Gen-X you will love this one

Laura Schlessinger is a Canadian radio personality who dispenses advice
to people who call in to her radio show. Paramount Television Group is
currently producing a "Dr. Laura" television show.

She has made some biblically fundamentalist statements about homosexuals
that have caused the Canadian anti-hate laws to censure her. The
following is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the
internet....

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific
biblical laws and how to best follow them. Specifically:

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours.
They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price
for
her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of
mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
Abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have
a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some flexibility here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.
How
should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to
curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the
trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16)
Couldn't
we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with
people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you
can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Anita Heis

That is fantastic :D

I would love to hear what the reply was.


VirtuallyVB, Mikey, Cthulhu, jdavison....


Anyone out there like to comment on these passages and come up with some way of getting around them?

On the subject of homosexuality, there is an incredible amount of unscientific nonsense stated as verifiable truth by people on all (there are more than two) sides of the issue.

As for Dr. Laura: My girl friend listens to her a lot. She seems to be an uptight person, but a lot of her advice is worthwhile. Just ignore the obvious nonsense. She picks & chooses the biblical passages that suit her, why not pick & choose the advice that suits you?

Surely people who frequent this forum know that the bible must be read with god-inspired eyes. Otherwise, you misinterpret & do not understand the true meaning. If you do not have the right kind of faith, you do not understand what is to be taken literally, what is merely a description of ancient customs, and what is not applicable to modern society in the way you might think from a literal interpretation. The writer of the open letter to Dr. Laura obviously does not understand this concept.

She is one of the public figures who make me wonder about her sincerity. After all, her ratings would be lousy if she did not come out with a lot of controversial statements.

Jethro

That my friend is a fantastic post. It perfectly demonstrates what we have been trying to get across for God only knows how long ;)


Guv

Quote:

---

She picks & chooses the biblical passages that suit her, why not pick & choose the advice that suits you?

---

I thought this is what we all did anyway. We ask someone for advice, and if we don’t like that advice, we keep asking different people until someone advises us to do what we were going to do anyway.


All

Before you start arguing against Jethro’s post, I would just like to make some things clear.

• The bible was written by god. Therefore it is his law. This is not my idea, this is yours. Before you start saying “Yes but humans wrote it”, I would just like to point out that they were just secretaries. Even though the boss gets his work written up by a secretary, it is still the boss’s work. The secretary just puts the pen to the paper.
• You are not god. Yet if you believe in him, then you must take his word as law yes? Well seeing as the bible is his law, then you must follow the guidelines in it. Who are you to decide which bits of God’s law you will follow, and which bits you will not. By doing this, you are just making up your own religion. You are setting the laws for yourself, yet remember God is perfect, so he must know best. In for a penny remember.
• Misinterpretation. In my mind, this is the most pathetic excuse I have ever heard. It is there in black and white. Only someone completely blinded by faith could read something different into most of those points Jethro brought up. “No it doesn’t mean you should burn a bull, it means you should shower people with flowers”. Hmmmmmm.

*walks off in disbelief*

Hehehe :D Cheers for that Jethro.


Personally I haven't read the bible (well hardly any of it anyway) so I can't be sure, but it seems like alot of that stuff's taken out of context, and as Guv said is all a bit old-fashioned nowadays. *Shrugs* I always knew there was weird **** in there, but frankly I've never felt like it was important.

If I remember there's a passage/verse/whatever about an old man who has two daughters and no wife, and basically the two daughters agree that they're both gonna sleep with him. Isn't that, like, unholy or something?

Gen-X,
I don't know why you addressed me by name. Dr Laura is an Orthodox Jew, not a Christian. There is quite a difference.

Quote:

---

If you do not have the right kind of faith, you do not understand what is to be taken literally, what is merely a description of ancient customs, and what is not applicable to modern society in the way you might think from a literal interpretation. The writer of the open letter to Dr. Laura obviously does not understand this concept.

