Why The Anger?

[Severian]

I think this might be a better analogy. Can someone believe this? If they want. Should we budget any money to fight the aliens or teach about them in school? Hope not.

Should we consider people who don't believe this as unpatriotic and only vote for representatives who hold this belief? Well, that would just piss me off.

 

You too are shifting the goal posts. Did anyone here say that religious beliefs should be taught at public school (other than in history or social studies)? Did anyone here say that we are only Christians may be elected officials? If they did, I must have missed them.

 

While it is undoubtedly true that many so-called Christians have done terrible things in the past, and many so-called Christians of today have very questionable attitudes, why to you tar the entirety of believing Christians with the same brush? I hope that no-one on this site (which I like to think might have readers of above average intelligence) would hold all Muslims responsible for the terrorism of Al Qaeda, so why perform the analogous dis-service for Christians?

 

Maybe one day we will get to the point where people don't judge you based on categorization, whether that is race, gender, sexuality, religion or whatever. Maybe one day we will regard people as individuals. But it is quite clear from this thread, and posting on SFN in general, that we are not there yet.

[rigney]

While your particular church might not do this, many churches use emotional blackmail to get money off of paritioners and use it for other things than charity. Some cases of the evangelical churches do that, and you can see it by some (not all) incredibly wealthy buildings AND incredibly wealthy pastors.

 

That said, there's also cases where the church acts AGAINST causes (speaking of gay HIV sufferers specifically) - one very familiar instance is some churches that send their pastors to Africa to convince the people that condoms are the source of HIV and quite actively (the issue of 'purposefully' is unproven, though debatable) increase the number of HIV infections.

 

It's hard to talk of "The Church" as a single entity when there are many churches, many denominations, and many not-too-innocent-practicioners out there that give many of these churches some seriously bad names.

 

~moo

 

 

I'm no bible thumper Mooey and pretty much don't give a rats behind one way or another as to who wins the race. But your paraphrasing above is exactly the anger of which I spoke. While you mask your fairly well, it's anger none the less. Most guys on the forum just get upset with each other, duke it out and go on to the next page. But your statements, without evidence to back them up; might be considered slanderous? I suppose that fellow Jesus had it right when he spoke to those who were about to put the "whore", to death by stoning. He said to them; Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Now, you don't have to be too religious or down right smart; to get his meaning!!

Edited August 14, 2010 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

I'm no bible thumper Mooey and pretty much don't give a rats behind one way or another as to who wins the race. But your paraphrasing above is exactly the anger of which I spoke. While you mask your fairly well, it's anger none the less.

I'm not sure how you can read that out of her post. She was actually defending the religious.

 

But your statements, without evidence to back them up; might be considered slanderous?

It's most certainly NOT slander, and citations aren't needed for common knowledge. Everyone knows that there are religious groups teaching that condoms are evil in AIDS ridden places. Everyone knows that there are religious groups in Africa teaching that you should kill homosexuals. Everyone knows that there are places where your nose gets cut off by a religious group if you try to escape an abusive relationship.

 

However, we cannot extend such abhorrent behaviour to religious people as a whole; you cannot extrapolate the properties of the general from the particular alone. Extremists do not define the religion.

 

He said to them; Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Now, you don't have to be too religious or down right smart; to get his meaning!!

Now, think of how this might relate to the OP.

 

You too are shifting the goal posts. Did anyone here say that religious beliefs should be taught at public school (other than in history or social studies)? Did anyone here say that we are only Christians may be elected officials? If they did, I must have missed them.

I haven't read this subthread, but I'm not sure he was talking about you specifically. If he wasn't, then he wasn't shifting goalposts. There ARE people that think religion should be taught in science class. There ARE places where only Christians can be elected officials. There are even places where it is illegal to be an atheist!

 

I hope that no-one on this site (which I like to think might have readers of above average intelligence) would hold all Muslims responsible for the terrorism of Al Qaeda, so why perform the analogous dis-service for Christians?

Exactly. You cannot take the properties of the outliers and generalize that as the properties of the group as a whole.

 

Unfortunately, people DO do this. Such things can be seen with the what should be a non-issue of the mosque to be built near Ground Zero.

[rigney]

I'm not sure how you can read that out of her post. She was actually defending the religious.

 

It's most certainly NOT slander, and citations aren't needed for common knowledge. Everyone knows that there are religious groups teaching that condoms are evil in AIDS ridden places. Everyone knows that there are religious groups in Africa teaching that you should kill homosexuals. Everyone knows that there are places where your nose gets cut off by a religious group if you try to escape an abusive relationship.

