Joseph wrote:
> Some Guy <noemailformethanks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> news:WuFPg.3332$nL2.216@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>>Joseph wrote:
>>
>>>"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>news:qaednVOfSPJJCZHYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Joseph" <nonexistent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>news:Xns9840A7912EC87619void@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lizard" <lizard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 10 Sep 2006 09:22:03 -0700, "Bill Wayne" <HWayne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>wrotC:DRIVE_E
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I never quite understood this. Who in their right minds would get
>>>>>>>>their views on life from a *movie*?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Who in their right minds would get their views on life from a 4000
>>>>>>>year old book?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Excellent retort, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not really
>>>>
>>>>Yes, really.
>>>
>>>
>>>Keep on digging your own grave. He can't even get the date close to
>>>being right. I doubt he was talking about the earliest Egyptian Books
>>>of the Dead after all.
>>
>>But you didn't find out, did you?
>
>
> Actually I did.
Not before you posted.
>Read Lizard's replay to me -- he was indeed referring to
> the Bible. I didn't misinterpret Lizard after all. Does Malachias
> acknowledge that? No. In fact, Lizard shows some of the same stupidity
> Malachias referred to:
>
> Lizard "Point is, deriving morality/ethics/etc from a compilation of
> ancient
> tomes is pretty silly..."
> Malachias "Joseph:> Neither extreme age nor being in a book disqualifies
> excellence in
>
>>philosophy,
>
>
> No ****, moron. Neither modernity nor being in a movie disqualifies it
> either. I guess you missed the point. Again."
Post hoc confirmation doesn't get you off the hook for jumping the gun.
> Does the cur acknowledge this? Again, No. And he read that post, for he
> replied to it. Indeed, he continues to applaud Lizard! Let's get real
> here -- Mal doesn't have an honest bone in his body when challenged.
Are you saying he won't admit when he's wrong? I think Google would
disagree with you in that regard. Shall we have a look through the
archives?
>>>>>but I expect such mediocrity from you, Invictus.
>>>>
>>>>Strange, but last time I checked it was Lizard who made the clever
>>>>retort.
>>>
>>>
>>>Idiot, you said the retort was excellent and now clever and you can't
>>>figure out I'm critiquing your opinion of his retort as mediocre.
>>
>>Perhaps you should try clearer writing, then.
>
>
> Given I was replying to Malachias, not Lizard, it really should not have
> been much of an issue.
Clear writing is always a worthy goal regardless of its audience.
>If one praises a mediocre post (regardless of
> whether Lizard's post was or not), one might be prepared for criticism
> especially on Usenet.
One should expect criticism on Usenet despite the relevance, clarity, or
accuracy of one's posts. It goes with the territory. Needless to say,
having clear writing reduces the number of fronts on which your post can
be justifiably questioned.
>>>>>Neither extreme age nor being in a book disqualifies excellence in
>>>>>philosophy,
>>>>
>>>>No ****, moron. Neither modernity nor being in a movie disqualifies
>>>>it either. I guess you missed the point. Again.
>>>
>>>
>>>That only works if the retort was good. It was piss-poor. And your
>>>reply below shows that wasn't your point. I don't know Lizard but
>>>I've read posts from you attacking older material just because it was
>>>held in esteem by age old tradition. And with your usual
>>>anti-religion crusade, it is not hard to connect the dots.
>>
>>"Crusade"?
>
>
> Maybe you should reference a good dictionary.
I've not seen the anti-religion crusade by Mal you're referring to in
this group. Were you talking about a different time or different group,
perhaps? If so, you might have wanted to specify that.
>>>It's time to fess up atheist, or shut up.
>>
>>You say that like it's a bad thing. Are you sure it's accurate?
>
>
> It a very good inference given Malachias repeated posts on theistic
> religions. And atheist was used as a descriptive label? Why should an
> atheist be uncomfortable being labled as one in a post referring to the
> Bible. I don't believe Mal was, though.
No, he's admitted to being an atheist. But you were implying that
somehow he had an atheistic bent he was trying to hide, somehow, and
that I don't think is accurate.