---

Exactly right! Much of the old testament was instructions for the Jewish people to live and how to run their government (they had a theocracy for many years). Some of this applies to Jews only. Gentiles (myself included) are not included in much of this. This reminds me of a passage in the New Testament (I am at work, no Bible with me) where Paul (I believe) is writing to one of the early churches. that church was having a very heated argument over circumcision (OUCH!). The converted Jews believed that all people should be circumcised, while the gentiles weren't all that eager to get their knives out. Paul pointed out at this point that these customs do not apply to Gentiles and to knock of the arguing. Basically he said if you want to chop away, but don't let it cause strife among you. Note, this is all off the top of my head so I may be missing some details.

Same thing here. Old testament was for old times. Quite a lot of it is no longer applicable. This is also part of the clergies job. To help distinguish between custom, law, and history. The most confusing thing a new Christian can do is read the Old testament. That is why we rarely have them read the Bible starting from the beginning. You need some grounding first. It is written chronologically, which is not the best order for those who were saved based on what happened in the last half. :)

Summarily I can tell you without charge that The Christ is The Fullfillment Of The Law and The Lamb Slain Before The Foundations Of The Earth. So the current mode of operation is Grace (which was planned before the existence of the earth).

For those of you who are interested in more, promptly send a S.A.S.E. along with 80% of your yearly income to:

...Got to break for lunch...I'll get back to ya.

Quote:

---

For those of you who are interested in more, promptly send a S.A.S.E. along with 80% of your yearly income to:

...Got to break for lunch...I'll get back to ya.

---

Hurry up! I've already written the check and am waiting to send it! :)

In law school you are taught not just to think what a new law may have been made for, but what it's affects would be if taken to the extreme or applied to areas other than what it was created for.

Similarly with the bible, great codification of tribal law, but that is all it is....christians read it out of context and if caught over an issue will deny that god means this, or argue that the passage doesn't in fact mean what it says.

You caren't claim one parts right and another part is wrong. Come on guys its all or nothing.

I don't think they exactly say that it's part right and part wrong. They just say that it can be interpreted in different ways. We have enough confusion on this forum alone where people are talking about different things without knowing it. I don't think it's all or nothing.

And so the merrigo-round starts again :(

Cthulhu & VirtuallyVB

I thought the two of you would use the tired and silly argument of "Its the Old Testiment... we don't look at that any more". :(

This is typical... Lets throw it out because it aint politically correct.

Why do you think the New Testiment was written in the first place for?!?!?!? Because people looked at the old, cringed and thought that if they wanted to keep their followers they had to loosen their strings a bit, and clean out all the crazy and purely xenocidal tendancies (ie its ok to have slaves if they are neighbouring countries) and clean up their act.

Have you guys forgotten that the Old Testiment is STILL "God's word for his people"?????

Or is this the "New" God we are talking about that never puts a foot wrong and is so sweet and nice you would like to take him home to meet your mother?

Rest

As Jethro said... I love it when they say something like homosexuality is wrong because "the bible says so" and yet when you pull out other verses where "the bible said so" they say "Oh but thats different".

It blows their whole argument away and yet these people still cling to their frail and implausible excuses becuase they can't actually make ones that stand up.

But you are right... you should only read the Bible with the eyes of a believer... that is the only way you are able to gloss over all the gross contradictions and errors... because you just dont want to see them.

I don't think you have to read the bible with the eyes of a believer at all. It's actually quite an interesting book.

There's quite a lot of parables in there which you can parrallel to modern society. Obviously it's not recommended attempting to stone someone to death for something you believe in and they couldn't give a monkeys about (they may not appreciate it...) , and it's probably not wise to drive hundreds of pigs of a cliff because you met an epileptic, but quite a lot of stuff in there is still sound today.

People who try to follow the bible letter by letter will have a hell of a job doing it in todays world. IMHO whoever sent that letter in is somewhat... what's the word I'm looking for... bonkers!

There seems to be quite a lot of religious threads in these forums. It's going to be interesting to see what else gets posted...

Quote:

---

I thought the two of you would use the tired and silly argument of "Its the Old Testiment... we don't look at that any more".

---

In the same manner, I assumed you would use the argument that "its all made up so that must be the only explanation for it."

