderate or liberal?

-If you wanted to be a revolutionary, who would you revolt against ?

-If things didn't go well, who could you put the blame on?

-How could you demand someone answer your questions?

-How could you insist that no one ask you so many?

« Last Edit: January 07, 2012, 09:03:43 AM by Richard »

gary sechler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1367
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: a new Island in the Red Sea
« Reply #44 on: January 29, 2012, 03:50:11 AM »
I have not had a chance to venture this far from the theology thread until today and I was surprised to find that Richard had taken it over to push Beer.  I learned the differences between beers at the young age of 15 when my U. S. history teacher asked another boy [Dean Ross] (who liked beer) what the difference was between beers?  Another boy in the back of the room, [Jim Nichols] who just a year later would get arrested for attempting to make a moon shine run, piped up and said, "it domes from a different horse."  Ten years later, in Viet Nam, the water was horrible ( it came from the river and was made "potable" with chemicals) the only soft drink we could get was Canada Dry Ginger ale, which I hated, or beer, until the cokes and Pepsis made it to our club, I drank beer, as long as it was something beside Ballantine.  I agreed with Jim, it tasted like what I think a horse produces on a daily basis might taste like, but I'm not going to try it to find out, the beer was bad enough.