Why is the Terrestial Forum more frequented ...

[_MsJack]

Well that and your desire to support stak's friend.

Incorrect. Ray is more of a friend to me than EA is, and I hardly think EA is in need of my support against you.

EA didn't start the discussion on DCP however he's adding to it by being critical of him

So? Ray added to it by coming to Dan's defense, but I don't see you chastising him.

I'm also not accusing you of entering this thread to defend Ray and attack his opponent because you and Ray are friends and have spoken on the phone. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely feel the way you do regardless of your friendships with the people involved. I hope you're taking notes.

along with including my name to personally attack me. Apparently EA and yourself have this penchant about attacking individuals you guys aren't even in discussion with.

One, the only "personal attack" that EA made on you in this thread was to say that you're not a very capable debater and Dan Peterson would gladly have a debate with you because of it. I can see why that bothers you, but it wasn't a personal attack.

Two, the last time I attempted any kind of a discussion with you, you called me a "catty bitch"---which is way harsher and more of a personal attack than anything I've ever said about you. So your complaints about personal attacks in this thread are beyond hypocritical.

Three, I didn't personally attack you in this thread, period. If you disagree, please quote and bold the part where I personally attacked you so that I can see it.

While you think EA's anonymity makes no difference to what he'll say...I'm not convinced of that.

When you find some examples of how EA's anonymity is disadvantaging Dan, please let the rest of us know. For my own part, you're anonymous and I'm not, and I don't feel like you have me at any kind of a disadvantage.

[_marg]

Incorrect. Ray is more of a friend to me than EA is, and I hardly think EA is in need of my support against you.

Would you quit with this dishonest crap. There is absolutely no need for you to enter this thread to defend EA..none whatsoever. Your motivations were NOT simply to defend EA. I suggested part of your motivations is to support Stak indirectly. As you have attacked me previously completely unprovoked and expressed your disdain directly ..that's also another motivation.

And you are right.. if EA is as capable as you think he is, he doesn't need your support.

EA didn't start the discussion on DCP however he's adding to it by being critical of him

So? Ray added to it by coming to Dan's defense, but I don't see you chastising him.

Ray didn't disparage me unprovoked, otherwise I would have (most likely).

I'm also not accusing you of entering this thread to defend Ray and attack his opponent because you and Ray are friends and have spoken on the phone. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely feel the way you do regardless of your friendships with the people involved. I hope you're taking notes.

I've spoken by phone with 3 people on this board, Ray was one, that was a long time ago.
I haven't communicated with him privately for a long long time, by pm, email, Facebook or otherwise. For the record we aren't friends, nor are we enemies.

On the other hand MSJack since you had no reason to enter this thread to defend EA and as you said he doesn't need your help..and my grievance with EA doesn't concern you...then WTF..why are you continuing to involve yourself?

along with including my name to personally attack me. Apparently EA and yourself have this penchant about attacking individuals you guys aren't even in discussion with.

One, the only "personal attack" that EA made on you in this thread was to say that you're not a very capable debater and Dan Peterson would gladly have a debate with you because of it. I can see why that bothers you, but it wasn't a personal attack.

So you aren't denying that he attacked me..right? And EA has done this plenty of times over the years, unprovoked. Like I said, I can't very well defend myself against someone who chooses to take pot shots..accusing me of arguing poorly when I'm not even arguing. I can remember 2 threads that he was involved in, in which he argued with me. One was at the beginning of this board when he defended DCP against accusations that DCP was paid (indirectly or directly) for apologetics. I had said indirectly he was being paid, and in that thread EA went into attack mode taking the position he wasn't paid in any way. The other time had to do with something about logic..unfortunately I don't remember the details at this point. It was in the Terrestial forum and in that thread he wasn't disrespectful If I recall correctly. We had a few pms over this thread, but it didn't get resolved, I just stopped responding to him. (If I recall correctly)

Two, the last time I attempted any kind of a discussion with you, you called me a "catty bitch"---which is way harsher and more of a personal attack than anything I've ever said about you. So your complaints about personal attacks in this thread are beyond hypocritical.

Let's set the stage..you attacked me on Liz's board behind my back. I asked that you let out your feelings to me on this board. If I recall correctly you responded that you'd also posted that same attack on this board, and that you still felt the same way...but that you weren't going to discuss it. So I believe I responded something to the effect, that in that case I'll tell you my feelings..in which I then called you a "catty bitch" to show you my disrespect of you, knowing it was the telestial (where blatant personal attacks are allowed). But I said it to you, not behind your back, nor was I joining in with others against you.

