Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (2495)	3/13/2002 3:37:52 PM
From: Bill Grant	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

A fine post Neocon. I'm sure it is very frustrating for you to take the time to post your well-thought-out posts, only to have a respondent come back with a line or two of repetitious cant. BG

To: Neocon who wrote (2495)	3/13/2002 3:59:27 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I feel your pain. Karen

To: Neocon who wrote (2495)	3/13/2002 4:30:49 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

RE: Then, a few days later, JLA gets a week off (standard punishment, 3 days) I was banned for 15 days, jla got off lightly IMHO.

To: Neocon who wrote (2495)	3/13/2002 4:33:25 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

RE:then I have to listen to endless Actually you are reading and you don't HAVE to read any posts here. Being a tad melodramatic here, IMHO.

To: Neocon who wrote (2495)	3/13/2002 5:39:40 PM
From: maried.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

The only way to live in the midst of inharmonious influences is to strengthen the power and endure all things, yet keeping fineness of character and nobility of manner, together with an everlasting love. H.I. Kahn Hang on to your character and manner, Neocon. As the song goes, " They can't take that away from me." Marie

To: Neocon who wrote (2495)	3/13/2002 7:42:21 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 21057

You take this stuff way too seriously.

To: Neocon who wrote (2495)	3/13/2002 9:15:22 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Wow Neo, I really appreciate your honesty in this post. It's worth re-reading.

To: Neocon who wrote (2495)	3/14/2002 9:22:32 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

May I say that I consider most of that post self-dramatizing bull shit, tendentious misrepresentation, and specious argument? To me, they may as well be Jew- haters, even granting they do not limit themselves, but despise those with some religious belief (most of their fellow men) pretty equally. Instead of admitting that there may be sympathetic reasons for belief, First, out of curiosity: Are you by any chance including me among those who haven't "admitted" that there may be sympathetic reasons for belief? Because I'd hate to waste the time doing it, but I can remind you with links to posts that I have, myself, many times expressed myself as understanding belief in a sympathetic way. Which is not to say I buy any of the conflicting beliefs offered as truth by the religious, or that I am sympathetic to anyone for wanting to shove theirs down the throats of nonbelievers, but that is of course not what you said. You imply that there is a significant constituency here of haters-of-their-fellow man (and not the constituency of haters that is to be found on the RWET.) About this characterization as it might relate to me, since I am one of the outspoken atheists: Most recently, and maybe this will ring a bell, I talked with sympathy and understanding about all human beings needing "meaning" in their lives. I discussed a specific experience I had had in which I was one of a group of women who had in common a similar family tragedy, and who all except me were religious. I said that it was clear to me that they were strengthened by the conviction that although they didn't know what the "reason" for this tragedy befalling them (we all had an afflicted child), there was a reason, and that God knew it; and for that reason, they should (and could) accept what had happened to us all in a way I couldn't. I said I had envied them, that it was clearly harder in a deep way for me, but that in the end, I came through too. That's paraphrase. If you don't recall it, someone else may. And who, exactly, "despises those with religious belief"? That's a tendentious, inflammatory claim that personal hatred and animosity have been displayed for "those with religious belief" because they have religious beliefs. Who on SI "despises" persons for having beliefs as opposed to despising certain persons for attitudes and behaviors toward others? Who? Is there any atheist poster on SI who doesn't have sympathetic SI-friendships or respectful exchanges with with believers? I think you can't take much critical commentary, if you are rendered so very hyperbolic and hurt and huffy over "imaginary friend" remarks. If you're sure of your ground, what's so upsetting? I'm not upset at the insults to me as an atheist, the repeated implication over the years that I can't be the possessor of morals, for example. Or that I am a baby-killer because I don't believe a fertilized ovum possesses a "soul" and therefore that those who do believe this shouldn't rule the uteruses of those who don't, but only of their own. You got carried away with your own self-righteous rhetoric, and it resulted in dishonest casemaking imo. I suggest you should stand up and fight for your beliefs like a man, not whine and make self-pitying crap up. What you believe isn't sacrosanct, though the religious seem often to believe it should be. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the disputational kitchen, I'd suggest. "Imaginary friend" bothers you? Sheesh. Then stop imagining one, why don't you. <g> BTW, I don't think you should pay any attention to pressure not to post to CH. I respect you for sticking by a friend. If we all dropped friends who had behaved badly, even very badly, we'd all be lonely.

