2011 stemelbow whiner of the year award goes to...

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wow. So, stemelbow's whole campaign here on MDB has been deceptive in nature? I wish I could say I was surprised.

[_marg]

Schmo, when you commented in the thread in support of Stak, did you understand the concept of induction at the time?

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo, when you commented in the thread in support of Stak, did you understand the concept of induction at the time?

Yes.

How about you? Do you understand it now?

And do you understand yet why whether I understood it or not is completely irrelevant to the reason I posted in that thread, or are you solely going to focus on this because my point is too painful for you to deal with?

Perhaps this is a better question: do you get involved in every single debate that this board has to offer? If not, then is it at all possible for you to imagine why I wouldn't get involved in all of yours?

[_marg]

Schmo, when you commented in the thread in support of Stak, did you understand the concept of induction at the time?

Yes.

How about you? Do you understand it now?

And do you understand yet why whether I understood it or not is completely irrelevant to the reason I posted in that thread, or are you solely going to focus on this because my point is too painful for you to deal with?

Perhaps this is a better question: do you get involved in every single debate that this board has to offer? If not, then is it at all possible for you to imagine why I wouldn't get involved in all of yours?

You are so thorough I only needed a yes or a no. I don't have time today to get into the reason I asked if you understood induction..and don't have time today to carry on a discussion...but tell me what was the reason you entered the thread..I'm not talking about at the beginning ...I'm talking about when Stak linked to it and I believe Tarski brought it forward by posting to it. My impression at the time was that it was to support Stak or his position. Maybe if I review it now I'd find that's not the case, but was my perception then.

[_Some Schmo]

You are so thorough I only needed a yes or a no. I don't have time today to get into the reason I asked if you understood induction..and don't have time today to carry on a discussion...but tell me what was the reason you entered the thread..I'm not talking about at the beginning ...I'm talking about when Stak linked to it and I believe Tarski brought it forward by posting to it. My impression at the time was that it was to support Stak or his position. Maybe if I review it now I'd find that's not the case, but was my perception then.

I certainly don't want to get into a discussion about induction either (which is why I stayed out of the first one). It's not worth arguing about.

The only reason I got peripherally involved is as I was glancing through The Great Induction Spat, I saw you say something about Stak not backing up his ideas. That's it. I thought it was either dishonest or based on ignorance, because whether I agree with Stak or not, he generally provides sources for his opinions. That's not to say I always agree with his sources, let alone his opinions, but I wouldn't accuse him of not backing up his crap even when I disagree with him.

And just for full disclosure, I don't really think you're a dumb ass, but sometimes, the way you come across gives the appearance of dumbassery. So I understand some of Stak's frustration with you. However, that goes both ways. Sometimes I get a feeling for why you find him full of crap (or however you regard him). This sloppy love affair he seems to want with theists is a bit off-putting, as is his naïve position on porn. He says some pretty outrageous crap at times and can be a little inconsistent. Don't/aren't we all? Whatcha gonna do?

There are people on this board way worse than he is, though. Worse than both of you.

[Guest]

I certainly don't want to get into a discussion about induction either (which is why I stayed out of the first one). It's not worth arguing about.

Schmo the whole discussion/argument reduced down to whether or not Dawkins was presenting a deductive or an inductive argument. So on what basis is that not worth discussion? If that's not worth discussion then what is? The whole reason that thread was brought forward was because Stak had said that when I participate in discussions I don't know what I'm talking about, and that was an attack in a thread I wasn't in..it was out of the blue. When asked for an example that's the thread he gave. It was Tarski who brought the thread forward to explain Stak had made a mistake. The mistake was that Stak gave a mathematical example to illustrate induction required form. His mistake was that he thought the math example he gave was inductive and that was in a form so he figured he showed me induction used form..but the math was actually deductive. Back then I pointed out to him the error but of course his response was I was an idiot. While he wouldn't listen to me..even though I linked to websites which clearly explained it, he listened to Tarski.

The only reason I got peripherally involved is as I was glancing through The Great Induction Spat, I saw you say something about Stak not backing up his ideas. That's it. I thought it was either dishonest or based on ignorance, because whether I agree with Stak or not, he generally provides sources for his opinions. That's not to say I always agree with his sources, let alone his opinions, but I wouldn't accuse him of not backing up his s*** even when I disagree with him.

Well I've gone back and I don't see anywhere where I say Stak doesn't back up his ideas. So I don't think I even said that.

And just for full disclosure, I don't really think you're a dumb ass, but sometimes, the way you come across gives the appearance of dumbassery. So I understand some of Stak's frustration with you.

You have no idea what went on in that discussion, this is why I'm pissed off at you. If you didn't follow the discussion then your opinion is crap.

However, that goes both ways. Sometimes I get a feeling for why you find him full of crap (or however you regard him). This sloppy love affair he seems to want with theists is a bit off-putting, as is his naïve position on porn. He says some pretty outrageous s*** at times and can be a little inconsistent. Don't/aren't we all? Whatcha gonna do?

That discussion boiled down to a rhetorical game by him. I wasn't rude to him, I wasn't on an ego trip, I was trying to dialogue and understand what he was saying. I didn't attack him it was the other way around..but you didn't really follow what went on. Induction apparently isn't worth discussing according to you. You are likely more interested in the game playing that goes on. That's why I am and was pissed off with you.

There are people on this board way worse than he is, though. Worse than both of you.

Who the hell cares. I'm not interested in the personality types and the games..I'm interested in the actual substance of arguments. At least I was, I think I've lost complete interest ..it's a pile of crap on here...at least in the Terrestial. There are some decent posters, kudos to Beastie, Dale, Roger, Dan, Darth, Dr. W, Tarski ..come to mind. I'm sure there are others I've forgotten.