Three, I didn't personally attack you in this thread, period. If you disagree, please quote and bold the part where I personally attacked you so that I can see it.

Oh my gosh, I don't care whether you attacked me or not. You are not part of this discussion..other than injecting yourself into what is my grievance with EA.

While you think EA's anonymity makes no difference to what he'll say...I'm not convinced of that.

When you find some examples of how EA's anonymity is disadvantaging Dan, please let the rest of us know. For my own part, you're anonymous and I'm not, and I don't feel like you have me at any kind of a disadvantage.

And once again, I said DCP is at a disadvantage..because his name, reputation..is vulnerable to attack in a forum such as this which allows blatant personal attack..especially from participants who are into rhetorical games instead of discussion. DCP isn't in this thread except as a target. He's an easy target for anyone here. Too easy.

And I do have you at a disadvantage. I could attack you for your crazy belief on hell. I could chose to harass you in threads you aren't in, and post about what an idiot you must be to believe in a literal hell. Don't you think it would be a lot more biting, with your real name being bantered about discussing what crazy ridiculous beliefs you have?

[_MsJack]

Your motivations were NOT simply to defend EA.

I didn't know atheists believed in magical mind-reading powers. And you think theists believe in silly things.

Ray didn't disparage me unprovoked, otherwise I would have (most likely).

Right. So this isn't even about what EA said then; it's about your grudge against him. Of course, I knew that already, but I figured you'd admit to it eventually.

On the other hand MSJack since you had no reason to enter this thread to defend EA [SNIP] why are you continuing to involve yourself? [SNIP] You are not part of this discussion..other than injecting yourself into what is my grievance with EA.

It's a message board, marg. I don't need a reason to post on a thread other than that a topic interests me. Get over it. I'm on this thread because I genuinely believe in the things I've argued. A friendly association with Stak (who hadn't even posted on the thread when I responded to you) has nothing to do with it. Nor does the history between you and me have anything to do with it. Life's too short to can grudges and stick them on shelves the way you do.

If you really want a conversation between just you and EA, you need to PM him. Otherwise, other people can and will comment. That's how it works.

So you aren't denying that he attacked me..right?

He mentioned you in a negative light. It wasn't a personal attack though.

I never attacked you "behind your back." I effectively made the same comment on this forum as I made on Liz's forum, within minutes of making it, too (here). And the comment I made was nowhere near as harsh as "catty bitch." Most people didn't even understand what Stak and I were talking about.

I always disliked the "let's rant about MDB posters behind their backs" aspect of Liz's forum, and spoke out against it at the time. Since a forum with 30+ members is hardly a "private forum," it struck me as a recipe for hurt feelings and disaster, and it was. I never said anything about anyone there unless I posted the same comment here or they were posters there who could read what I said about them.

I could attack you for your crazy belief on hell. I could chose to harass you in threads you aren't in, and post about what an idiot you must be to believe in a literal hell. Don't you think it would be a lot more biting, with your real name being bantered about discussing what crazy ridiculous beliefs you have?

Nope. You don't worry me in the slightest. I don't even think I've fully discussed my beliefs on hell anywhere on the Internet (which aren't entirely conventional), and I'm not embarrassed by what I believe, so yeah, good luck making fun of me for that. All people would see is an angry woman with an axe to grind who called me a "catty bitch" not making the slightest attempt at trying to understand what I believe.

Furthermore, my guess is that if you go after me, some of the first people to speak in my defense against you are going to be your fellow atheists---because that's exactly what's happened on this forum numerous times before. That's the power of treating people decently: folks from a diverse paradigm respect you and will speak on your behalf even if they disagree with you.

Maybe you should think long and hard about why folks like you (and Dan, for that matter) have hardly any people who don't believe the same as you speaking up on your behalf when you come under fire. I promise, there's a reason. It just isn't one that you're going to like.

[_marg]

Your motivations were NOT simply to defend EA.

I didn't know atheists believed in magical mind-reading powers. And you think theists believe in silly things.

OK let me teach you about the concept of atheism. If one is an atheist it doesn't inform anyone what their beliefs are, it only informs that they have no belief in a God/Gods. It doesn't explain why they have no belief.

It doesn't take magical mind reading to know your motivation wasn't simply to defend EA. You already stated he didn't need your defense.

Ray didn't disparage me unprovoked, otherwise I would have (most likely).

Right. So this isn't even about what EA said then; it's about your grudge against him. Of course, I knew that already, but I figured you'd admit to it eventually.

I have no qualms about informing you what my motivations are in responding to EA. Yes I'm responding to him due to his personal attack. I also was in this thread previously addressing the opening post. Had Ray personally attacked me I likely would have responded to Ray on that.

