A clue-by-four for the folks of AHR

[SeaNymph]

People often change the nyms they post under. What they can't seem to change is the way they post.

[trader_4]

The existence of God, what proof is acceptable, etc are now normal topics for AHR? It doesn't tale being uncivil either, just being a constant liar, denying obvious facts, creating circular arguments, are sufficient.

[bob_villain]

You are part of the circular arguments...so you are just as guilty!

[Muggles]

The thread was "OT" to begin with, and had already morphed a number of times to other "OT" topics within the "OT: Trump" *off topic* thread.

I really don't understand what the problem is when there are multiple "OT" threads going on and hundreds of posts with dozens of people participating in each of them.

Trolls come on to the group to try to get people to fight while they sit there and watch the mayhem and laugh about it. I only see their comments in posts when people respond to them.

If you didn't like the OT discussion about the existence of God, don't respond. sheesh.

[Don Y]

Dunno. I've always posted under my own name (eliding my last name in recent years as it was too easy for ex girlfriends, long lost relatives, etc. to reconnect -- The Past is The Past). I can readily find every USENET post of mine (with a search engine) going back to the early 90's...

For folks who like to "change identities", I'm sure THEY can't. (So, what are they hiding from? Their past posts??)

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Muggles:

Amen.... -)

[Eagle]

EXACTLY.

[Don Y]

It has nothing to do with the thread. Folks can ignore a thread.

Rather, with her actions *within* the thread. Don't ACT like you're wanting to have a discussion when all you want to do is throw out endless questions without ever replying to those of others. Don't make claims without being willing to back up those claims.

This sort of behavior is discourteous and disrespectful. If you want people to take the time -- show you the courtesy -- to respond to your questions, then you have an obligation to respond to theirs. Doing otherwise is trollish. "Look at me! Look at me! I have nothing worthwhile to say, but Look at me!"

Mr Magoo is yet another troll. If you reread his (and hers!) posts, you can see the pattern, without examining the actual *content*.

"Nothing to see here, folks. Move along..."

[Muggles]

I asked you WHY you joined in a discussion that you really didn't like the topic, and this is what you told me:

"I'm tired of all the holy rollers going unchallenged in their attempts to impose *their* delusions on my life and those around me. When you want to stick to your "clubhouse" (aka church/temple/etc.) and recite your chants to yourself, that's fine. Just don't leave the building! "

From: Don Y Newsgroups: alt.home.repair Subject: Re: OT - more Trump Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 17:04:46 -0700 Message-ID:

What kind of attitude is that??

YOUR behavior has been discourteous and disrespectful, in addition to being demanding.

[Muggles]

THX!

[SeaNymph]

I see someone who has strongly held beliefs, just like you do. I don't see any questions, nor do I see any claims made without backup.

Why don't you just address the issues, as raised, instead of spinning and attacking to move the conversation away in another direction?

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Muggles:

Does anybody else think that the already-excellent entertainment value of the forthcoming election has just reached a new high?

[Eagle]

Uncle Monster submitted this idea :

You know ronnnnnnnnn very well UM....

[Eagle]

seanymph and those from 'the shit pit' are doing what they do there, here. ronnnnnnnnnnnnn just wanted to start the H&D here so he could get his jollies. You got them, ronnnnnnnnnn, so you can go back to your 'hell hole' as seanymph puts it and pusstulate.

[Don Y]

She wants to know what folks would consider "evidence" of the existence of "god". She wants to know who/what would be "qualified" to judge that evidence. She's willing to "argue" these points (by "argue", I mean "endlessly raise those as questions)

And, claims *she* has evidence that convinces *her* of the existence of (some) god.

Excellent! How FORTUNATE we are! We apparently have some "evidence" of the existence of (a) god. We have an indication of who/what would be qualified to judge that evidence. And, we even have the judge herself!

What a great opportunity to LEARN SOMETHING!

All we need to do is QUESTION that judge as to how she decided she was qualified to make that judgement; the nature of the evidence presented TO HER and how SHE evaluated that evidence!

Based on the ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS, *we* can decide

- are her criteria for making those evidentiary decisions "sound"

- is her judgement *consistent* with those stated criteria

- is SHE competent to make that judgement (based on this EXAMPLE; if she can't apply HER criteria to the evidence, then she's a poor judge -- and, of what OTHER things, as well?)

- do WE consider the evidence convincing (based on ANY criteria) regardless of HER ability to make that judgement

But, no, she'd rather move the "discussion" (jaw flapping) away from anything CONCRETE -- THAT WE COULD EVALUATE AND USE TO JUDGE

*HER* CAPABILITIES (to judge evidence, to make a convincing argument, etc.) -- and continue on with still more questions...

discussion: (n) the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas

Deliberately avoiding a decision and not EXCHANGING ideas but, rather, painfully MILKING ideas from other participants, unable to contribute on her own.

Like a young child who only knows how to speak, but not to *reason*.

*She* fails to pass the Turing test. I'd not be surprised to find her next "nym" to be ELIZA -- definitely a propos. And, about as *interesting* as ELIZA (sort of like Tic-Tac-Toe... something most adults tire of VERY QUICKLY)

(sigh) She posts frequently so it hasn't taken long for my server to "learn" from my avoidance of her posts that I'm not interested in anything she has to say and, thus, save me from even *seeing* them. I wonder if any have ever actually been a.h.r related?

"Nothing to see, here, folks. Move along..."

[Eagle]

(PeteCresswell) pretended :

A three ring circus perhaps? lol

[SeaNymph]

I can't argue with that.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Eagle:

If ever there were a reason to live through the next couple years, this election cycle is *it*.... -)

[bob_villain]

Many/some here would agree that if you are open to God's messages you will see them. It may be people who come into your life when you need an answer or something you ask for and are given. It would be pointless and the subje ct of ridicule to mention these personal messages...but they definitely hav e meaning that a person with a closed-mind would not be willing to accept.

[Don Y]

Unfortunately, that same reason would be the reason you'd want to NOT live through the years that FOLLOW! ;-) :<