As you put it the Old Testament is "God's word for his people". This is true. However, we need to define who his people were at the time of writing. Simply put, they were the jews. These books were written to give the Hebrew people laws for their everyday life. They were instructions on how to live, how to treat your neighbor, and even how to prepare food. Most of them were customs and traditions that were written down. These things change. Especially when you get a whole load of gentiles (of whom I am a happy member) thrown in the lot. Suddenly you have huge groups of people that have new customs, and new ways. The former jews attempted to force the new christians to live as a hebrew would. When Peter would not sit with a gentile for fear that he would be served unclean food, God replied "Do not call unclean, what I have made clean" and in other parts of the Bible. "For you are not under the law, but under grace". Therefore we can use the old testament for its rich and wonderful history. We can look at its proverbs and teachings and gain wonderful information for our life. But at the same time we need to be able to weed custom and tradition out of the whole thing.

Gen-X
Why must you make all these discussions so hot blooded? All of your posts are practically seething with animosity. I am more than willing to listen to what you have to say, and rebutt it when I feel necessary, but there is no reason for this to be anything but friendly. Many of your posts border on the insulting. You take discussions that really have nothing to do with religion and you force it into that direction. eg "Ghosts and Ghouls (and Gen-X)". Long story short - Lets keep this friendly, OK?

[Edited by CthulhuDragon on 09-08-2000 at 12:40 PM]

Arbiter

Quote:

---

IMHO whoever sent that letter in is somewhat... what's the word I'm looking for... bonkers

---

Actually, I think the person who sent the letter in was trying to point out that you cannot condemn something "just because its written in the bible", by showing that many things in the Bible are completely and totally wrong.

If THOSE things are wrong then the writer was opening the suggestion that the passages about homosexuality being an abomonation are in exactly the same light as the ones he mentioned.

He certainly wasn't bonkers... in fact he made some incredibly good points by purposely assuming the opposite role and going too far to make his point.

Cthulhu

You are right... I appologise if I got hot-blooded, I just get extremely frustrated when people such as yourself always revert to the same tired and flimsy excuses again and again. They didn't hold weight back then and they are just as stale now and yet you cling to them like they are the only thing in the world that is ever true.

Even if I WERE able to prove to you otherwise you would STILL refuse to believe them... and that ignorance (IMHO) is the fuel for my animosity... I just cannot stand people who put their fingers in their ears and allow weak excuses to stand like stone.

Quote:

---

This is true. However, we need to define who his people were at the time of writing. Simply put, they were the jews

---

So if the Jews were his people why on earth are you following a God that doesn't even want you?

Quote:

---

They were instructions on how to live, how to treat your neighbor

---

Yes... make slaves of them.

Quote:

---

at the same time we need to be able to weed custom and tradition out of the whole thing.

---

So the gentiles wrote their own "version" that satisfied their own needs and "current" culture.... So why don't you go write a New NEW Testiment for TODAY seeing as the New Testiment is 2000 years out of date??????

Your argument falls completely on its face by the fact that if it was ok to "weed out customs" that were old why not do so again?


I would like these discussions to be friendly but unfortunately when I hear people talk like this, who repeat that which they have been trained to repeat like a mantra that brainwashes the masses I cannot help but get angry at this fact... I'm only HUMAN :)

Hmm, we've been over the whole origins of Christianity thing before. I don't think it's reasonable to say that because the Jews are God's people God "doesn't even want you". At the time of the old testament there were no Christians because there was no Christ. Who else would it be written for but the Jews? The Jews beliefs lie in God, the Christian's beliefs lie in God and Christ as far as I know. If you were paying attention in RE classes you would remember that, in Christianity, God is Christ, as in the Trinity, so worshipping one is the same as worshipping the other. You can't say that those who were Christ's people were not God's people also.

Quote:

---

Even if I WERE able to prove to you otherwise you would STILL refuse to believe them...

---

This is a sweeping statement, you have both proposed that it's true and then used it to say people are ignorant at the same time. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but play fair.

Everyone brings up the same arguments over and over again, it's not exclusive to the religious among us. *Sigh*, I already know what you're going to say, I don't know why I bother really. With a bit of luck you'll try to say something unpredictable and make things more interesting.