On the other hand MSJack since you had no reason to enter this thread to defend EA [SNIP] why are you continuing to involve yourself? [SNIP] You are not part of this discussion..other than injecting yourself into what is my grievance with EA.

It's a message board, marg. I don't need a reason to post on a thread other than that a topic interests me. Get over it. I'm on this thread because I genuinely believe in the things I've argued. A friendly association with Stak (who hadn't even posted on the thread when I responded to you) has nothing to do with it. Nor does the history between you and me have anything to do with it. Life's too short to can grudges and stick them on shelves the way you do.

First of all it's not me holding grudges. It's you and EA. EA with numerous times taking pot shots unprovoked and you engaging me for the purpose essentially to harass.

And what is the topic you are discussing here with me? That I shouldn't criticize EA...because he's a competent arguer? Great... so why are you going to such efforts in long posts, supposedly defending him, since he doesn't need your defense?

If you really want a conversation between just you and EA, you need to PM him. Otherwise, other people can and will comment. That's how it works.

And what topic are we having a conversation about?

So you aren't denying that he attacked me..right?

He mentioned you in a negative light. It wasn't a personal attack though.

I tend to think anyone talking about me in a negative light is making a personal attack. Of course it was a personal attack.

I never attacked you "behind your back." I effectively made the same comment on this forum as I made on Liz's forum, within minutes of making it, too (here). And the comment I made was nowhere near as harsh as "catty bitch." Most people didn't even understand what Stak and I were talking about.

Well Stak wasn't on the other board so you couldn't have said the exact same thing. What you did was repeat Stak's comment (how original)..and then people wondered what it was about.

It's a matter of opinion on what is worse. I consider commenting negatively about someone behind their back with the intent to persuade others to treat another disrespectfully is worse that a direct negative comment.

I always disliked the "let's rant about MDB posters behind their backs" aspect of Liz's forum, and spoke out against it at the time. Since a forum with 30+ members is hardly a "private forum," it struck me as a recipe for hurt feelings and disaster, and it was. I never said anything about anyone there unless I posted the same comment here or they were posters there who could read what I said about them.

Look MsJack had you said the same thing on this board that you did on the other I would have commented to you. Did you noticed I commented to Stak? Sure I noticed your "10/10" which was really more of a brain dead comment than anything but then I later noticed your comment on Liz's board and thought that's getting a little too deviously nasty.

Tell me what is it you are saying. Stak has explained what he meant..so tell me when you said "10/10" what were you agreeing to and what provoked it. Does this come from conversations in chat?

I could attack you for your crazy belief on hell. I could chose to harass you in threads you aren't in, and post about what an idiot you must be to believe in a literal hell. Don't you think it would be a lot more biting, with your real name being bantered about discussing what crazy ridiculous beliefs you have?

Nope. You don't worry me in the slightest. I don't even think I've fully discussed my beliefs on hell anywhere on the Internet (which aren't entirely conventional), and I'm not embarrassed by what I believe, so yeah, good luck making fun of me for that. All people would see is an angry woman with an axe to grind who called me a "catty bitch" not making the slightest attempt at trying to understand what I believe.

You did discuss on this board that you believe a literal hell actually exists, a place where people will go to. What else is there to ask. It sounds pretty damn insane to me. And anyone can see it's you who seems angry, for me calling you a catty bitch, but if the shoe fits.

Furthermore, my guess is that if you go after me, some of the first people to speak in my defense against you are going to be your fellow atheists---because that's exactly what's happened on this forum numerous times before. That's the power of treating people decently: folks from a diverse paradigm respect you and will speak on your behalf even if they disagree with you.

What do you know about treating people decently? I've not talked about you behind your back. You spend time gossiping off the board and believe various individuals will come to your defense...and in fact that's basically what you are asking them to do...even though you are the provocateur here. I do appreciate that's exactly how this board operates..a good deal of the discussions are off the board in which people form alliances informally.

Maybe you should think long and hard about why folks like you (and Dan, for that matter) have hardly any people who don't believe the same as you speaking up on your behalf when you come under fire. I promise, there's a reason. It just isn't one that you're going to like.

It's quite simple I don't spend any time forming alliances off the board. None whatsoever.

I've already asked you to let out your feelings... you got something to say, a grievance then say it.

All this yakking of yours about what, I don't know..it's just basically to harass.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Ever notice how tedious and mind numbingly stupid a thread can get when Marg gets involved? It’s like Buzz Killington except with a head injury.

[_marg]

Why would I do that? My post wasn't about how you are a bad poster. I was making a point that required me to name an example of a bad poster who would be skeptical of the claim I mentioned. It wasn't addressed to you. But, as it happens, you read it. I get why you are insulted.