[_marg]

Heres's where you first address me: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:44 pm ..I'll respond to you in blue

viewtopic.php?p=501888#p501888

marg wrote: "And then in this thread, we get a few people who support Stak in doing this who offer nothing to the discussion and their only purpose is to attack in support of him."

I'm wondering who you're thinking of here. I just looked back on the last couple pages of this thread and I didn't see anyone attacking you (except Stak, of course) since the thread was resurrected by Tarski. Maybe it was pre-resurrection posts you're thinking of? I'm just curious.

I was thinking of mainly Kevin and EA...it had nothing to do with you.

Anyway marg, I think Tarski is right and you two are talking past each other. I agree with the sentiment that Stak is measuring the book against a philosophical standard Dawkins wasn't likely going for (or gives a crap about, for that matter), and I have little doubt that for Stak, it doesn't meet that standard. I can respect his opinion on that, whether that justifies his overall assessment of the book or not.

I just can't see the upside of trying to convince Stak otherwise (which is why I let it go last year). So I suppose the other thing I'm curious about is why you're bothering to try, especially in light of your history with Stak.

Did you not understand why the thread was even brought forward? Or who brought it forward? I was attacked by Stak ..not only in that thread but later and he used that thread as justification for his attack. That thread fell apart by it being reduced to ad hominen by Stak instead of him focusing on the topic. But you aren't interested in how or why. But apparently it's okay for him to attack in that thread, and then later ..and you are essentially attacking me for wanting to respond and address the attacks. Again this is why you pissed me off and I said to you in response then "Schmo I don't think you are following much if at all...if you think I'm trying to discuss with Stak or convince him of anything, you are way off the mark. Do you see me discussing with him? So I think I'll stick with Tarski's perspective. If I thought you had a better appreciation I'd answer your questions." I don't think you particularly liked my response.

So that's basically how I ended up calling you an ass-hole. While I didn't remember details that vague feeling of being pissed off at you was still there. Not only did you lean towards supporting Stak after the gameplaying crap he dished out, but you didn't even understand what the discussion was about or if you did you certainly never expressed it and yet you still commented.

[_marg]

That's just it Schmo, you didn't understand the discussion and what went down. But your comment and interest was to back Stak. Because I knew you didn't understand the issue, I made some comment to that effect and that I wasn't interested in your input.

Well, this is the kind of s*** that makes me think you're a dumb ass. Yes, a person could never possibly read your exchange with Stak and come away either disagreeing with you, or even worse, indifferent! Oh, the horror!

Get over your moronic self.

It's not a matter of disagreement Schmo...no comment of yours gave any indication you understood the discussion between Stak and myself.

What's that got to do with anything here, I'm not following. Did I ever claim he doesn't back up his stuff? I'm not sure what you are getting at. Again, I think your comment has to do with you not understanding the issue/concept in the discussion ..which was induction and not following or as you pointed out "you barely read most of it".

Yeah, you made the claim, which is what I was disputing. You see how one follows the other?

CFR

Is there some particular discussion or topic you are referring to? All I know is I got no support..except recently by Tarski..and Stak was wrong. And your input which began supporting him when I knew you had no clue ..as I said I found irritating.

But you didn't know anything of the sort. That's your problem, marg. You often think you know something when you clearly don't. Hence, the "marg can be such a dumb ass" opinion.

No, I didn't support your position on that argument, and I wasn't supporting Stak's. I wasn't interested in the argument. I noticed you say one thing about Stak and I disputed that. It wasn't an endorsement of his side of your little spat, however.

Make up your mind..you've said that I said Stak didn't back up his claims and you thought I was wrong about that...like I said you didn't follow the discussion.

I have defended you in the past, however. I don't specifically remember when, where or why. It doesn't really matter except to illustrate that I support and mock whomever, whenever I see fit.

I know you are intelligent. In this particular instance, I didn't want your comments, didn't want you involved because I knew you weren't following the discussion.

I disagree with you that the posters on this forum "are individuals with their own thoughts" sure there are some but not the vast majority. There is a hell of a lot of petty minded tribalism that goes on on this forum strengthened by behind the scenes talking.

Well, disagree away! It has nothing to do with me.

Yes, tribalism has nothing to do with you.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Even if you don't crave acceptance..the fair thing to do is not join in with others in attacking. If you are in discussion with someone, fine...insult/attack ...whatever. But unprovoked and when not in a discussion with a person...I don't agree with that..especially when it's done to excess. What's the point, why the necessity?

So, you want me to join in and support your crap against Stak, but not in other instances? I guess you're pissed I picked the wrong dog pile?

Look if you are going to get involved follow the discussion ..otherwise don't get involved. That was my point, making comments to me which were slightly critical and yet slightly supportive of Stak was irritating...because once again I'll say it, you did not follow the discussion. It wasn't me bringing the thread forward, it wasn't me doing the attacking.

How did I know when I wrote that paragraph it was going to sail right over your head?

What paragraph?

Anyhow please don't mistake my post here for me caring much about this board.. I'm actually really sick and tired of the topic Mormonism. Out of habit I still come but I don't have much if any interest in the vast majority of topics and posts here and for the most part the little I read I read with apathy.

Don't mistake my post for caring about whether you care or not, either. Stay or leave. What difference does it make?

Well there is a tendancy to assume that if someone responds about something, they care deeply about it. Just wanted to point out I don't care deeply about all this.

I'm looking back at this post and am wondering why I bothered to even write this much. Sometimes it feels like talking to a brick wall with you.

ya whatever