 

However, we cannot extend such abhorrent behaviour to religious people as a whole; you cannot extrapolate the properties of the general from the particular alone. Extremists do not define the religion.

 

 

Now, think of how this might relate to the OP.

 

I haven't read this subthread, but I'm not sure he was talking about you specifically. If he wasn't, then he wasn't shifting goalposts. There ARE people that think religion should be taught in science class. There ARE places where only Christians can be elected officials. There are even places where it is illegal to be an atheist!

 

Exactly. You cannot take the properties of the outliers and generalize that as the properties of the group as a whole.

 

Unfortunately, people DO do this. Such things can be seen with the what should be a non-issue of the mosque to be built near Ground Zero.

 

Even had the goal post thing been directed at me, there was no malice. But to make diacritical remarks about someones reputation can get you in a lot of hot water. 1. Law: Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. 2. A false and/or malicious statement report about someone. To publicize that a particular person is: a Schwantz Likker without having proof, and then to say that you really didn't mean for it to sound like that they were queer? C'mon, it don't make sense. Prove the statements and I can live with the truth. We don't want, or need to control how the entire world reacts to certain conditions and have enough problems right here at home. Non-issue? A mosque to be built at ground zero? You're pulling my leg, right? Why not build a huge cathedral in Mecca to show our appreciation of the Muslim Religion?

Edited August 14, 2010 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

Even had the goal post thing been directed at me, there was no malice. But to make diacritical remarks about someones reputation can get you in a lot of hot water. 1. Law: Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

2. A false and/or malicious statement report about someone. To publicize that a particular person is: a Schwantz Likker; without proof, and then to say that you really didn't mean for it to sound like that, don't make it. Prove the statements and I can live with the truth. We don't want, or need to control how the entire world reacts to certain conditions, we have enough problems right here at home.

They're common knowledge. Which ones do you want support for?

 

And the mosque at ground zero? You're pulling my leg, right?

What about it? There's not a thing wrong with it. It might be dangerous to build because of stupid people with a fear of Muslims, but that's about it.

[padren]

While it is undoubtedly true that many so-called Christians have done terrible things in the past, and many so-called Christians of today have very questionable attitudes, why to you tar the entirety of believing Christians with the same brush? I hope that no-one on this site (which I like to think might have readers of above average intelligence) would hold all Muslims responsible for the terrorism of Al Qaeda, so why perform the analogous dis-service for Christians?

 

Maybe one day we will get to the point where people don't judge you based on categorization, whether that is race, gender, sexuality, religion or whatever. Maybe one day we will regard people as individuals. But it is quite clear from this thread, and posting on SFN in general, that we are not there yet.

 

The problem I have Severian, is not with the categories or labels, but specific properties or attributes that those individuals share, that I admittedly don't understand very well. Perhaps you can help me understand it better, because with my limited exposure I may be somewhat limited in how I can conceptualize the issue. The primary issue for me, is that people who are religious, and utilize religious thinking invoke a process that I can't really identify as any different than reading tea leaves - sometimes it's tea, sometimes it's interpreting really old books, or scrolls, or orally passed down stories - but at the end of the day it's a form of divination by reading into something.

To the best of my understanding, there are many ways to interpret the more fixed works, such as the people creating the "conservative bible" to root out the poisons of liberalism, or just take the old and new Testament and interpret reasons why Christians should treat non-Christians as equals and live by a genuinely admiral set of morals, while others picket funerals and act in incredibly hateful ways. It's not that I bunch both types of Christian together - I just don't see any difference in the process. Both see multiple ways to interpret and divine meaning from a sacred set of books, and use some sort of emotional bias towards and divine meanings that appeal to their sense of morality and integrity. Honestly it's kind of scary - most Christians are pretty easy going right now for sure - but it takes less than a generation for emotional biases to change and should the good Christians of the world decide to interpret those texts in a way that assures them that the Moral thing to do is lynch me and mine, I have no way to counter such an argument - all I could do is play the Divination Game, and hope my counter-picks hit some positive emotional bias. Otherwise - without reason, and since it's not based on a rational approach I am pretty much at the mercy of the tea leaf readers.