You were making the claim that DCP would spend all sorts of time arguing with someone like me..but not with someone like Tarski..in discussing a technical topic. I've spent very little time discussing with DCP. I would if he was on this board and the topic was something I had an interest in and read up on. I appreciate you like to disparage me on a frequent basis, but the topics I've involved myself with I've looked into and read up on issues related. Have you ever taken an interest in the spalding theory, that's the one I've spent the most time on. What do you know about the issues involving that, in order to determine whether I argue well or not. Let's see I've discussed besides spalding...abortion, out of africa theory, occam's razor, OBE & NDE, come to mind, none of those discussions you've been involved in.

If I'm going criticize you EA, it's going to be in a thread you are involved in..and I'll point out what or why I'm criticizing.

As far as responding on point I did..you are the one who has gone off on a tangent.

Not "on topic." "On point" as in effectively addressing the point I made.

Frankly I couldn't care less about DCP. So I'm not going to comment about him. I do think that this board became too hostile to him and as well that it was a no win situation for him to discuss with Stak when Stak wanted him to. Stak has displayed and you've encouraged that it is acceptable for him to use rhetorical gamesmenship of excessive insults in lieu of discussion. That's what I've observed on this board. So it's no wonder DCP didn't engage him. I don't read the MAD board. The reason I don't read the MAD board is because Mormonism claims are indefensible so why waste time arguing on there or even reading it. Besides critics comments are excessively controlled and restricted.

[_marg]

Ever notice how tedious and mind numbingly stupid a thread can get when Marg gets involved? It’s like Buzz Killington except with a head injury.

I haven't discussed a topic for a quite a while. But anytime I'm mentioned in a thread, I'm liable to comment. And they are about the only threads I've been bothering with. MsJack will be pleased with your comment by the way...she's been expecting you to say something.

You've got to talk to her about that hell business, she's really not dealing from a full deck.

[_MsJack]

It doesn't take magical mind reading to know your motivation wasn't simply to defend EA. You already stated he didn't need your defense.

I also stated my motivations plainly in this thread. Your second-guessing of my stated motivations is where the magical mind-reading skills come in.

First of all it's not me holding grudges. It's you and EA. EA with numerous times taking pot shots unprovoked and you engaging me for the purpose essentially to harass.

Marg, I did not comment on this thread out of prior dislike for you. Had Chap or Stak or Blixa or another poster whom I really like and respect gone after EA for his anonymity, I would have commented just the same. I don't refrain from criticizing people I like just because they're people I like as you do. It's pretty obvious that you're someone who's participation is decided first and foremost on whether you have a good or bad history with a person, and only then is the topic brought into play. I'm not like that.

I've never argued that you shouldn't criticize EA. Criticize him all you like. It was your criticism of his anonymity and his posting history that I disagreed with. And no, I don't believe EA "needed" me to speak up for him. I spoke up for him because I wanted to.

I tend to think anyone talking about me in a negative light is making a personal attack. Of course it was a personal attack.

Nope. Saying "marg is stupid and she smells like fish" is a personal attack. Saying "marg isn't really a very competent debater" is not a personal attack. The latter has nothing to do with you as a person; it has to do with the arguments you've put on display.

Well Stak wasn't on the other board so you couldn't have said the exact same thing. What you did was repeat Stak's comment (how original)..and then people wondered what it was about.

Good grief. All this drama and anger and you don't even know what I said? I don't know who told you I had attacked you over at Liz's forum, but it sounds like you were misinformed.

I'm not going to repeat all the details because it involves bringing up something on which I promised Dan I wouldn't bring up anymore. The bare bones of it is: Scottie attacked me on Liz's forum, and I replied, "You really are the green marg of MDB." That was it. I then headed over to this forum and did my "10/10" to Stak's comment here. I never claimed it was an original put-down.

I consider commenting negatively about someone behind their back with the intent to persuade others to treat another disrespectfully is worse that a direct negative comment.

Well then, it's a good thing I never did anything of the sort.

I later noticed your comment on Liz's board and thought that's getting a little too deviously nasty.

I think you have me mixed up with someone else. I had never said anything about you on Liz's forum other than telling Scottie he was the "green marg of MDB." Not a word.

If you want to try making fun of my beliefs, go for it. There's nothing I believe in that I'm ashamed of. I do believe in hell, though I don't view it as a literal place of fire and brimstone and gruesome torture, and I don't think there's anything "insane" about believing that people don't have to choose to be with God. With apologies to Rob Bell, I think a lot of modern-day universalism makes God sound like a creepy stalker who doesn't respect our choices and won't take "no" for an answer.

