EAllusion wrote:Marg gets flak from people like Stak because she is very arrogant and frequently mean while arguing extremely poorly. In particular her reading comprehension and critical thinking skills leave a lot to be desired. She also embodies some bad stereotypes of atheists as thinkers that normally aren't true. From my end, I view marg as the atheist equivalent of juliann at MADB. Regarding the "village idiot" comment, I was explaining what Stak said to marg because she misread it. She kinda asked me to correct Stak, if you recall.
It's interesting that marg is one person who caused me to seriously reflect whether my theism was sound. A thousand "logical" arguments against theism cannot match a "life sermon", so to speak. Notwithstanding, I'll stay with theism, but marg had more bullseyes in destroying it than all of the atheists on this board combined.
EAllusion wrote:I wanted an example of an illucid poster of the sort DCP would engage like a cat with a ball of yarn. Your name came to mind. I understand you feeling insulted, but there's no campaign here marg.
I mean state for the record your motives for your campaign over the years. I'm giving you an opportunity, it's not that I really care.
RayAgostini wrote:It's interesting that marg is one person who caused me to seriously reflect whether my theism was sound. A thousand "logical" arguments against theism cannot match a "life sermon", so to speak. Notwithstanding, I'll stay with theism, but marg had more bullseyes in destroying it than all of the atheists on this board combined.
I'll send you my cheque tomorrow. How much is it again?
EAllusion wrote:A walking, talking strawman who frequently misreads comments, argues poorly, and is ignorant of topics she is actively engaged in doesn't strike me as a huge threat to him, but hey, that's totally plausible. I mean, it's not like DCP's eyes would go as wide as saucers if he saw an atheist say they don't care for philosophy because it reminds them too much of religion or anything, right?
Marg reflects what the common people think, especially common atheist people, and maybe that's what concerned DCP. Eggheads in academia usually tend to argue among themselves with "sophisticated dialogue", or what one columnist here in Oz called, "the chattering classes".
EAllusion wrote: I mean, it's not like DCP's eyes would go as wide as saucers if he saw an atheist say they don't care for philosophy because it reminds them too much of religion or anything, right?
I love Peter Atkins take on philosophy. He suggest that "enlightenment 2"..requires getting rid of philosophy because "it is such a ball and chain on progress".
"Theology obfuscates, philosophy interferes with understanding"
I like Bob M. His passion for knowledge is/(was) unmatched. He is very intelligent, i mean, I think his real-life success eclipses mine by a margin. I do happen to believe that the rate at which he tried to absorb the entire corpus of human knowledge free of the chokehold the Mormon hierarchy held on him for so many years led to some sloppiness in his thinking. It's happened to all of us, including me. When you can breathe again, it's tough not to hyperventilate.
One day, long ago, Bob was a champion of Postmodernism and a critic of a Morg that in the name of "Truth", did violence to the text. The next day, postmodernism was an evil, one that found an analogue in Mormon apologists who strangely eschewed postmodernism and if anything, displayed the pitfalls of thinking that is the polar opposite of the pitfalls found in postmodernism. I don't think Bob ever took the time to nail down postmodern theory or post-structuralism in general, let alone Jacques Derrida in particular. It's not an easy task. It may not even be a worthwhile task, but yet, if one does decide to take on the task for whatever hair-brained reasons, it isn't trivial.
The fact that Bob agreed with Marg on a subject he far from commanded isn't much of a victory for either party.
But that is one thing.
I would ask Marg, when is the last time I have hurled an insult at you? And when is the last time you've hurled an insult at me? It's been what, a year, two years, three, for me? I admit I can get riled up easy. Even EA was able to troll me under a sockpuppet and bring out my worst traits -- he made me look like a fool. That doesn't absolve my failings, of course. And I do realize I have failed in regard to blowing things out of proportion many times.