 

I hope it's no offensive that I would reduce the institution of religion down in that manner - I am genuinely interested in refining my understanding of the processes involved, but at this point I am at a loss as to how to see the situation differently. I understand that people have done "more or less" okay with this process over thousands of years, and most of the "mob moments" that people often attack religion for occurred during a point in human history where everyone was killing everyone in massive mobs. Non-theistic mobs have rallied around political causes and psychotic leaders with brutal results as well - many of which are more recent. I don't blame religion for these sorts of events, but from what I can tell we have two ways to cope as a species with our existence on this planet: we can try to be rational, or we can try to divine. We have often failed miserably at being rational and ended up with sadly "rationally justified" (to the perpetrators) acts of genocide and horrible actions. But, we can at least learn from that in a rational, progressive manner.

When we try to interpret and divine meaning instead - unless you believe there's a higher power guiding such divinations - it's a frightening dice-roll with nothing but the emotional bias of the diviners as a safety net. It's genuinely frightening.

 

If there's something in the process that I missed, I would happily be enlightened. I know many good people who are religious and try to take my own observations with a grain of salt so as to "have some faith in my fellow man" and not be close minded. It's just hard, because regardless of how people are categoried, the processes that individuals use, whether they have admirable or despicable results appear to be eerily similar. As an outsider, that's universally disconcerting.

[ydoaPs]

The primary issue for me, is that people who are religious, and utilize religious thinking invoke a process that I can't really identify as any different than reading tea leaves - sometimes it's tea, sometimes it's interpreting really old books, or scrolls, or orally passed down stories - but at the end of the day it's a form of divination by reading into something.

So, your issue is with religion itself?

[mooeypoo]

I'm no bible thumper Mooey and pretty much don't give a rats behind one way or another as to who wins the race. But your paraphrasing above is exactly the anger of which I spoke. While you mask your fairly well, it's anger none the less. Most guys on the forum just get upset with each other, duke it out and go on to the next page. But your statements, without evidence to back them up; might be considered slanderous? I suppose that fellow Jesus had it right when he spoke to those who were about to put the "whore", to death by stoning. He said to them; Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Now, you don't have to be too religious or down right smart; to get his meaning!!

 

Interesting.

 

First, I'm anything but angry in general, if anything, I'm upset about specific instances of abuse - coming from *all* sides, religion is one of them. There are bad people and bad institutions on BOTH sides.

 

My post above, if you've read it in context, was merely serving as an answer to a previous position that seemed to present religion as this all good all charitable all well-meaning institution. While there are religious institutions that are that, there are also religious institutions that aren't that. This is a fact. It's not said in anger, it's said in realistic tones.

 

My entire point was that we shouldn't generalize. Religion isn't perfect, and it doesn't represent "all good", just like atheist movements (it's hard to group those, but for the sake of argument) isn't perfect, and isn't "all bad".

 

I don't see where I slandered anyone, and, really, rigney, maybe you should try and avoid jumping to conclusions that I'm angry instead of reading the entire point I was making - in its context (of a reply, yes?).

 

That said, here's an instance I remember off the top of my head (there are more, sadly) of such unethical (and deadly, potentially) behavior by religious leaders in Africa: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html

 

I am sure iNow and ydoaPs could add more, though I am not sure if it's relevant; I am posting this to show this isn't slander. It's truth. There *ARE* bad religious in this world.

 

I offer everyone should be angry at these instances just like they should be angry at bad actions done by non-religious. I don't know about you, but I think it's only fair.

 

This isn't being angry at religion, this is being angry at unethical people working behind the power their church gives them. I would be equally angry if a powerful atheist did the same. Wouldn't you be?

 

~moo

[padren]

So, your issue is with religion itself?

 

Not at all, it's with all processes that describe both the world and how to live in it that are based on arbitrary interpretations of allegedly authoritative sources, whether it's the authority of a book, a manifesto, or the pattern taken by tea leaves in the bottom of a cup. I am sometimes made uncomfortable by how some individuals view the US Constitution - not for their specific interpretations, but for the idea that sacrosanct rules to live by can be divined from it. In my mind, the US Constitution is a great and incredibly valuable document that has helped and will likely continue to help this country immensely, but any relevance to modern times or the future are entirely to the credit of the authors, and not a guaranteed set of fundamental truths that can be taken for granted as eternally relevant.

 

It does appear from what I can tell, that all religions I am aware of utilize this process. Since I have an issue with the process, that does extend to religion in general.

Edited August 14, 2010 by padren

[iNow]

I am sure iNow and ydoaPs could add more, though I am not sure if it's relevant; I am posting this to show this isn't slander. It's truth. There *ARE* bad religious in this world.