I agree that most of the stuff quoted is pretty stupid by today's standards. Since you think Christianity would benefit from a New New Testament, what kind of things do you think should be updated to recognise cultural changes? Maybe we should be offering up a kebab and a pint :) In some ways I suppose things were updated by Henry the 8th when he started the Church of England. He changed things so that it was okay to divorce and remarry. I don't know if any other changes were made. The CoE is actually, I think, a good example of where religion has been used just for someone's personal gain, which is a bit immoral. That doesn't mean, though, that the whole of the CoE is a bad idea or teaches bad morals. Well I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

Gen-X
Alas in the same vein you will also cling to your beliefs and your arguments no matter what evidence is to the contrary. In all the forums and posts that I have seen, so too do you use the same arguments and the same "evidence". It is the nature of belief and perspective. You see things one way, and I see them another. What to me is undeniable proof, is nothing to you and vice versa. You give excuses for your hostility, in your previous post, but becoming angry because people see things different than you and belief different than you is not an excuse it is intolerance.

The gentiles did not write a "new" version per se. The new testament was for a new aspect of the religion. The origin of Christianity. What you see as a work of fiction adapted for a new people, I see a divinely inspired book written by instruments of God to adopt a new people into a new era. No longer would it be Judaism, but Christianity. Where all have become God's people and not just the Jews.

Sadly, I think that this discussion is fast becoming less than civil on some faces. And for that reason I will no longer take part in this thread. Perhaps, if a new discussion and new topic comes up I will partake, but I am afraid it too will degenerate into the same arguments.

[Edited by CthulhuDragon on 09-10-2000 at 09:46 PM]

Harry

Quote:

---

Everyone brings up the same arguments over and over again, it's not exclusive to the religious among us

---

Do you not find it interesting though that while the arguments one side brings up are based on logic, reason, understanding and common sense... While the other side bases it on faith, belief, acceptance and fending off everything else?

I guess it only goes to show that if you base your life around a certain belief you will never see anything but that belief...

"Those with absolute faith are blind"

Quote:

---

Since you think Christianity would benefit from a New New Testament, what kind of things do you think should be updated to recognise cultural changes?

---

How about acceptance of everyone? Tolerance? Instead of saying the "heathen must be converted", trouncing into native lands and "converting" them to something they didn't want?

I think we could reduce the 10 commandments to just 2.


1. Thou Shalt not purposely cause harm to others unless they want it

2. Thou SHalt not purposely force others unless they want it


I think that captures ALL 10 commandments quite nicely and every other law/rule/guideline that ever existed :D


Cthulhu

Quote:

---

You see things one way, and I see them another. What to me is undeniable proof, is nothing to you and vice versa.

---

There is a difference however which you fail to bother understanding. Your "undeniable proof" is always subjective, based purely on the fact you ALREADY believe and thus the evidence takes on a whole new meaning because you already believe... While my "evidence" is based on the fact I ALREADY believe in what is actually there rather than what I WANT to be there.

I know you find this hard to believe but I do not care one way or another if God does or does not exist... in fact I will be happy either way, it doesn't change my life. If someone provides proof of his existance I would happily accept it. That is the mark of TRUTH being more important than BELIEF.

On the other hand it is my opinion that even if you WERE presented with evidence you knew to prove God did NOT exist you would still refute it because it would mean everything you have believed is a lie and as such it would cause you to find it difficult to function, thus blocking that evidence out.

One of us can function with either being true while the other can only function (and will never even admit the possibility of the other) if one is true.

Is that not evidence enough?

Quote:

---

The gentiles did not write a "new" version per se. The new testament was for a new aspect of the religion. The origin of Christianity

---

So in other words the Gentiles saw what the Jews had and thought they would get in on the act so they wrote a version for themselves, attached it to the old version to elbow in on the action.

That sounds about right ;)

Quote:

---

And for that reason I will no longer take part in this thread

---

That is not the reason you will no longer take part. You will not take part because somewhere deep down in your subconscious it is aware that what you believe is not as stable as you would wish it to be... and that the more this discussion continues the more likely that faith and belief is to come into question enough to cause your functionality to diminish.