>>>>>even if it comes from a religious text.
>>>>
>>>>I never asserted otherwise, fool.
>>>
>>>
>>>And I wasn't commenting on you here, jackass. I was stating my
>>>opinion on the matter.
>>
>>Was Lizard referencing a religious text? You don't seem to have
>>confirmed this before commenting on it, which strikes me as a flawed
>>approach to take before one begins one's expostulation.
>
>
> It's called interperation.
Even if you turned out to be correct after the fact, it would have been
embarassing if you hadn't. Since it would have been trivially easy to
ask what book he was referring to before hand, why did you skip that step?
>>>>>One can, after all, take many insights about human life and culture
>>>>
>>>>>from a great work of literature like the Bible
>>>>
>>>>Our definitions of "great work of literature" differ greatly, then.
>>>>As literature, the Christian Bible is crap. I have seen collections
>>>>of short stories written by different authors that had more
>>>>consistency.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your lack of taste is noted. And poor consistency over a near
>>>millennium worth of varied authors of two different religions is not
>>>a major defect. Your short story reference is insipid, dear.
>>
>>It is if one is proclaiming it as the divinly inspired word of God.
>>Unless you're OK with God changing his mind that often, and changing
>>his mind in the same way and with the same goals as political factions
>>on Earth.
>>
>>
>>>And you don't have a cogent argument of why Lizard's notion, that
>>>taking views of life from ancient books is a poor, nay, crazy thing
>>>to do, is an excellent assertion. Mayhap because now you know that's
>>>nonsense and your diversion into, I was just applauding clever
>>>rhetoric, is a desperate diversionary tactic.
>>
>>Diversionary from WHAT?
>
>
> When people harshly criticize him or his posts, he almost invariably
> turns the insults (whether deserved or not) on the flamer without really
> addressing his own weaknesses. Notice, he started using insults like
> fool and moron first. I'm certainly culpable for hostility too, but I'm
> calling him an egomaniac.
Uh, this is Usenet, you realize. Your description is a common, not
uncommon, response to such criticisms for many posters. I have not seen
that Mal is more prone to that than the average poster.
>>>That's your track record, after all.
>>>
>>
>>Coming from Joseph The Stupid, that's funny. Don't you remember the
>>spanking you got last year?
>
>
> I remember you giving me that title last year.
And several people agreed with me, at least one by that same title, if
not more.
>I also remember the
> rhetorical thra****ngs *you* got from almost every regular poster of
> rec.games.frp.dnd in 2005.
A. I *was* a regular poster to RGFD in 2005.
B. Name a regular poster who didn't get into a fight with another
regular poster in RGFD at one time or another. If you're limiting it to
2005, name what constitutes a regular poster and what constitutes a
"thra****ng," IYO.
C. I backed up every one of my contentions with facts, whether others
agreed with my interpretations of those facts or not. Where I was
clearly wrong, I admitted it, even for the most monumental face-plants.
Would you like some message IDs to go with that crow, sir?
Now, can you honestly say that you have done the same?
>It may have exceeded the spectacle of
> Christopher Burke's flameout a few years ago.
Bull****. I never took Usenet discussions outside the group by
contacting someone's employer over their posts here, or threatened to
destroy the group out of spite, or tried to imply that the Terry-stalker
who filled up the group with trash while following Terry around was
actually my making good on that threat. All those were Burke's doing,
and he deserved everything he got for exhibiting that behavior.
> What's funny is that you are playing Little Buddy to Malachias Invictus.
> You tried to do the same with MSB, but you know what's different.
I've fought with both Mal and MSB before on issues, and I've agreed with
them on other issues. I don't decide my stance on an issue by who is
posting. I decide on the issue itself.
> MSB actually had talent. Mal just has the vileness and the posting
> endurance.
>
There will never be another MSB, but it's hardly fair to accuse Mal of
that behavior. It's more descriptive of someone like Terry than Mal.
Post for post, Mal is on-topic much more in RGFD than Terry, which
reduces the accuracy of your contention significantly.
|