Indeed, yes I could. However, I've found that often in these discussions no matter how much evidence you share in support of your position it will go ignored or misrepresented and spun if it conflicts with an existing mindset or worldview.

[rigney]

Mooey, as to your post #99 response, perhaps I was a bit premature in trying to toss you under the bus. Maybe my misconception came simply because I thought your reply was too vague, to be credible. Below is part of a lengthy transcript posted by the listed agency on the issue. Just Googled this up. So, can we say: No harm, no foul? No mas!

 

www.catholicnewsagency.com web August 2010

Home » News » USHarvard Researcher agrees with Pope on condoms in Africa - Comments: 34

 

Senior Harvard AIDS Prevention Researcher Dr. Edward GreenRelated articles: •Surprise: Study Finds Condoms Don't Work.

 

•Can Condoms Kill? •Condoms do not eliminate risk of HIV •Pope Benedict XVI - Biography

 

Cambridge, Mass., Mar 21, 2009 / 10:11 am (CNA).- Pope Benedict’s recent brief remark against condoms has caused an uproar in the press, but several prominent scientists dedicated to preventing AIDS are defending the Pope, saying he was correct in his analysis. In an interview with CNA, Dr. Edward Green explained that although condoms should work, in theory, they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

 

Benedict XVI’s Tuesday comments on condoms were made as part of his explanation of the Church’s two prong approach to fighting AIDS. At one point in his response the Pontiff stressed that AIDS cannot be overcome by advertising slogans and distributing condoms and argued that they “worsen the problem.” The media responded with an avalanche of over 4,000 articles on the subject, calling Benedict a “threat to public health,” and saying that the Catholic Church should “enter the 21st century.”

 

Senior Harvard Research Scientist for AIDS Prevention, Dr. Edward Green, who is the author of five books, including “Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries” discussed his support for Pope Benedict XVI’s comments with CNA.

 

According to Dr. Green, science is finding that the media is actually on the wrong side of the issue. In fact, Green says that not only do condoms not work, but that they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

 

“Theoretically, condoms ought to work,” he explained to CNA, “and theoretically, some condom use ought to be better than no condom use, but that’s theoretically.”

 

Condom proponents often cite the lack of condom education as the main culprit for higher AIDS rates in Africa but Green disagrees.

 

After spending 25 years promoting condoms for family planning purposes in Africa, he insists that he’s quite familiar with condom promotion. Yet, he claims that “anyone who worked in family planning knew that if you needed to prevent a pregnancy, say the woman will die, you don’t recommend a condom.”

 

Green recalls that when the AIDS epidemic hit Africa, the “Industry” began using AIDS as a “dual purpose” marketing strategy to get more funding for condom distribution. This, he claims, effectively took “something that was a 2nd or 3rd grade device for avoiding unwanted pregnancies” and turned it into the “best weapon we [had] against AIDS.”

 

The accepted wisdom in the scientific community, explained Green, is that condoms lower the HIV infection rate, but after numerous studies, researchers have found the opposite to be true. “We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV reduction rates” in Africa.

 

Dr. Green found that part of the elusive reason is a phenomenon known as risk compensation or behavioral disinhibition.

 

“[Risk compensation] is the idea that if somebody is using a certain technology to reduce risk, a phenomenon actually occurs where people are willing to take on greater risk.” The idea can be related to someone that puts on sun block and is willing to stay out in the sun longer because they have added protection. In this case, however, the greater risk is sexual. Because people are willing take on more risk, they may “disproportionally erase” the benefits of condom use, Green said.

 

Another factor that contributes to ineffective condom use in Africa, is the phenomenon where condoms may be effective on an “individual level,” but not on a “population level.” Green’s research found that “condoms have been effective” in HIV concentrated areas where high risk activities are already being conducted, such as brothels in countries like Thailand.

 

Claiming to be a liberal himself, Green asserts that promoting Western “liberal ideology” where, “most Africans are conservative when it comes to sexual behavior,” is quite offensive to them. Citing his new book, “Indigenous Theories and Contagious Disease,” Green described Africans as “very religious by global standards” who are offended by “trucks going around where people are dancing to ‘Rock ‘n’ Roll’, tossing out condoms to teenagers and the children of the village.”

[Ophiolite]

err, anyway...

Two points, in reverse order from how you have rasied them.

1.