What you are doing is called self-preservation... remove yourself from the cause of that which is causing you to lose function.

These are classic symptoms those who have paranoid delusions show. Now please, I am not saying you are having paranoid delusions (honestly), but it highlights the fact that this is a similar case where that which is true is ignored and overlooked because the entity has found a way to function within the situation they have placed themselves.

I know you want see this and I dont know why I keep bothering trying to say it.

All I do know is that I draw this conclusion from the belief of TRUTH rather than the belief of Atheism or Deitism.

Have you ever considered explaining what the truth you believe is, rather than just saying you believe in the truth? That's like footballers saying "It's a game of two halves Jim, and at the end of the day you've got to score goals to win." It's very convenient believing in the truth because by definition you're always right. So what is this wonderful truth that you believe?

Oh and those two commandments look a lot like the two you have said you live by - maybe you should start your own religion :D

I should start my own religion, hehe.

The religion that tells you there is god not bound to the contradicitonal ideas humanity been throwing around these years.

For all christians, and "guys like Gen-x" i hope you some day will discover that there isn't any point in what youre doing.

Gen-x
You will know when you do something wrong, so you don't need to set up any particular rules.

Quote:

---

"Those with absolute faith are blind"

---

You must be blind
Harry
That's my point exactly, there is a truth, but you can't believe in it, because you don't know it. You can only have faith.

Harry

What is my truth?

I have stated this before many a time.

Something to me is "True" until you can provide an explaination that make sit false. Of course this comes from science though I do not specifically follow science.

I considered the possibility of the existance of a God yet provided "for myself" the reasons that disproved it.

For each reason other people brought forth to "prove" his existance I found something that disproved it.


Now some say that it means I just try to prove everything wrong... they are right, that is how you go through life, testing things to see if they stand up or if they fall over quickly.

If someone was about to boost you over a wall and said "Use my hands to push you" would you test them a little first? To see if they could withstand a little pressure? Of course. If they stood you would test them more and keep testing them until it was impossible to break them. Its what all good mountain climbers use ;)

So I don't care if there IS or IS NOT a God, I only care whether it withstands the scrutiny of evidence. The fact that ALL evidence for God's existance is subjective and based purely on faith, without any "testable" quantities, means I have to disbelief because of the philosophy I hold. If at any point in the future I am presented proof that withstands scrutiny I will happily change my mind.

Those of a religious persuasion on the other hand believe what they do because without it they cannot function. So they are defending their very existance by believing what they do... and it is my personal analysis that suggests the reason people believe in the first place is in order to boost their functionality as a result of it coming into serious danger at some point in their life... or as a result of always being told of its existance and having it incorporated into their functionality as a vital component.


As for starting my own religion I don't like the thought of nails in my wrists and ankles ;)


Kedamanp

Your right.. I *might* be blind.

In the spirit of seeking the truth of that, show me where I am blind with proof that cannot be denied.

Gen-X

Quote:

---

Something to me is "True" until you can provide an explaination that make sit false. Of course this comes from science though I do not specifically follow science.

---

Does one size fit all possible propostions?

Why not false till proven true? What about no opinion until some evidence suggests true or false?

Should I believe that ancient astronauts built the Pyramids until I get conclusive proof that they did not? It seems that you are suggesting belief in a lot of nonsense just because it cannot be disproven.

Guv

Quote:

---

Why not false till proven true?

---

Because if you truely believed it was false you would spend your life constantly and utterly doing nothing until you proved it was possible.

Don't step in a puddle until you can prove it won't kill you, don't eat food until you prove it will sustain you.

Quote:

---

What about no opinion until some evidence suggests true or false?

---

Fence sitting

Quote:

---

Should I believe that ancient astronauts built the Pyramids until I get conclusive proof that they did not?

---

The same way you should believe the moon is made of cheese

Quote:

---

It seems that you are suggesting belief in a lot of nonsense just because it cannot be disproven.

---

No I am saying that you believe the earth is flat because the evidence indicates it is right up to the point where it is PROVED it is round.

You believe the world is the centre of the universe until you take celestial readings that show it is revolving around the sun.


