RoR: Forum

John misquoted me:

"You were taught that Jesus' message replaced and superseded the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament, (circumcision, the dietary laws, etc.,) and that the essence of the Law was to love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.....John, it doesn't surprise me that you missed the essential points."

That's a convenient ellipsis, isn't it, John. What did you leave out?

Post 21

Monday, March 8, 2010 - 2:39pm

I can see this is a waste of my time. I tried to point out the anti-social behavior you often exhibit but it seems you're too narcissistic to realize it.

Post 22

Monday, March 8, 2010 - 4:22pm

I repeat John, where is the insult here? This is your suspiciously edited quote of me:

"You were taught that Jesus' message replaced and superseded the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament, (circumcision, the dietary laws, etc.,) and that the essence of the Law was to love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.....John, it doesn't surprise me that you missed the essential points."

What was left out? Oh, yeah, me quoting your own habitual resort to bathroom language when people disagree with you, which is now somehow proof of my rudeness.

You imagine slights and resort to projected accusations of insults whenever you feel challenged.

I have provided explanations and references and corrections of misquotes on this thread, none of which apparently counts, since you think my calling you a confused ex-Christian is out of line. Every thread is about your delicate feelings. Fine, be the selfless victim, just not on my behalf, please.

Post 23

Monday, March 8, 2010 - 6:25pm

Ted,

I have to say something here. Your rudeness is obvious not just to John, but to several other people on this forum as well, who have already pointed it out. But it has become increasingly clear that you have no intention of acknowledging it or of making any effort to change it.

This is unfortunate, because you're scholarly, well-read and have some good things to say, but you have some serious blind spots vis-a-vis your interactions other posters that detracts from your communication and discourages them from dealing with you.

- Bill

Post 24

Monday, March 8, 2010 - 7:40pm

Thanks, Bill.

I wrote a long five hundred word essay explaining how words like ignorant which I used above may not be complimentary, but that they are not insults either. Many people do use words like ignorant, the meaning of which they themselves are not too careful with, as if they were general terms of abuse. I do not. I don't use them to call names. I mean them quite literally when I use them and I do not apologize for it.

But here's the rub. There's no point in my explaining why my using such words when the usage is justified by the facts and the literal meaning shouldn't hurt the feelings of grown men when those same men remain silent in the face of real insults and name calling. Not only did no one object when Armaos used terms like shitcock and other posters called me an asshole. Armaos and the others were sanctioned for their posts. Steve Wolfer demanded to know who sanctioned Paul Cambell for calling Alexandra York a fascist. (Campbell didn't call her a Nazi) Who demanded to know who sanctioned John Armaos's post calling me a fuckwad?

I'll take all this selfless advice seriously when it is first given to and accepted by the name callers and bullies who really need it.

Post 25

Monday, March 8, 2010 - 10:33pm

Ted,

You said, "Steve Wolfer demanded to know who sanctioned Paul Cambell for calling Alexandra York a fascist. (Campbell didn't call her a Nazi) Who demanded to know who sanctioned John Armaos's post calling me a fuckwad?"

In the post you are referring to (Howard Campbell, not 'Paul Cambell"), he used the phrase "aesthetic fascism" and in the next sentence called Alexandra York "Eva Braun" and then suggested that she would like the 1936 Berlin Olympics. That, to me, added up to calling her a Nazi.

(And he finished by calling her "idiot" - not an intellectual tour de force on his part, or a shining example of civil critique.)
----------

You are upset that I didn't object when John was being sanctioned for attacking you with his ugly name calling. Over the years, I've objected to John's name calling many times. And in that particular thread, you complained that I didn't join with you in opposing John's ugly posts and I replied, saying, "I don't agree with John's use of language at all. I gave up on lecturing John on name-calling a long time ago. I found out that people really don't do much to come to [one's] aid, or rally around a standard of civility. Some people just ignore him and others have left. If I were the site owner he would have received a warning and moderation for that kind of thing - long ago."
-----------

It's strange that you want to drag me into this, given that I wasn't part of this thread. For future reference, please don't mistake my silence for support of John. Even though I believe that John's language should earn him a penalty instead of a sanction, Bill is correct in both his positive and his negative comments in post 23. Your contributions would be so much more without the attitude.

Post 26

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 - 10:34am