I cannot see anything wrong in trying to strictly define your beliefs, (I think ydoaPs has done a sterling job personally) and agnosticism is atheistic...there is no difference in taking the stance of 'not knowing', as there is in 'there is no available evidence.'

 

Further, Ignosticism is a statement on a set of all theistic beliefs, i.e it's an observation on subjectivity, not a belief in it's own right. So, just because you can't decide which belief is or is not correct, doesn't categorize you into theism or atheism, so you can't bolt it on, despite the subject it encompasses, happy to expand on that point if it's not clear.

You are being self contradictory. You apparently do not get the total extent to which I do not know. My ignorance is total. I am equally persuaded that there is a God, (there is certainly enough evidence) and that there is not, (given the vagueness of the evidence). This is a separate position from that of a theist, or an atheist. It is a position which I and others choose to call agnosticism. It is an active avoidance of either position.

 

2.

err, anyway...

 

A little bit rich considering your language and feet stamping. It's disappointing that even from seasoned members of these boards, a level of maturity is severely lacking when it comes to this subject.

I really don't need to explain what I am doing, but what the hell? The OP asks why all the anger? I gave him a demonstration of an analagous situation that might arouse anger. I showed him the consequence of it. I illustrated how that anger would escalate if 'ignorance' from the other side was maintained. You didn't find the demonstration valuable, fine. I dare say not everyone on the forum has found everyone of your posts valuable, and I'm left thinking - so what?

[rigney]

Interesting.

 

First, I'm anything but angry in general, if anything, I'm upset about specific instances of abuse - coming from *all* sides, religion is one of them. There are bad people and bad institutions on BOTH sides.

 

My post above, if you've read it in context, was merely serving as an answer to a previous position that seemed to present religion as this all good all charitable all well-meaning institution. While there are religious institutions that are that, there are also religious institutions that aren't that. This is a fact. It's not said in anger, it's said in realistic tones.

 

My entire point was that we shouldn't generalize. Religion isn't perfect, and it doesn't represent "all good", just like atheist movements (it's hard to group those, but for the sake of argument) isn't perfect, and isn't "all bad".

 

I don't see where I slandered anyone, and, really, rigney, maybe you should try and avoid jumping to conclusions that I'm angry instead of reading the entire point I was making - in its context (of a reply, yes?).

 

That said, here's an instance I remember off the top of my head (there are more, sadly) of such unethical (and deadly, potentially) behavior by religious leaders in Africa: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html

 

I am sure iNow and ydoaPs could add more, though I am not sure if it's relevant; I am posting this to show this isn't slander. It's truth. There *ARE* bad religious in this world.

 

I offer everyone should be angry at these instances just like they should be angry at bad actions done by non-religious. I don't know about you, but I think it's only fair.

 

This isn't being angry at religion, this is being angry at unethical people working behind the power their church gives them. I would be equally angry if a powerful atheist did the same. Wouldn't you be?

 

~moo

 

As much as I distrust both parties: Theism and Atheism, I'd rather trust an Atheist's integrity in the approach to truth, than that of the Pope. But on my part, and being Agnostic, I'm just hoping the bus doesn't leave before I can get a ticket to somewhere??

Edited August 15, 2010 by rigney

[mooeypoo]

As much as I distrust both parties: Theism and Atheism, I'd rather trust an Atheist's integrity in the approach to truth, than that of the Pope. But on my part, and being

I think we agree, except --

Agnostic, I'm just hoping the bus doesn't leave before I can get a ticket to somewhere??

 

-- I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[jackson33]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. [/Quote]

 

Well, I do and rigney your not going to get your answers here. I haven't been in a Church for 50+ years, nor do I believe I need to, to find answers, but if your mobile and there is one around you (I'm sure there is) you might try that approach. Visit on a weekday, go one on one with an experienced pastor, ask direct question (not the evasive ones your asking here) and if this isn't appetizing to you, there is nothing religious about asking for guidance, in prayer. Peace of mind in death is of interest to all of us and should be directly addressed if and when realization of mortality sticks its ugly head in our face. You by no means the only person, having these feelings and it's not always us older folks.

 

My dearest friend in my later years, took off work for three four months to be with his ailing Mother in her death. He returned to work, distraught and confused about life, its meaning, purpose and I felt at 60+ then wasn't going to manage his life very well. In asking one question, he snapped out of it almost instantly...That simple question, was your mother religious? He said yes, then said "you know what, so was Dad and he will take good care of her"...It also set the path out for him (having had one Heart Attack) and died a couple years later.