Science works ONLY by disproof... you cannot prove ANYTHING to be true.

You don't just believe something because it cannot be disproven... the fact you have any belief in it in the first place is because it is common sense and because the evidence indicates it as being highly likely...

The difference comes in that when you are given proof otherwise you accept it while those that use faith will never believe otherwise regardless of proof because they don't need any.

I thought everything was both true and false until prooven? While you can't proove anything absolute, there's no way knowing anything at all, but the truth is still out there.

You might be blind, you might not, but it's probably something between, and you or anyone else can't decide how much. What youre doing is playing around in your own projection of universe, while the real universe remains unrevealed to any level you can't imagine.

I still think the best way to survive is to trust what you see and don't touch anything that looks dangerous.

Now Gen-x i can't show you the proof you want so badly, but nobody else can.

I've asked the question many times before, but what you've always stated is something like 'I believe in the truth, and the truth is whatever I have proven to myself'. You say that and don't bother to say what the truth you have found actually is, usually.

Quote:

---

Something to me is "True" until you can provide an explaination that make sit false. Of course this comes from science though I do not specifically follow science.

---

That seems like a very flimsy method of deciding what you believe in. Personally I don't think you can say ablsolutely, most of the time. I have a general policy of fence-sitting unless I'm really sure.

Harry

I think fence sitting is an extremely flimsy method for believing in things. It means you are a coward and too gutless to put your views on the table and have them picked at.

That kind of thinking is the same kind that when asking a classroom to answer a question sees the entire class sitting there like dumb morons... nobody wanting to pipe up and say what they believe because "they aren't sure either way".

I think I have found the first real life human LEMMING

:D :D :D


As for my method being flimsy I don't see how. You have just accused every scientist and theorist on the fact of the earth as being flimsy... Well done ;)

Quote:

---

A: Its an Apple

B: No its not

A: Yes it is. It is green, shaped like an apple.

B: But its not an apple

A: It matches to my recollection of what an apple is and every time I have tasted something that looked like that it was identified as an apple.

B: But it isn't an apple

A: (Picks it up and takes a bite)

B: What does it taste like?

A: It tastes like Candy, its made of Marzipan.

B: So is it an Apple?

A: No it isn't an Apple. It is candy made to LOOK like an Apple

---

Now the above person who thinks as I do has now gained knowledge he didn't have, has learned, has grown while remaining correct for the majority until a rare case proved the possiblity of something else.

He might have gotten that 1 wrong but as it is only a 1 in a million chance he got the other 999,999 right.

Now lets look at Harryology :

Quote:

---

A: I can't say what it is

B: But what does it look like

A: I wont say.. It might be it might not.

B: What do you think it is

A: It "looks" like an apple, but I can NEVER be sure

---

So... The person managed to find the TRUTH in the 1 in a million while getting the other 999,999 wrong.


So Harry... all this talk of how flimsy my method is... Are you SURE? Do you really know? Perhaps you should fence sit some more and not say anything any more because you can never be sure if what is coming out of your mouth has any truth to it at all.

:D

Don't be stupid, I said it was a general policy, not a deeply ingrained behaviour I apply to every situation. Yet another example of taking something out of context. Quit your whining will you?

Not deciding for sure whether something's true or false isn't cowardly, it's just conservative. If I don't think I have enough information to believe it either way I won't believe either way. It's not gutless, just grow up and learn to play nicely with the other kids would you?

You know, I directed several people to this site, and they have ALL, off their own back, said something like "that Gen-X guy's a right w***er isn't he?" I think I'd rather admit that I don't know the answer than shout my vague ideas at everyone and make people dislike me unnecessarily.

Quote:

---

Don't be stupid, I said it was a general policy, not a deeply ingrained behaviour I apply to every situation

---

So what makes you STUPID enough to think that it is not just a general policy for me and not something that I apply to every situation????

I didn't take anything out of context, and you said exactly what I was hoping you would say.

Now that you understand your own philosphy you understand mine. So why don't YOU stop being stupid and start taking your own advice.

