Why are there not more apologists on this site?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Eric

Re: Why are there not more apologists on this site?

Post by _Eric »

Daniel did not allude to any PM exchanges in a post on this board.


I believe he did on that thread, before it was deleted. He said something about how it would be against the rules to post his PMs, and doubted that this board had any rules.

Since he is using the event to disparage Jersey Girl, I see nothing out-of-bounds about posting the exchange.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Why are there not more apologists on this site?

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Jersey Girl wrote:
I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who strongly disagrees with whatever I post on this board. I have major problems being attacked behind the scenes and then being mischaracterized by the person who did it.


I don't see any reason why you need to refrain from posting the PMs. Many of us already saw them, and plus, I personally post material from PMs all the time. A good chunk of my best threads would not exist if I were unable to post PMs. If it's truly a problem, Shades will simply delete the postings.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Why are there not more apologists on this site?

Post by _Gadianton »

Runtu wrote:I'm not sure why mfb put so much weight on one minor thread from Gadiantion such that nothing else here was worth sticking around for.


He has said more than once on MAD that we've "got nothing going on" over here and doesn't see the point in sticking around. He speaks very low of the whole board over at MAD very independent of me, I've not really interacted with him all that much. Now that for whatever reason, he went down the rabbit whole in what was essentially a fabrication on his part, connecting dots that weren't there from my post that totaled about two paragraphs, and melting down over it, he speaks about the good times discussion things with Runtu. Well, this is a new development from what I've read. It reminds me of DCP's "apostate narrative", while he was here, he cited only his need to "defend" himself and bros at the MI along with his psychological fascination with the insane, but when crafting his story at MDB post exodus, IRRC, all that was mentioned was his desire to help but a few that would listen and be reasonable here.

mfb may very well come back. Imagine, DCP is virtually as here as he ever was, Schryver retired for good from the whole scene -- for a whole four hours. Haven't both you and I said we were "quitting" at one time without following through? In fact, I'll tell you what, since A.I. thinks I've done this terrible wrong based on a post she admitted to not having read and since you did such a good job on those posts mfb showed up to participate on, and while I think mfb is more interested in fostering apologetic relationships and getting into the club so to speak than discuss issues, I'll try and see it ya'll's way. I hereby apologize to mfbukowski for "setting a trap" -- in whatever way he believes I tried to trick him in the thread. And if he's willing to come back to MDB and give it another try, I promise to not interact with him in any way, mention his name, or discuss/criticize views he expresses either here or on MAD at all. Someone can PM this over to him on MAD if they wish, well, I'm sure one of the many spies MAD has over here lurking will do so. If his interests in discussing philosophy with you, Runtu, outweigh what I see as in-crowd tendencies, looking for agreement with DCP etc. and this was a convenient opportunity, then he really has every reason to come back and just try. He shows up posting here again, and all discussion from me about his ideas expressed online or his tactics, even within this very thread, end immediately, forever. Plus, if he begins posting here in the next 48 hours, I'll throw in a bonus, I will grant him a free pass to say whatever he wants about me as per my online activities, insult me however he wishes, and no defenses or comments from me whatsoever.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Why are there not more apologists on this site?

Post by _RockSlider »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who strongly disagrees with whatever I post on this board. I have major problems being attacked behind the scenes and then being mischaracterized by the person who did it.


I don't see any reason why you need to refrain from posting the PMs. Many of us already saw them, and plus, I personally post material from PMs all the time. A good chunk of my best threads would not exist if I were unable to post PMs. If it's truly a problem, Shades will simply delete the postings.


A shining example of integrity, responsibility and respect, from an anonymous coward.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Why are there not more apologists on this site?

Post by _harmony »

Jersey Girl wrote:
harmony,

I don't think you understand what I've stated here. I honestly don't.


Oh, I understand it, Jersey.

There are 2 schools of thought on that:
1. When in doubt, don't.
2. Ask forgiveness after the fact.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Why are there not more apologists on this site?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

harmony wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
harmony,

I don't think you understand what I've stated here. I honestly don't.


Oh, I understand it, Jersey.

There are 2 schools of thought on that:
1. When in doubt, don't.
2. Ask forgiveness after the fact.


I'm not in doubt, harm. I asked for approval and received it. I'll be back.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Why are there not more apologists on this site?

Post by _Gadianton »

Alter Idem wrote:My schooling was in Psychology--yes, I am interested in 'people' a lot more than philosophizing. Is there something wrong with this? in my opinion, we all come to these boards for different reasons, I think my reason is as valid as yours.


Huh. Well, I think that's fine, but don't forget that Doctor Scratch's training is in Mopologetic Studies and Sophistry, and brings his own interests and tools for criticism to the table here. As you like to referee and diagnose participants in threads, Doctor Scratch studies how the personalities play out in the big picture within apologetics and offers his interpretations.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_ttribe

Re: Why are there not more apologists on this site?

Post by _ttribe »

RockSlider wrote:A shining example of integrity, responsibility and respect, from an anonymous coward.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
_Yoda

Re: Why are there not more apologists on this site?

Post by _Yoda »

ttribe wrote:
RockSlider wrote:A shining example of integrity, responsibility and respect, from an anonymous coward.

Couldn't have said it better myself.


Actually, RockSlider is stealing material from Bob Crockett. Bob is famous for calling everyone who posts anonymously "anonymous cowards."

;)
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Why are there not more apologists on this site?

Post by _Gadianton »

Actually, A.I., I have to correct one more thing. It looks like it was 3toesloth who got mfb over here, not me. I went back and checked given mfb's protest on MAD, and the comment I was thinking of came after 3toe's post.

---

He is however, wrong about calling out 3toe on some errors. He made no such call against 3toe, he's never come close to winning any debate here. Granted, for whatever reason 3toe had this copy/paste thing going on which included a whole list of plain-text symbols and axioms that were lifted from a theologin debating an atheist on Richard Dawkins's forum. But mfb misinterpreted this move on 3toe's part to suggest he didn't know what he was doing, since 3toe was arguing the atheist side.

As 3toe had mentioned long before that (and whether this is fabricated or not, it's a reasonable story) as an undergrad he trained by bashing against the ontological argument which in course would require familiarity with logic. 3toe persona was taking issue primarily with mfb's loose and unfocused MO, his starting point of symbolic logic was a shot against mfb's lack of rigor, not his belief in God, and to suggest mfb wasn't prepared to debate him using the more serious tools of analytical philosophy. It didn't really matter that he lifted all that from a theologin, he could have got it from anywhere else. He might have plagiarized it, but he wasn't incoherently using it.

mfb in no way owned 3toe. 3toe kind of owned himself along with Ray A.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Post Reply