 

I have always had problems, myself with the Catholic Church concept, but then I have long realized there are a billion people devoted to the philosophy and living their lives dependent on its truth. Disregarding the truly minor irregular participants (individuals), those involved with the various scandals over hundreds of years, in my mind the Church and Organization as been an asset to humanity.

[Marat]

To relate what has been said in recent posts to the OP, perhaps what makes people angry at religious belief is that it represents a willlingness to impose solutions derived from tea leaf reading, which are then taken as absolutely, unshakeably valid no matter what their effects on real human need, on questions of public morality and value. If people seek to impose only positivistically derived values on public policy, then at least these proposals are based on values we can all measure and on reasoning we can all assess according to ordinary logic available to everyone. But if they seek to impose values dervied from mystical, inexplicable, superstitious sources on public policy, then instead of persuading me, offering me reasons which respect the type of intellect we both share, religious people simply try to force something down my throat which can be accepted only by arational faith.

[AzurePhoenix]

-- I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Pascal's wager, I believe

[mooeypoo]

Pascal's wager, I believe

If that is what was meant, then I disagree, obviously.

 

By the way, I personally am not angry at religious beliefs, but I am quite often annoyed by the concept many religious institutions take (please notice, I say many, not most and not all, since I can't really judge that). The concept that (a) you are not responsible for your blame - "God's plan" - even when subtle, annoys me. Another, that (B) You can be forgiven by a third party on things you've done wrong in life irks me in principle. There are some religious places that insist on forgiving the most horrific crimes (Child molestation, murder, rape) if you repent or if you perform some religious ceremony.

 

While not all religious institutions allow for the above, some do, and I find that infuriating at times. That isn't to say that I'm angry at religion in general, and it isnt to say that I am angry at religious folks. But I do get angry at those type of things, just like I get angry at certain annoyances with politics or scientific fraud.

 

The key, in my opinion, is not to generalize.

 

HOWEVER, I think it is worth noting that in cases of religion, since the 'norm' is that a group of people follow specific set of rules usually governed by a limited amount of other people, it's sometimes a bit more understandable when you generalize.

 

The Catholic Church has done horrific things with child molestation. Does that mean all catholics are child molesters? no. Does it mean all catholics hid the facts of the matter? no. Does it mean the church is to bame, as an institution? Absolutely. And I would expect the peritioners and followers to yell and do something about this even LOUDER than the atheists and other religions do. The fact so little of them do that explains how confining this "System" is, and might show why it's sometimes very easy to generalize it.

 

~moo

 

 

[rigney]

I think we agree, except --

 

 

-- I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Without a doubt you do!

 

Without a doubt, you do and I believe this post has gone its limit. animam edere.

Edited August 15, 2010 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

Without a doubt you do!

o.O

[mooeypoo]

Without a doubt you do!

 

 

 

If I did, I wouldn't say I don't, but if you're comfortable with others explaining what you meant, then all's good, and we shall just disagree on that point. Unless you care to explain what you meant, in which case I shall re-examine my disagreement.

 

Up to you.

 

 

~moo

[rigney]

o.O

 

What a shame that such potential is wrapped in the form of a perfect --s. You're like an odor kid, you just linger!! How old are you anyway?

[mooeypoo]

What a shame that such potential is wrapped in the form of a perfect --s. You're like an odor kid, you just linger!! How old are you anyway?

Are you being cryptic on purpose, or do you just enjoy telling everyone they don't understand you because they're too young?

 

Can we keep on topic, on track, and avoid being condescending to one another?

 

~moo

 

 

[rigney]

Are you being cryptic on purpose, or do you just enjoy telling everyone they don't understand you because they're too young?

 

Can we keep on topic, on track, and avoid being condescending to one another?

 

~moo

 

Goodness girl, I'm probably old enough to be your great grand daddy. Naa!, No intent on my part to be condescending. Actually I wouldn't know how. Just thought this post had run its course and was appreciative of your inputs. Some very intelligent people on this forum, but you have to know when to say when!

[mooeypoo]

I'm quite sorry, rigney, but with due respect, if you're done with the debate, you're free to leave it. You might have started it, but you're not the only one participating.

 

There are others here who might still care to continue it. Call it quits or not, calling me 'girl' and ydoaPs a rear-end is not quite doing justice to your claim that you're not condescending (and it's not much for politeness either). Thank you for your contribution. Now let others continue if you don't want to.