You have a go at the way someone else does something and when the same thing is turned back on you its all crying and whining like YOUR way is better than anyone elses.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... I'm a ****** right up until I give them advice on VB and then they are all ears eager to hear what I have to say and suddenly I become a very wise person... Can we all spell hypocrit???

LOL!!! Yeah we all need you for VB advice! What a fricking joke! :D:D:D

Read your own posts mate! At no time has what you said suggested anything other than a wholehearted belief in everything you've said, nothing at all suggests it's a general policy. I explicitly stated mine was a general policy, and you keep barking on about your firm beliefs in things until proven otherwise, is that in any way similar? NO!

Jeez.... hahaha thanks for that, it's given me a real good laugh haha :D:D

I haven't said to anyone on here before HarryW

But go f#&k yourself.

:mad:

Lost for words? Who would have thought? Figured it would happen eventually :D

No I'm not lost for words....

But you spent quite some effort in telling me to "chill" and then did a nice job of pissing me off.

When I catch you out and shove in your face the exact same thing you did to me I get the "laugh it off" approach as if you are looking down your nose at me. Add to that a nice snub that my advice on VB is a joke and attempt to group yourself by indirectly calling me a ****** and you got the answer you deserved.

Beneath me I know... but I had to come down to your level somehow.

Your a f@*king two-faced hypocrit who is a total COWARD to ever admit his own faults and loves to hide behind others and sit on a fence.

Either say something worth while hearing or direct it at the bin next to your chair where it belongs.

Quote:

---

Lost for words? Who would have thought? Figured it would happen eventually

---

Q: Hehe, how many times does that happen?
A: All the time! All the time!
Q: And Why Is that?
A: Because it's Gen-X!
Q: Now have i never seen Gen-x ever admit his own faults?
A: Yeah, many times, but usually you'll never notice, it's always so hidden in the mess.
Q: Am i coward for not guessing?
A: No, i think i'm wise to say it is a guess, when i'm guessing, and that i'm sure when i am.

Ahaha I love it! :D

The truth is, Gen-X, that I am kind of looking down on you, because I know how easily your big ego is hurt. I think it's sad that you are so insecure, I really do. You think you're better than everyone, and that everyone else is being 'ignorant' and unreasonable, but I can't help feeling that's a reflection of what you fear you might be.

Sorry to get all psychological on you but that's the impression you give.

Seriously, though, I don't doubt you are a capable VB developer. I think you overvalue yourself though, you make a big deal out of how much money you make and all the things you know. Frankly I don't care :) My point about your precious advice is that nobody on this forum would actually miss your advice if you never posted again, because however much you might know somebody else knows it too.

The great thing is that you think that by telling me to go f*** myself you're somehow 'coming down to my level'. Fine, throw verbal abuse at me if you want, it just reassures me that you're as irrational as I thought :)


Yes I sit on the fence, no that's not cowardly as previously established. I do have faults, and what's more it doesn't bother me :) I expect I can be hypocritical at times, although I try not to be. F***ing, well I try ;)

The one thing I am definitely not is two-faced, you really don't know me if you think that.

Kedaman

Nobody can ever be sure of what they are saying is true. So by your definition we would ALL be CONSTANTLY saying "it might be". If you EVER say "I am absolutely sure" then you could be wrong so you are lying to yourself.

What a world... So the alternate is to be sure that what you know is correct for as much information as you have and to talk with surity that you are right for what you have to work with.

If you see that as being wrong then thats your problem to work out not mine. If that means you think I am full of myself or whatever then again thats your problem for being so short sighted and not bothering to work out "why".

Now you have been told, now you know... either go back to your "everything is an illusion" world or come join the rest of us in being sure that what we know is what we know based on what information we have.

If you BOTHERED to read any of my posts you will find several examples of "don't quote me on this but I think".

Harry

"Looks can be deceiving".

But then again, why should I expect you to judge a book by any more than its cover... you have proven in the passed you are incapable of any more than that.

While I may think people are ignorant, closed minded, self-centered or whatever else I NEVER consider them any less valid than I am myself and I certainly don't believe I am better than everyone else.

You however have clearly stated you are looking down on me so you believe you are better than I am while I believe we are equal.

