Pete's Complainy Thread

[Dak]

No, of course not! The term public refers to posting a comment in a thread.

 

So, in other words, exactly like your two posts above YT's comment, which were blatant flames, and were only 'not public' because I deleted them.

 

Because I never discussed religion in the first place. Seems like iNow succeed in erroneously convincing you that I did discuss religion. Don’t bother trying to deny it.

 

some random quotes from that thread in addition to those iNow provided:

 

----

 

FYI - Perhaps people will understand me better if I explain myself on this point a bit. I'm a Christian and a physicist. I'm one of those Christians who does not accept the Because God did it. explanation of the phenomena in nature. As a physicist I believe that would be like giving up on the search for an understanding of the universe when they do that. I always try to look for a better understanding of reality. Putting these two philosophies together I think it can be described in the same way Einstein phrased it - I want to understand the universe because I want to know what God is thinking. (or something like that).

 

Where did you learn this from? It doesn't sound like Islam at all!

 

There are some really brilliant physicists in this world who are extremely smart, rational and critical thinkers who also believe in God.

 

I asked a Muslim friend about this and he tells me this is pure nonsense. I myself have never come across such a thing in my studies of Islam. Where in the world did you hear this anyway?

 

Getting back to morals, consider the ten commandments.

 

----

 

and so on. I'm sorry Pete, but even if you didn't realise it at the time, you were, in actual fact, at least tangently discussing religion. Granted you were constantly claiming that you weren't, but you also have constantly claimed you're leaving, yet you're still here.

 

fwiw, yes you didn't bring religion into the conversation; but as DH said on the first page:

 

The original question is "where do morals come from?" Excluding religion from the discussion of this topic doesn't make much sense because religion historically played a big part in the development and promulgation of morals.

 

So far, nobody has advocated in this thread that religion is right or that religion is the root of all evil. We should be fine if we keep the discussion to the history of moral and religious thinking.

 

Now: it seems as if you got annoyed at iNow for what he said about god. he was warned, via PM (yet again, and for the last time*) not to be so abrasive. you were calmed down via PM by phi. I hinted in the thread that the religion aspect of the conversation was over, just to make sure there'd be no 'who gets the last word'age going on. You attacked what I said in a way I found annoying, and which pretty much carried on the problems in the thread in what I considered to be an 'im having the last word' kinda way. I put my foot down and pointed out that you were, not to put too fine a point on it, talking gibberish, and that any further off-topic posts would be deleted.

 

Maybe I was too provocative, maybe not. who cares, really. If I was, then I appologise, but if you really can't take your posts being pointed out to be wrong and/or being moderated, I'd suggest this is the wrong site for you.

 

You responded by insulting me twice in the thread, reporting my post with an offensive message about me (dispite the fact that you must have known mods can read the reported posts), you've generally been annoying certain mods with your attitude, etc. I'll point out that no-one's banned you, and are in actual fact taking efforts to try to encourage you to calm down.

 

In future, just ignore iNow. in future, if you don't want your post ripped apart then make sure it in some way makes sense. in future, if you don't want to be annoyed don't piss off lazy moderators whilst you are forcing them to moderate you. In future, if someone offends you -- intentionally or otherwize -- take a few deep breaths and try not to cross the line from 'forgivebly a bit snarky' over into 'prissy'.

 

Lets try this again:

 

Thanks. I just blocked iNow.

 

well, if you're going to ignore each other from now on, i guess that's the end of it.

 

hint, hint.

 

I rarely post in physics and you rarely post out of it, so ignoring each other shouldn't be too hard. Honestly, I'd prefer if you stay, but i'd suggest you steer clear of religion from now on (tho, of course, if you have any further issues with my moderation/post-reporting feel free to carry on)

 

----

*Oh look, i'm publically moderating iNow**, as Phi did earlyer in the thread. aren't we evil.

If it helps, in the last 24 hours i've had to moderate 3 people (1 of whom was really quite annoying) and i'm lazy, so am a tad grumpy right now.

 

**Possibly 'cos i'm pissed off that <1 day after his last warning i'm pretty sure he managed to piss off YT and Pete again with his tackless bitching at god again, hint. hint.

[iNow]

Perhaps its because they clearly demonstate that you're wrong. And iNow doesn't like to admit when he's wrong now does he? Makes life easy for ya does it?

 

I'm very frequently wrong, friend. I admit it when I am. I've done so repeatedly on these boards. I pride myself on my academic integrity, and I'm sure others here will support my assertion about said integrity.

 

I am very thankful that you've put me on your ignore list. Enjoy.

 

 

 

EDIT: Sorry, Dak. Cross posted.

[Pete]

Dak - Give it a rest and stop whining. You're acting like a two year old

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Okay, so in summary: religion was brought up, people were offended, arguments started, fun happened, people were put on ignore lists.

 

Sounds to me like the original problem has been solved. Unless there are any other important issues I've missed, let's just let this thread die.

[Pete]

Okay, so in summary: religion was brought ...

 

Just as a matter of point - Let's not exagerate as to what was brought up? One bogus claim that religion was brought up was because I said something to the effect that "even such and such isn't mentioned in the Bible." We were talking about morals and I was giving an arguement that something wasn't really a moral issue by comparing it to what many people consider to be the most rigid standard of morals, i.e. the Bible. That's a use of an analogy, not an attempt to discuss religion. If I said that without wings a plane would drop like a stone would you think I was taking the discussion off topic by bringing up geology? I don't think so.

 

The reason I mention this is due to the fallacy of logic that was attempted here which is against forum rules, is it not?

[Sisyphus]

What a tedious argument.

 

Okay, so in summary: religion was allegedly brought up, people were offended, arguments started, fun happened, people were put on ignore lists.

 

Sounds to me like the original problem has been solved. Unless there are any other important issues I've missed, let's just let this thread die.

[Mr Skeptic]

No, we still have to blame somebody!!!!

[Pete]

What a tedious argument.

 

Okay, so in summary: religion was allegedly brought up, people were offended, arguments started, fun happened, people were put on ignore lists.

 

Sounds to me like the original problem has been solved. Unless there are any other important issues I've missed, let's just let this thread die.

I completely agree. At this point I believe that forcing a misinterpretation of a comment, regardless of the authors stated clarification which may follow, would belong to an entirely different thread. but I'm not really interested in starting a new thread on this sine I'd be better of asking forum administrators about it and do so in PM. To whom do you recommend that I address such a question to? Edited October 1, 2008 by Pete

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If you have problems that you need to discuss with staff, you can send a PM to me or one of the other moderators.

[blike]

[Gilded]

[blike]