I don't spend time "forming alliances" off this board. Some of the people who have come to my defense on this forum are people whom I've never spoken with in private or chat.

she's really not dealing from a full deck.

See? Now you've called me "catty bitch" (repeatedly), "insane," "brain dead," and "not dealing from a full deck," when the only "personal attack" I've ever made on you was to tell another poster that he reminds me of you. All this because I disagreed with your criticism of EA? You stay classy, marg.

Ever notice how tedious and mind numbingly stupid a thread can get when Marg gets involved? It’s like Buzz Killington except with a head injury.

Yeah, but EA kind of brought it on himself for bringing her up. It's like mentioning the bringer of hurricanes. Even saying their name in passing is asking for it.

[_EAllusion]

can remember 2 threads that he was involved in, in which he argued with me. One was at the beginning of this board when he defended DCP against accusations that DCP was paid (indirectly or directly) for apologetics. I had said indirectly he was being paid, and in that thread EA went into attack mode taking the position he wasn't paid in any way. The other time had to do with something about logic..unfortunately I don't remember the details at this point

For what it is worth, this is just wildly inaccurate. The only thing that is really correct is that we once had a PM exchange about a disagreement we had. It wasn't about logic. You asserted that Richard Dawkins isn't a determinist you because misread him saying that we wasn't a genetic determinist. I replied to this in the thread.

You can read the thread here:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 06#p250506

In the PM exchange I tried to explain to you the difference between determinism and genetic determinism in the contexts they were used. You tried to say that you still think he isn't a determinist. I pointed out that even if that was the case, you still misread the passage in question. You said you disagreed and would show me the error of my ways, but then abandoned it.

The reason I replied to you, besides you being wrong, was because in that thread you said, "I don't generally like philosophy, it reminds me too much of religion." This was ridiculous and noteworthy given that you were involved in a discussion on philosophical matters and badly misreading something because you didn't understand some basic philosophical issues.

Anyway, I've addressed you on numerous occasions and you don't seem to remember anything about them correctly. Sorry.

[Guest]

You said you disagreed and would show me the error of my ways, but then abandoned it.

The reason I replied to you, besides you being wrong, was because in that thread you said, "I don't generally like philosophy, it reminds me too much of religion." This was ridiculous and noteworthy given that you were involved in a discussion on philosophical matters and badly misreading something because you didn't understand some basic philosophical issues.

Yes, I do not like most people's discussions on message boards involving heavy use of philosophical terms. I generally find their ideas uncreative, and that they are regurgitating what they've read (not something they've come up with themselves) and what they offer often tends to be little more than a linguistic game ...going nowhere. Did I demonstrate to you EA that I didn't understand the philosophical concept of determinism in my comments in that thread? I think I do understand generally the concept of determinism..not that I particularly care about it or think as Dawkins said that it's an important discussion. If the world was deterministic then genetic determinism would be included. I suppose if someone was a genetic determinist that wouldn't entail necessarily holding a determinist position with regards to the world.

This is what the author I linked to said:

I begin by asking him(Dawkins) about genetic determinism. He is on record as calling it a myth–what does he take the myth to be?

“I suppose the myth that there is something peculiar about genetic determinism as opposed to any other kind of determinism,” he replies. “I recognize that philosophically speaking determinism is a difficult issue, which philosophers have been talking about for centuries. My point was that genetics has nothing to contribution to that philosophical argument the argument will go on, and it is an interesting and important argument, but if you are determinist you are a determinist, and adding the word genetic doesn't make it any more deterministic. There is nothing peculiar about genetic determinism which makes it particularly sinister.

Please note EA, Dawkins is quoted as saying "but if you are determinist you are a determinist, and adding the word genetic doesn't make it any more deterministic."

If he was a determinist, wouldn't he have said he was? I don't even see him claiming to be a genetic determinist. What you are saying is that philosophically he's a determinist. I don't think Dawkins cares about this philosophical discussion re: determinism. And with regards to genetic determinism, I think he sees behaviors as complex, multifactorial with genes contributing but not the only contribution. On what basis, can you conclude he's a determinist? Do you think he's a genetic determinist?

Anyway, I've addressed you on numerous occasions and you don't seem to remember anything about them correctly. Sorry.

This is the first time you've actually brought up a specific thread, and your reasons for being annoyed. You are right I don't remember this thread, but then again you don't remember anything it seems with regards to our exchange at the inception of this board as part of a discussion involving many people and in regards to whether or not DCP is likely paid for apologetics by the church (indirectly).