So, to the extent that I was insulting, I apologize. I think the fact that if you comb through some of the recent conflicts, the Dawkins conflict etc., Marg, and see that I never stepped in, that this does demonstrate I am trying to do better. I do not think you are dumb. I think there is an inexplicable effect that a bizarre poster whose moniker begins with a "J" -- the evil twin of an equally vapid theistic poster with cut-and-paste tendencies known as subgenius who dwells in the C -- had on a poster who at one time I thought did well on an other forum, but whatever.
I really do not want to be the type of person who puts other people down on a personal level, and to the extent I have done so, I apologize, and i hope that some of my efforts in recent times demonstrate I am sincere. I don't expect Marg or any other poster to just "forgive" me or refrain from insulting me. At this point, I can best demonstrate my sincerity by continuing what I believe is already a track record in progress of not reacting, and not looking for opportunities to insult.
At any rate, Marg, there have been a post or two that I think I have agreed with you on vocally in recent years, and such agreement is sincere. I don't expect for you to *not* insult me, but *do* judge me, if you so choose, based primarily upon my present efforts and not mistakes I've made in the past.
Doctor Scratch wrote:You think that Dan Peterson views marg as a "threat to his beliefs"? I bet that's news to him. Hilarious, hilarious news.
Not his beliefs, personally. Even you wouldn't be a threat to that. The general "spread of atheism" is what would concern him, and marg encapsulates that well among the "common people", who mostly don't give a rat's arse what goes on in "academia".
EAllusion wrote: Marg gets flak from people like Stak because she is very arrogant and frequently mean while arguing extremely poorly.
Whatever..I don't really give a crap. I'm not impressed with gad and stak's critical thinking. I know now I'm going to have gad getting involved. I do think you have good critical thinking skills..but your area of weakness as far as this board is concerned is your lack of interest and appreciation of details regarding Mormonism. Your interest is in applying philosophy to religion. You are the type of person that should discuss with DCP..as long as it doesn't require particular knowledge of Mormonism. Stak isn't, he doesn't have the maturity nor integrity.
by the way, one of the main reasons I get flak from stak is because of the crap you've been feeding him. And it serves his purpose to paint me as the bad atheist he's going to disrespect while he befriends theists, tries to impress them with philosophical lingo and paints himself as the good guy.
Gadianton wrote:I really do not want to be the type of person who puts other people down on a personal level, and to the extent I have done so, I apologize, and i hope that some of my efforts in recent times demonstrate I am sincere. I don't expect Marg or any other poster to just "forgive" me or refrain from insulting me. At this point, I can best demonstrate my sincerity by continuing what I believe is already a track record in progress of not reacting, and not looking for opportunities to insult.
At any rate, Marg, there have been a post or two that I think I have agreed with you on vocally in recent years, and such agreement is sincere. I don't expect for you to *not* insult me, but *do* judge me, if you so choose, based primarily upon my present efforts and not mistakes I've made in the past.
Ok Gad I'll stop mentally grouping you in with EA. But you ask when was the last time you insulted me..you did it on your blog. I know you think you can say things off the board without me knowing..but hey if it's out there I might find it. Sure you only used "m". But to suggest that Stak out debated me, when he did no such thing...all he did was personally attack..I take that as an insult. In essence there was no debate, stak prevented or ended the discussion. Did you follow the discussion at all, did you actually see what he did? I don't think so. And that's a weakness in many message boards that many people aren't following discussions closely and they get impressions or are influenced by comments from others..and form opinions in that manner as opposed to verifying for themselves. And that is part of what is at issue in this thread from my perspective. That a small group of people can manipulate others justly or unjustly..and harass someone off the board. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe that's what people want. I'm fully aware this is just a message board. Personally I am not emotionally involved with this board at all. I post out of boredom and that I haven't replaced the board with something else. It's interesting seeing the behaviors of people and how easily they can be influenced.
In this thread I have made assumptions about you from the past. Given what you've said I'll stop doing that.