Nothing wrong with different points of view in which someone/someones are sincere in trying to reason with someone. I'd like to see someone/someone discuss with Stem talk with Stem Book of Mormon historicity and do so without personal attack.
Part of the problem seems to be that Stem was not being sincere in trying to reason with others. I have on repeated occasions tried to engage Stem in a sincere discussion only to have him revert, after a reasonable post or two, back to his good ole boy misunderstood affectation. Is it a personal attack to question the sincerity of his responses when he clearly wasn't being sincere?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
No offense to stem, but I rarely read his posts. I do catch some of them and based on those that I have read, I see no reason to jump all over him. I don't know why others would, but that's their call I suppose.
With regards to dog piling. I came from a board where it was called a "pile on". I don't understand the reference to dogs.
What is the origin of the phrase "dog piling"?
Is it that pile of puppies or a dog fight of some sort?
I'm being totally serious here.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jersey Girl wrote:NWith regards to dog piling. I came from a board where it was called a "pile on". I don't understand the reference to dogs.
What is the origin of the phrase "dog piling"?
Is it that pile of puppies or a dog fight of some sort?
I'm being totally serious here.
No disrespect to the seriousness of your post, but this is really a funny post. I think that it implies a pack attack mentality, as marg pointed out. The humor lies in the unintended deflection on the label used, that's all.
Nothing wrong with different points of view in which someone/someones are sincere in trying to reason with someone. I'd like to see someone/someone discuss with Stem talk with Stem Book of Mormon historicity and do so without personal attack.
Part of the problem seems to be that Stem was not being sincere in trying to reason with others. I have on repeated occasions tried to engage Stem in a sincere discussion only to have him revert, after a reasonable post or two, back to his good ole boy misunderstood affectation. Is it a personal attack to question the sincerity of his responses when he clearly wasn't being sincere?
Yeah...asking a defender about his or her responses is just being unreasonable and rude, after all. It might cause them to think about their assumptions.
Jersey Girl wrote:NWith regards to dog piling. I came from a board where it was called a "pile on". I don't understand the reference to dogs.
What is the origin of the phrase "dog piling"?
Is it that pile of puppies or a dog fight of some sort?
I'm being totally serious here.
No disrespect to the seriousness of your post, but this is really a funny post. I think that it implies a pack attack mentality, as marg pointed out. The humor lies in the unintended deflection on the label used, that's all.
Yeah, I get the pack attack mentality, but do dogs actually pile on when they attack?
Pay me no mind, I have very little left of my own to start with. :-)
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
