msnobody wrote:Lately it seems to me that the terrestrial forum lacks substance. Many of the threads are like gripe sessions (trying to refrain from using an expletive). Yeah, go ahead and throw the rotten tomatoes. Maybe I'm just frustrated because I don't' seem to be achieving eternal progression or it 's late or something. :-P
You're right.
But blame it on DCP! He just lacks substance.
Daniel Peterson wrote:To make it quite personal: Some people here accuse me of fleeing discussion. I don't. I'm involved in very big on-going discussions. Heavily involved. I just don't have those here. Some of the people who make that accusation seem entirely unaware of the bigger, slower, deeper, more substantive dialogue.
Geez, Peterson! I think that's getting a little too personal. TMI, Mr.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
To make it quite personal: Some people here accuse me of fleeing discussion. I don't. I'm involved in very big on-going discussions. Heavily involved. I just don't have those here. Some of the people who make that accusation seem entirely unaware of the bigger, slower, deeper, more substantive dialogue.
::::falling over in laughter::::
Calling Dr. Freud, Calling Dr. Freud, Emergency, STAT!
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
I have a very limited amount of time to read and post. Typing a well-thought-out, carefully constructed post of even reasonable depth takes 20-30 minutes. Then typing carefully worded responses takes another 5-10 minutes, particularly if you want to make sure to get the quote function correct.
Dan perhaps others have jobs that allows them to carry on meaningful, in-depth discussions, but some of us (moi included) are 'on the clock.' This board is a diversion to break up the monotony of the day in small bits and chunks, not a major endeavor or in any way significant part of our lives. I have only time for quickie posts that are streams of consciousness. To try to structure my ideas to please 'opponents' takes to much time, plus opponents aren't going to care anyway, as their intent is not to discuss, but to score points.
Even if I did have the time, what's the purpose for spending so much of it writing out long, carefully constructed posts to argue with people who are never, ever going to concede anything. Particularly when debating 'apologists,' it's not a debate, it's a game of one-upmanship, with each trying to outdo the other in 'gotcha' points. Why waste my limited time trying to debate with someone who has no intention of actually debating, as in give and take, concession, seeking common ground, etc.? (And I'm sure they feel the same about me.
This board is a very, very minor part of my life and day. I use it for a few minutes of diversion, particularly when I'm in the process of drafting a document and I need a break.
I apologize in advance if this doesn't satisfy someone's idea of what a board ought to be. But with me, this all you're going to get. The benefit cost ratio of spending hours writing and responding simply isn't high enough for me to take it on.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
To make it quite personal: Some people here accuse me of fleeing discussion. I don't. I'm involved in very big on-going discussions. Heavily involved. I just don't have those here. Some of the people who make that accusation seem entirely unaware of the bigger, slower, deeper, more substantive dialogue.
Ok, now for a serious reply.
Dialogue? As in interaction between apologists and critics? Really? Where is this taking place?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Even if I did have the time, what's the purpose for spending so much of it writing out long, carefully constructed posts to argue with people who are never, ever going to concede anything. Particularly when debating 'apologists,' it's not a debate, it's a game of one-upmanship, with each trying to outdo the other in 'gotcha' points. Why waste my limited time trying to debate with someone who has no intention of actually debating, as in give and take, concession, seeking common ground, etc.? (And I'm sure they feel the same about me.
I don't know about others, but when and if I take serious time to engage, I'm always aware the apologist usually is not interested in anything other than the one-upmanship. But I also keep in mind that there are normally several lurkers on those same threads who are interested in finding out what information is available. I think the exchange can help lurkers, although lately I'm less interested in providing that service, as my patience with apologetics grows more thin.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.