So tell me now who values themselves too highly?

Is my advice important... Yes. Is yours... Yes. ALL of our advice is important... its the manner in which you tried to indicate that my advice is of a poorer quality than the rest that I take offense to.

Think what you want.. because you are too narrow minded to ever see beyond that long nose you use to look down on people with and even if you were given evidence to the contrary you would still think what you want... its the mistake I always make yet I admit it while you walk around like you believe you are a king or something.

We rub each other up the wrong way, to suddenly make that personal and start attacking somebodies professional advice is extremely petty and so YES it is a case of coming down to your level.

Despite whatever conversations that have ever come into this Chit Chat forum I have never ONCE allowed any of it to flow over into the rest of this forum while you clearly cannot seperate one from the other.


The bottom line is that you asked that I chill and then purposely set out to antagonise me into this situation. You ARE two-faced because one minite your all "chill, thats life, its fine" and the next minute "My friends think you a ****** but by my magestic grace I defended you so bow down to me".

You may not see yourself coming across that way but just as I often come across differently to my intentions so have you.

[Edited by Gen-X on 09-13-2000 at 10:09 PM]

You have got to be kidding me.

I never dissed your 'professional advice' I just said it wasn't needed. I said it pretty clearly too. I'm not looking down on people in general, just you. The thing is, I don't value myself real highly. Where does that put you?

You're the one who made it personal Gen-X. You called me a moron, totally unprovoked. It wasn't in this thread, it was in another quite a way back, but don't try and say you're above it all because you're the one who took the first step.

I said I thought the 'right until proven wrong' method you described was a bit dodgy and yo went off on one trying to make me look like a fool, and I responded by saying that you'd taken a pretty stupid slant on what I'd said. You then started calling me stupid as a person.

You can say all you like about me, you can make it as personal as you want. Say **** about my mum and my cat and anything else for all I care. It all just reinforces the impression I (and everyone else who reads this) have of you

Then you have my sincerest appologies Harry.

I did get personal and when I thought you were attacking me I instinctively lashed out in response.

My abrasive nature is such that I use quotes like you are a moron unjustly.

I take back what I said and appologise if I misread what you were saying. You have been right all along and I have been blind in the way I took things.

I think i never had this policy more activated before now, i mean that these discussions, with you Gen-x caused me to take this policy,
you can never be sure you explained something right, since you seek to find a way to missunderstand me. If i explain too little, you
tend to either start taking up irrelevant issues or use sarcasm, if i explain too much you tend to concentrate on small details, if i hit right on the spot, you tend to ignore me.

One thing you've always missunderstood me on is the "everything is an illusion" thing, you think i'm living in a totally different world, that's the picture you got and then whatever
I say, you project in that image. Seems hopeless. But i'll try to make this clear instead and maybe we could discuss something clearly.

My point is, that there is no way to be absolutely sure that any information we have is neither correct nor wrong.
That's completely different if you compare to "everything is an illusion", it's about the same scope you have in QM. But what i differ from in QM,
is that there is an objective universe.

Now i hope you can see were i stand now.

Group hug! :D

Kedaman

Why is it that *I* am always misunderstanding YOU and never the fact that your grasp on english is too weak to realise it is YOUR ideas that are not described well enough?


This is something you keep ignoring. When you "believe" you have hit something "spot on" it means that you have said something that is so unintelligable or so indepth that says very little that I don't even bother answering it because I wouldn't know where to start.

It certainly doesn't mean you are "spot on" anywhere other than inside your own head... I am sorry to say that but I find it amazingly difficult to understand half of what you are saying sometimes because of the language problem.

I repeat something back to you and you say I am wrong but then you continue talking as if what I repeated back to you is right.

If you would stop for but a moment and realise that it is the language causing the problem and not a difference in concepts etc you might get somewhere.


You keep coming up with the same thing over and over again. "The only thing that is real is you", "You can't be sure of anything you say".

When you say these things I run out the usual responses and you keep going "no, no, no" with nothing but your own quasi-english unintelligable answers trying to explain them.

Sorry buddy... but that is the long and the short of it.