To: Neocon who wrote (2495)	3/15/2002 6:08:36 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 21057

For the first time, with respect to him, I tried to get SI Administration to take action Good for you! And, unfortunately, I'm not surprised that SI Admin did nothing about that (^#^^&. I know many liberals are bound to be offended by this, but if they are, I would like to suggest that instead of complaining, they take action to remove the basis of my complaint. About two weeks ago, Evile showed up in RWET. THe entire thread that was present at the time jumped on him and he was gone pretty quickly. He moved over to GWB. A large number of RWers jumped him. Only two liberals did- -and one was Poet, who otherwise never frequents GWB. A most dismal showing, I think. What I really can't understand is how he can not be offensive and what JLA said was. I just don't get. That &(*&$^% also is not banned from this thread. I would be most grateful to anyone who gives me grounds to do so.

To: Neocon who wrote (2495)	3/20/2002 7:32:25 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

<font color=red>THREAD: CH PREFERS NOT BEING DISCUSSED HERE. Please take it to BB to where he can defend himself. And yes, I know I'm way late in spotting this. I can't read every post and the last several have hardly read any. If anyone sees any problems, please PM me or bring them to the posters attention.

To: Neocon who wrote (2495)	3/22/2002 8:53:03 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 21057

I am bugged by the fact that those with clear orientations, who think that religion is bad and oppressive and superstitious and polarizing, and who think that atheism or agnosticism is rational and humane and heroic and liberating, pretend that they are somehow more objective than I am, fail to make a serious effort to engage the points on the table, and merely resort to accustomed forms of ridicule, in essence. So, how do I score? I figure I'm probably the most vituperative atheist here... Laz gets bored too easily to give really good rebuttals, LOL. Do I think religion is - bad? Sometimes, depending on what is believed and practiced, and how dogmatically... This is arguably the religious rather than the religion, but the one requires the other, and since the former will (if bad) often declare that his interpretation IS the religion, there is then no difference on those terms. What makes one interpretation of a religion by a practitioner any more (or less) 'valid' than any other? - oppressive? It certainly can be, and has been in its time. Fundamentalist versions are. See above. - superstitious? IMO, by definition. - polarizing? Depends on how extreme they are. These days, few people in the UK are polarized by the CofE - unless they themselves are fundie (Xtian or Islamic). Meanwhile, do I think atheism or agnosticism are - rational? Yep. - humane? Well, maybe. No more/less than most religions, in most forms. Less so than the ones that teach 'Love the outsider' (i.e., non-believer) - strangely, few seem to follow this tenet. Much more humane than the ones that preach 'Death to infidels', or that non-believers are worth less, or less human. - heroic? Probably less so than than the religious, since it's hard to get all fired up about not believing in a god... so you're unlikely to charge to death for your cause. OTOH it used to be rather brave to declare oneself atheist. - liberating? 100%. Do I consider myself 'more objective'? Well, I wouldn't say I'm 'objective' on religion as such - but I disbelieve all religions equally... Do I 'fail to make a serious effort to engage the points on the table'? I deny that. I discuss them so long as there's a rational rebuttal (or proof). If the 'proof' strays into feelings, beliefs or wishes I will not bother trying to prove/refute these, obviously. I don't mock such: how can I? I do not believe the same, but I can't disprove someone's feelings. Lastly, do I 'resort to accustomed forms of ridicule'? Well, I hope not - I think I'm doing well with new forms of ridicule too. As for the rest of the post, well, most of it isn't (I presume) relevant to me. I'll treat your 'Jew-hater' comment as simply blowing off steam, but I suggest you stick to faecal insults in future (ass-wipe seems especially productive, and appears to be an original coinage too). But good rant, anyhow. I'm all in favour of ranting. (reminded I owed you a reply after siliconinvestor.com ).